For almost fifteen years, the availability and regulatory acceptance of new approach methodologies (NAMs) to assess the absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion (ADME/biokinetics) in chemical risk evaluations are a bottleneck. To enhance the field, a team of 24 experts from science, industry, and regulatory bodies, including new generation toxicologists, met at the Lorentz Centre in Leiden, The Netherlands. A range of possibilities for the use of NAMs for biokinetics in risk evaluations were formulated (for example to define species differences and human variation or to perform quantitative in vitro-in vivo extrapolations). To increase the regulatory use and acceptance of NAMs for biokinetics for these ADME considerations within risk evaluations, the development of test guidelines (protocols) and of overarching guidance documents is considered a critical step. To this end, a need for an expert group on biokinetics within the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to supervise this process was formulated. The workshop discussions revealed that method development is still required, particularly to adequately capture transporter mediated processes as well as to obtain cell models that reflect the physiology and kinetic characteristics of relevant organs. Developments in the fields of stem cells, organoids and organ-on-a-chip models provide promising tools to meet these research needs in the future.
MULTIFILE
Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOPs) are conceptual frameworks that tie an initial perturbation (molecular initiat- ing event) to a phenotypic toxicological manifestation (adverse outcome), through a series of steps (key events). They provide therefore a standardized way to map and organize toxicological mechanistic information. As such, AOPs inform on key events underlying toxicity, thus supporting the development of New Approach Methodologies (NAMs), which aim to reduce the use of animal testing for toxicology purposes. However, the establishment of a novel AOP relies on the gathering of multiple streams of evidence and infor- mation, from available literature to knowledge databases. Often, this information is in the form of free text, also called unstructured text, which is not immediately digestible by a computer. This information is thus both tedious and increasingly time-consuming to process manually with the growing volume of data available. The advance- ment of machine learning provides alternative solutions to this challenge. To extract and organize information from relevant sources, it seems valuable to employ deep learning Natural Language Processing techniques. We review here some of the recent progress in the NLP field, and show how these techniques have already demonstrated value in the biomedical and toxicology areas. We also propose an approach to efficiently and reliably extract and combine relevant toxicological information from text. This data can be used to map underlying mechanisms that lead to toxicological effects and start building quantitative models, in particular AOPs, ultimately allowing animal-free human-based hazard and risk assessment.
Implementation of reliable methodologies allowing Reduction, Refinement, and Replacement (3Rs) of animal testing is a process that takes several decades and is still not complete. Reliable methods are essential for regulatory hazard assessment of chemicals where differences in test protocol can influence the test outcomes and thus affect the confidence in the predictive value of the organisms used as an alternative for mammals. Although test guidelines are common for mammalian studies, they are scarce for non-vertebrate organisms that would allow for the 3Rs of animal testing. Here, we present a set of 30 reporting criteria as the basis for such a guideline for Developmental and Reproductive Toxicology (DART) testing in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Small organisms like C. elegans are upcoming in new approach methodologies for hazard assessment; thus, reliable and robust test protocols are urgently needed. A literature assessment of the fulfilment of the reporting criteria demonstrates that although studies describe methodological details, essential information such as compound purity and lot/batch number or type of container is often not reported. The formulated set of reporting criteria for C. elegans testing can be used by (i) researchers to describe essential experimental details (ii) data scientists that aggregate information to assess data quality and include data in aggregated databases (iii) regulators to assess study data for inclusion in regulatory hazard assessment of chemicals.
