Using In Silico Tools in a Weight of Evidence Approach to Aid Toxicological Assessment

Integrated testing strategies are an important and useful approach to reduce animal usage in toxicity testing. Increased usage of integrated testing strategies is foreseen in current chemical legislation, e.g. REACH. Skin sensitisation is a well studied endpoint and many in silico models have been developed for the prediction of the skin sensitising potential of chemicals. This paper discusses the use of the OECD (Q)SAR Application Toolbox, Derek for Windows, the CAESAR global model and SMARTS rules for reactivity within a weight of evidence approach to predict skin sensitisation. Conclusions drawn from a weight of evidence approach can be used within an integrated testing strategy to reduce the requirement for in vivo tests. Using all four models in this manner enabled 76% of the conclusive predictions made regarding the test data to be in agreement with the observed toxicities. In addition, using all four models in conjunction identified areas where further information is required, as confounding results were produced. The actual data requirements for an integrated testing strategy are discussed along with what considerations need to be made for the remaining compounds that were misclassified or for which the programs contradicted one another and a definitive conclusion could not be reached.

[1]  Robert Combes,et al.  Integrated Decision-tree Testing Strategies for Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity with Respect to the Requirements of the EU REACH Legislation , 2008, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[2]  Judith C. Madden,et al.  Consensus QSAR Models: Do the Benefits Outweigh the Complexity? , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[3]  Christina Grindon,et al.  Integrated Testing Strategies for Use in the EU REACH System , 2006, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[4]  Christina Grindon,et al.  Integrated Decision-tree Testing Strategies for Environmental Toxicity with Respect to the Requirements of the EU REACH Legislation , 2006, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[5]  D. Weed.  Weight of Evidence: A Review of Concept and Methods , 2005, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[6]  Petra S Kern,et al.  Mechanistic applicability domain classification of a local lymph node assay dataset for skin sensitization. , 2007, Chemical research in toxicology.

[7]  J. Leszczynski,et al.  The effect of nitroaromatics' composition on their toxicity in vivo: novel, efficient non-additive 1D QSAR analysis. , 2008, Chemosphere.

[8]  Valérie Zuang,et al.  The Principles of Weight of Evidence Validation of Test Methods and Testing Strategies , 2006, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[9]  Naomi L Kruhlak,et al.  Combined Use of MC4PC, MDL-QSAR, BioEpisteme, Leadscope PDM, and Derek for Windows Software to Achieve High-Performance, High-Confidence, Mode of Action–Based Predictions of Chemical Carcinogenesis in Rodents , 2008, Toxicology mechanisms and methods.

[10]  Frauke Stock,et al.  Integrated testing and intelligent assessment—new challenges under REACH , 2008, Environmental science and pollution research international.

[11]  Robert Combes,et al.  Proposed Integrated Decision-tree Testing Strategies for Mutagenicity and Carcinogenicity in Relation to the EU REACH Legislation , 2007, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[12]  R Posthumus,et al.  Validity and validation of expert (Q)SAR systems. , 2005, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

[13]  R. Saracci,et al.  Describing the validity of carcinogen screening tests. , 1979, British Journal of Cancer.

[14]  L. Hall,et al.  Three new consensus QSAR models for the prediction of Ames genotoxicity. , 2004, Mutagenesis.

[15]  Petra S Kern,et al.  TIMES-SS--a mechanistic evaluation of an external validation study using reaction chemistry principles. , 2007, Chemical research in toxicology.

[16]  S. Enoch,et al.  Identification of mechanisms of toxic action for skin sensitisation using a SMARTS pattern based approach , 2008, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

[17]  J B Houston,et al.  The Integrated Use of Alternative Methods in Toxicological Risk Evaluation , 1999, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[18]  David W Roberts,et al.  Determinants of skin sensitisation potential , 2008, Journal of applied toxicology : JAT.

[19]  Christina Grindon.  The New EU REACH Regulation Has Finally Been Adopted: Is this the End of the Campaign Trail… or Just the Beginning? , 2007, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[20]  Robert Combes,et al.  An Overall Strategy for the Testing of Chemicals for Human Hazard and Risk Assessment under the EU REACH System , 2003, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[21]  G Patlewicz,et al.  An evaluation of selected global (Q)SARs/expert systems for the prediction of skin sensitisation potential , 2007, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

[22]  G M Pearl,et al.  Integration of computational analysis as a sentinel tool in toxicological assessments. , 2001, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

[23]  Christina Grindon,et al.  Integrated Testing Strategies for Use with Respect to the Requirements of the EU REACH Legislation , 2008, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[24]  Ian Kimber,et al.  Compilation of Historical Local Lymph Node Data for Evaluation of Skin Sensitization Alternative Methods , 2005, Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug.

[25]  Robert Combes,et al.  An Integrated Decision-tree Testing Strategy for Skin Sensitisation with Respect to the Requirements of the EU REACH Legislation , 2008, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.