The Role of Qsar Methodology in the Regulatory Assessment of Chemicals

The aim of this chapter is to outline the different ways in which quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) methods can be used in the regulatory assessment of chemicals. The chapter draws on experience gained in the European Union in the assessment of industrial chemicals, as well as recently developed guidance for the use of QSARs within specific legislative frameworks such as REACH and the Water Framework Directive. This chapter reviews the concepts of QSAR validity, applicability, and acceptability and emphasises that the use of individual QSAR estimates is highly context-dependent, which has implications in terms of the confidence needed in the model validity. In addition to the potential use of QSAR models as stand-alone estimation methods, it is expected that QSARs will be used within the context of broader weight-of-evidence approaches, such as chemical categories and integrated testing strategies; therefore, the role of (Q)SARs within these approaches is explained. This chapter also refers to a range of freely available software tools being developed to facilitate the use of QSARs for regulatory purposes. Finally, some conclusions are drawn concerning current needs for the further development and uptake of QSARs

[1]  J Jaworska,et al.  How can structural similarity analysis help in category formation? , 2007, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

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

[3]  Andrew P. Worth,et al.  Computational Tools for Regulatory Needs , 2006 .

[4]  Andrew P. Worth,et al.  Intelligent Testing Strategies , 2007 .

[5]  G Patlewicz,et al.  Toxmatch–a new software tool to aid in the development and evaluation of chemically similar groups , 2008, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

[6]  Sebastian Hoffmann,et al.  A feasibility study developing an integrated testing strategy assessing skin irritation potential of chemicals. , 2008, Toxicology letters.

[7]  Worth Andrew,et al.  The Development and Validation of Expert Systems for Predicting Toxicity. , 1998 .

[8]  David W. Roberts,et al.  A Minireview of Available Skin Sensitization (Q)SARs/Expert Systems , 2008 .

[9]  Derek J. Knight,et al.  Annex: Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 Concerning the Placing of Biocidal Products on the Market , 2002 .

[10]  Paola Gramatica,et al.  Methods for reliability and uncertainty assessment and for applicability evaluations of classification- and regression-based QSARs. , 2003, Environmental health perspectives.

[11]  Manuela Pavan,et al.  Review of Estimation Models for Biodegradation , 2008 .

[12]  Andrew P Worth,et al.  Quantitative structure-activity-activity and quantitative structure-activity investigations of human and rodent toxicity. , 2006, Chemosphere.

[13]  Christina Grindon,et al.  Integrated Decision-tree Testing Strategies for Skin Corrosion and Irritation with Respect to the Requirements of the EU REACH Legislation , 2007, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[14]  J. Jaworska,et al.  Summary of a workshop on regulatory acceptance of (Q)SARs for human health and environmental endpoints. , 2003, Environmental health perspectives.

[15]  John D. Walker,et al.  Use of QSARs in international decision-making frameworks to predict health effects of chemical substances. , 2003, Environmental health perspectives.

[16]  Scott D. Kahn,et al.  Current Status of Methods for Defining the Applicability Domain of (Quantitative) Structure-Activity Relationships , 2005, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[17]  John D. Walker,et al.  Use of QSARs in international decision-making frameworks to predict ecologic effects and environmental fate of chemical substances. , 2003, Environmental health perspectives.

[18]  J C Madden,et al.  Classification of chemicals according to mechanism of aquatic toxicity: an evaluation of the implementation of the Verhaar scheme in Toxtree. , 2008, Chemosphere.

[19]  Romualdo Benigni,et al.  The Benigni / Bossa rulebase for mutagenicity and carcinogenicity - a module of Toxtree , 2008 .

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

[21]  Romualdo Benigni,et al.  The Development and Validation of Expert Systems for Predicting Toxicity The Report and Recommendations of an ECVAM / ECB Workshop ( ECVAM Workshop 24 ) , 2002 .

[22]  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.

[23]  Andrew P. Worth,et al.  The Integrated Use of Models for the Properties and Effects of Chemicals by means of a Structured Workflow , 2008 .

[24]  Manuela Pavan,et al.  A set of case studies to illustrate the applicability of DART (Decision Analysis by Ranking Techniques) in the ranking of chemicals , 2008 .

[25]  Nina Jeliazkova,et al.  Toxmatch--a chemical classification and activity prediction tool based on similarity measures. , 2008, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[26]  Worth Andrew,et al.  A Compendium of Case Studies that Helped to Shape the REACH Guidance on Chemical Categories and Read Across , 2007 .

[27]  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.

[28]  Theo Vermeire,et al.  Risk assessment of chemicals , 2021, Bioanalytical Tools in Water Quality Assessment.

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

[30]  M. Pavan,et al.  Publicly-accessible QSAR software tools developed by the Joint Research Centre , 2008, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

[31]  G. Patlewicz,et al.  An evaluation of the implementation of the Cramer classification scheme in the Toxtree software , 2008, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

[32]  Worth Andrew,et al.  The Use of Computational Methods in the Grouping and Assessment of Chemicals - Preliminary Investigations , 2007 .

[33]  M. Pavan,et al.  The role of the European Chemicals Bureau in promoting the regulatory use of (Q)SAR methods , 2007, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

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

[35]  Sean Ekins.  Computational toxicology : risk assessment for pharmaceutical and environmental chemicals , 2007 .