Restricted accessReview articleFirst published online 2017-09
A Critical Review of Adverse Outcome Pathway-Based Concepts and Tools for Integrating Information from Nonanimal Testing Methods: The Case of Skin Sensitization
Integrating information from in vitro, in silico, and in chemico methods into toxicity testing strategies has been widely considered the way of phasing out animal testing. At the same time, testing strategies using new approaches and methods shall provide adequate and relevant information about chemicals' hazardous properties. We reviewed objectives and requirements for guiding the process of data integration that are suggested in the scientific literature. Based on the existing approaches, we develop criteria for resource-efficient testing strategies, and we evaluate existing testing strategies for skin sensitization hazard and risk assessment under these criteria. We conclude that existing testing strategies—except two cases—still focus predominantly on maximizing toxicity information, but largely ignore resource efficiency criteria. Balancing information gained from testing strategies with its respective direct and indirect costs (including also welfare losses for society in case of unintended health or environmental damages) is a necessary condition to allow for transparent comparisons of their resource efficiency. Therefore, developing approaches for balancing information gains and costs should become an explicit part of the developmental process of nonanimal testing strategies to ensure that phasing out animal testing complies not only with regulatory information requirements but also with available resources.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdlerS, BasketterD, CretonS, et al.Alternative (non-animal) methods for cosmetics testing: Current status and future prospects-2010. Arch Toxicol, 2011:85; 367–485.
2.
AhlersJ, StockF, WerschkunB. Integrated testing and intelligent assessment—New challenges under REACH. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int, 2008:15:565–572.
3.
HartungT. Toxicology for the twenty-first century. Nature, 2010:460; 208–212.
4.
ReisingerK, HoffmannS, AlépéeN, et al.Systematic evaluation of non-animal test methods for skin sensitisation safety assessment. Toxicol In Vitro, 2015:29; 259–272.
5.
TiceRR, AustinCP, KavlockRJ, et al.Improving the human hazard characterization of chemicals: A Tox21 update. Environ Health Perspect, 2013:121; 756.
6.
ECHA. New Approach Methodologies in Regulatory Science Proceedings of a Scientific Workshop Helsinki, held on April 19–20, 2016. ECHA-16-R-21-EN. 2016.
7.
TollefsenKE, ScholzS, CroninMT, et al.Applying adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) to support integrated approaches to testing and assessment (IATA). Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2014:70; 629–640.
8.
ECHA. The Use of Alternatives to Testing on Animals for the REACH Regulation. Second Report Under Article 117(3) of the REACH Regulation. European Chemicals Agency, Helsinki; 2014.
9.
GochtT, BerggrenE, AhrHJ, et al.The SEURAT-1 approach towards animal free human safety assessment. ALTEX, 2015:32; 9–24.
10.
WorthAP, PatlewiczG. Integrated approaches to testing and assessment. Adv Exp Med Biol, 2016:856; 317–342.
11.
SauerUG, HillEH, CurrenRD, et al.Local tolerance testing under REACH: Accepted non-animal methods are not on equal footing with animal tests. Altern Lab Anim, 2016:44:281–299.
12.
NendzaM, MüllerM, WenzelA. Discriminating toxicant classes by mode of action: 4. Baseline and excess toxicity. SAR QSAR Environ Res, 2014:25; 393–405.
13.
PatlewiczG, BallN, BoothED, et al.Use of category approaches, read-across and (Q) SAR: General considerations. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2013:67; 1–12.
14.
TeubnerW, LandsiedelR. Read-across for hazard assessment: The ugly duckling is growing up. Altern Lab Anim, 2015:43; P67–P71.
15.
CasatiS. Contact hypersensitivity: Integrated approaches to testing and assessment. Curr Opin Toxicol, 2017:5; 1–5.
16.
BurdenN, AschbergerK, ChaudhryQ, et al.The 3Rs as a framework to support a 21st century approach for nanosafety assessment. Nano Today, 2016, DOI: 10.1016/j.nantod.2016.06.007.
17.
LandsiedelR, Ma-HockL, WienchK, et al.Safety assessment of nanomaterials using an advanced decision-making framework, the DF4nanoGrouping. J Nanopart Res, 2017:19; 171.
18.
OeschF, LandsiedelR. Genotoxicity investigations on nanomaterials. Arch Toxicol, 2012:86; 985–994.
19.
OECD. Guidance Document on the Reporting of Defined Approaches to Be Used Within Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment. Task Force on Hazard Assessment. France: OECD Publishing France; 2016.
20.
HartungT, LuechtefeldT, MaertensA, et al.Food for thought: Integrated testing strategies for safety assessments ALTEX. 2013:30; 3–18.
21.
JaworskaJ, GabbertS, AldenbergT. Towards optimization of chemical testing under REACH: A Bayesian network approach to integrated testing strategies. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2010:57; 157–167.
22.
JaworskaJ, HoffmannS. Integrated Testing Strategy (ITS)—Opportunities to better use existing data and guide future testing in toxicology. ALTEX, 2010:27; 231–242.
23.
GabbertS, WeikardHP. A theory of chemicals regulation and testing. Nat Resour Forum, 2010:34; 155–164.
24.
GabbertS, WeikardHP. Sequential testing of chemicals when costs matter: A value of information approach. Hum & Ecol Risk Ass, 2013:19; 1067–1088.
25.
RovidaC, AlépéeN, ApiAM, et al.Integrated testing strategies (ITS) for safety assessment. ALTEX, 2015:32; 25–40.
26.
BenigniR, BossaC, TcheremenskaiaO. A data-based exploration of the adverse outcome pathway for skin sensitisation points to the necessary requirements for its prediction with alternative methods. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2016:78; 45–52.
27.
VilleneuveDL, Garcia-ReyeroN, et al.Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) development I: Strategies and principles. Toxicol Sci, 2014:142; 312–320.
28.
BurdenN, SewellF, Andersen, et al.Adverse outcome pathways can drive non-animal approaches for safety assessment. J Appl Toxicol, 2015:35; 971–975.
29.
EdwardsSW, TanYM, VilleneuveDL, et al.Adverse outcome pathways—Organizing toxicological information to improve decision making. J Pharmacol Exp Ther, 2016:356; 170–181.
30.
PerkinsEJ, AntzakP, BurgoonL, et al.Adverse outcome pathways for regulatory applications: Examination of four case studies with different degrees of completeness and scientific confidence. Toxicol Sci, 2015:148; 14–25.
31.
CrawfordSE, HartungT, HollertH, et al.Green toxicology: A strategy for sustainable chemical and material development. Environ Sci Eur, 2017:29; 16.
32.
ClemenRT, ReillyT. Making Hard Decisions with Decision Tools. Belmont CA: Duxbury Press; 2001.
33.
KrewskiD, AcostaD, AndersonM, et al.Toxicity testing in the 21st century: A vision and a strategy. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev, 2010:13; 51–138.
34.
EC. Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No. 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC; 2006.
35.
KrewskiD, AndersenME, MantusE, et al.Toxicity testing in the 21st century: Implications for human health risk assessment. Risk Anal, 2009:29; 474–479.
36.
CombesRD, BallsM. Integrated testing strategies for toxicity employing new and existing technologies. Altern Lab Anim, 2011:39; 213–225.
37.
ThomasRS, PhilbertMA, AuerbachSS, et al.Incorporating new technologies into toxicity testing and risk assessment: Moving from 21st century vision to a data-driven framework. Toxicol Sci, 2013:136; 4–18.
38.
VermeireT, AldenbergT, BuistH, et al.OSIRIS, a quest for proof of principle for integrated testing strategies of chemicals for four human health endpoints. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2013:67; 136–145.
39.
De WeverB, FuchsHW, GacaM, et al.Implementation challenges for designing integrated in vitro testing strategies (ITS) aiming at reducing and replacing animal experimentation. Toxicol In Vitro, 2012:26; 526–534.
40.
SettivariRS, BallN, MurphyL, et al.Predicting the future: Opportunities and challenges for the chemical industry to apply 21st-century toxicity testing. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci, 2015:54; 214–223.
41.
JaworskaJ. Integrated testing strategies for skin sensitization hazard and potency assessment—State of the art and challenges. Cosmetics, 2016:3; 16.
42.
Kopp-SchneiderA, PrietoP, Kinsner-OvaskainenA, et al.Design of a testing strategy using non-animal based test methods: Lessons learnt from the ACuteTox project. Toxicol In Vitro, 2013:27; 1395–1401.
43.
Kinsner-OvaskainenA, AkkanZ, CasatiS, et al.Overcoming barriers to validation of non-animal partial replacement methods/integrated testing strategies: The report of an EPAA-ECVAM workshop. Altern Lab Anim, 2009:37; 437–444.
44.
HoffmannS, SalinerAG, PatlewiczG, et al.A feasibility study developing an integrated testing strategy assessing skin irritation potential of chemicals. Toxicol Lett, 2008:180; 9–20.
45.
LewisA, KazantzisN, FishtikI, et al.Integrating process safety with molecular modeling-based risk assessment of chemicals within the REACH regulatory framework: Benefits and future challenges. J Hazard Mater, 2007:142; 592–602.
46.
NorlénH, WorthAP, GabbertS. A tutorial for analysing the cost-effectiveness of alternative methods for assessing chemical toxicity: The case of acute oral toxicity prediction. Altern Lab Anim, 2014:42; 115–127.
47.
GabbertS, van IerlandEC. Cost-effectiveness analysis of chemical testing for decision-support: How to include animal welfare?. Hum Ecol Risk Assess, 2010:16; 603–620.
48.
LeontaridouM, GabbertS, Van IerlandEC, et al.Evaluation of non-animal methods for assessing skin sensitisation hazard: A Bayesian value-of-information analysis. Altern Lab Anim, 2016:44; 255–269.
49.
MacdonaldG, DavidsonG. Dose and cycle of insecticide applications in the control of malaria. Bull World Health Organ, 1953:9; 785–812.
50.
UNECE. Chapter 3.4 Respiratory or skin sensitization. Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS), Fourth revised version. United Nations New York and Geneva: UNECE; 2011.
51.
ThyssenJP, LinnebergA, MennéT, et al.The epidemiology of contact allergy in the general population—Prevalence and main findings. Contact Dermatitis, 2007:57; 287–299.
52.
EC. Regulation (EC) No. 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on Cosmetic Products. 2009.
53.
ECHA. Guidance on information requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment. Chapter R.7a: Endpoint Specific Guidance Draft Version 5.0. 2016.
54.
ClouetE, Kerdine-Römer, FerretPJ. Comparison and validation of an in vitro skin sensitization strategy using a data set of 33 chemical references. Toxicol In Vitro, 2017. [Epub ahead of print]; DOI: 10.1016/j.tiv.2017.05.014.
55.
GrindonC, CombesR, CroninMTD, et al.An integrated decision-tree testing strategy for skin sensitisation with respect to the requirements of the EU REACH legislation. Altern Lab Anim, 2008:36(Suppl 1);75–89.
56.
MekenyanO, PatlewiczG, DimitrovaG, et al.Use of genotoxicity information in the development of integrated testing strategies (ITS) for skin sensitization. Chem Res Toxicol, 2010:23; 1519–1540.
57.
PatlewiczG, SimonTW, RowlandsJC, et al.Proposing a scientific confidence framework to help support the application of adverse outcome pathways for regulatory purposes. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2015:71; 463–477.
58.
HirotaM, FukuiS, OkamotoK, et al.Evaluation of combinations of in vitro sensitization test descriptors for the artificial neural network-based risk assessment model of skin sensitization. J Appl Toxicol, 2015:35; 1333–1347.
59.
HirotaM, KouzukiH, AshikagaT, et al.Artificial neural network analysis of data from multiple in vitro assays for prediction of skin sensitization potency of chemicals. Toxicol In Vitro, 2013:27; 1233–1246.
60.
Tsujita-InoueK, HirotaM, AshikagaT, et al.Skin sensitization risk assessment model using artificial neural network analysis of data from multiple in vitro assays. Toxicol In Vitro, 2014:28; 626–639.
61.
JaworskaJ, DancikY, KernP, et al.Bayesian integrated testing strategy to assess skin sensitization potency: From theory to practice. J Appl Toxicol, 2013:33; 1353–1364.
62.
JaworskaJS, NatschA, RyanC, et al.Bayesian integrated testing strategy (ITS) for skin sensitization potency assessment: A decision support system for quantitative weight of evidence and adaptive testing strategy. Arch Toxicol, 2015:89; 2355–2383.
63.
BauchC, KolleSN, RamirezT, et al.Putting the parts together: Combining in vitro methods to test for skin sensitizing potentials. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2012:63; 489–504.
64.
UrbischD, MehlingA, GuthK, et al.Assessing skin sensitization hazard in mice and men using non-animal test methods. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2015:71; 337–351.
65.
van der VeenJW, RorijeE, EmterR, et al.Evaluating the performance of integrated approaches for hazard identification of skin sensitizing chemicals. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2014:69; 371–379.
66.
van der VeenJW, Soeteman-HernandézLG, EzendamJ, et al.Anchoring molecular mechanisms to the adverse outcome pathway for skin sensitization: Analysis of existing data. Crit Rev Toxicol, 2014:44; 590–599.
67.
EllisonCM, MaddenJC, JudsonP, et al.Using in silico tools in a weight of evidence approach to aid toxicological assessment. Mol Inform, 2010:29; 97–110.
68.
NukadaY, MiyazawaM, KazutoshiS. Data integration of non-animal tests for the development of a test battery to predict the skin sensitizing potential and potency of chemicals. Toxicol In Vitro, 2013:27; 609–618.
69.
TakenouchiO, FukuiS, OkamotoK, et al.Test battery with the human cell line activation test, direct peptide reactivity assay and DEREK based on a 139 chemical data set for predicting skin sensitizing potential and potency of chemicals. J Appl Toxicol, 2015:35; 1318–1332.
70.
NatschA, EmterR, GfellerH, et al.Predicting skin sensitizer potency based on in vitro data from KeratinoSens and kinetic peptide binding: Global versus domain-based assessment. Toxicol Sci, 2015:143; 319–332.
71.
MacKayC, DaviesM, SummerfieldV, et al.From pathways to people: Applying the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) for skin sensitization to risk assessment. ALTEX, 2013:30; 473–486.
72.
AsturiolD, CasatiS, WorthA. Consensus of classification trees for skin sensitisation hazard prediction. Toxicol In Vitro, 2016:36; 197–209.
73.
DimitrovSD, LowLK, PatlewiczGY, et al.Skin sensitization: Modeling based on skin metabolism simulation and formation of protein conjugates. Int J Toxicol, 2005:24; 189–204.
74.
DeardenJC, HewittM, RobertsDW, et al.Mechanism-based QSAR modeling of skin sensitisation. Chem Res Toxicol, 2015:28; 1975–1986.
75.
PatlewiczG, KusevaC, KesovaA, et al.Towards AOP application—Implementation of an integrated approach to testing and assessment (IATA) into a pipeline tool for skin sensitization. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2014:69; 529–545.
76.
LeontaridouM, UrbischD, KolleS, et al.The borderline range of toxicological methods: Quantification and implications for evaluating precision. ALTEX Online first, https://doi.org/1010.14753/altex.1606271.
77.
LockePA, WestphalM, TischlerJ, et al.Implementing toxicity testing in the 21st century: Challenges and opportunities. Int J Risk Assess Manag, 2017:20; 198–225.
78.
UrbischD, MehlingA, GuthK. Regulatory use of non-animal test methods in chemical industry: the example of skin sensitization. In: Towards the Replacement of in vivo Repeated Dose Systematic Toxicity Testing. SEURAT-1 Initiative and the European Cosmetics Association (Cosmetics Europe) (eds); pp. 42–54. France: Imprimerie Mouzet; 2015.
79.
RorijeE, AldenbergT, BuistH, et al.The OSIRIS weight of evidence approach: ITS for skin sensitisation. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2013:67; 146–156.
80.
GomesC, NoçairiH, ThomasM, et al.Stacking prediction for a binary outcome. COMPSTAT, 20th International Conference on Computational Statistics. Limassol2012, pp. 271–282.
81.
MathesonJ, ZangQ, StricklandJ, et al.ICCVAM integrated decision strategy for skin sensitization. The Toxicologist, 2015:144, 90.
82.
StricklandJ, ZangQ, KleinstreuerN, et al.Integrated decision strategies for skin sensitization hazard. J Appl Toxicol, 2016:36:1150–1162.
83.
Tsujita-InoueK, AtobeT, HirotaM. In silico risk assessment for skin sensitization using artificial neural network analysis. J Toxicol Sci, 2015:40; 193–209.
84.
OECD. Test No. 442C: In Chemico Skin Sensitisation. Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA), OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2015.
85.
NatschA, RyanCA, FoertschL, et al.A dataset on 145 chemicals tested in alternative assays for skin sensitization undergoing prevalidation. J Appl Toxicol, 2013:33; 1337–1352.
86.
BergstromTC, VarianHR. Intermediate Microeconomics: Instructor's Manual. W.W. Norton & Company. New York, 2003.
87.
ClaxtonK. Bayesian approaches to the value of information: Implications for the regulation of new pharmaceuticals. Health Econ, 1999:8; 269–274.
88.
ClaxtonK, GinnellyL, SculpherM, et al.A pilot study on the use of decision theory and value of information analysis as part of the NHS Health Technology Assessment programme. Health Technol Assess, 2004:8; 1–103.
89.
CunninghamSJ. An introduction to economic evaluation of health care. J Orthod, 2001:28; 246–250.
90.
NordbergA, RudénC, HanssonSO. Towards more efficient testing strategies—Analyzing the efficiency of toxicity data requirements in relation to the criteria for classification and labelling. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2008:50; 412–419.
91.
CasatiS, WorthA, AmcoffP. EURL ECVAM Strategy for Replacement of Animal Testing for Skin Sensitisation Hazard Identification and Classification EUR—Scientific and Technical Research Series. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2013.
92.
RobertsDW, PatlewiczG. Non‐animal assessment of skin sensitization hazard: Is an integrated testing strategy needed, and if so what should be integrated?. J Appl Toxicol, 2017. [Epub ahead of print]; DOI: 10.1002/jat.3479.
