Dosimetry considerations for in vivo and in vitro test data and a novel surrogate iTTC approach for read-across based on metabolites

Abstract In the context of REACH and the EU ban on animal testing of cosmetic ingredients, development, adoption and acceptance of non-animal methods is urgent. Read-across is the predominate non-animal method being used for higher tier endpoints (repeat dose and developmental and reproductive toxicity). The limitations of read-across include the lack of suitable analogs and analog data for all chemicals of interest, as well as concerns with missing a potential adverse response that results from small differences in chemical structure. In this manuscript we explore two possible enhancements to read-across approaches in the context of a single case study: read-across assessments based on metabolite data and incorporation of in vitro data to support the read-across hypothesis. We use this case study to explore possible paths forward in implementing these enhancements, but more importantly to raise issues that need to be resolved prior to extensive use and hopefully acceptance of these expanded approaches. For the case of read-across based on metabolites, we explore the potential application of an internal dose TTC (iTTC) approach to address uncertainty associated with potential toxicity from exposure to residual parent chemical. This is a relevant scenario for the many cosmetic ingredients containing ester structures. For the use of in vitro data we explore considerations that must be taken before the application of ToxCast™ data to the read-across to ensure positive responses are reliable and relevant. As more cosmetic ingredients are tested in in vitro systems, guidance on the appropriate interpretation of these data will be essential. The concept of dosimetry is a unifying need that must be addressed in both these approaches. In the present paper, we explore how to use and apply internal dose metrics to address some issues associated with expanded approaches in read-across.

[1]  P. Wier Use of toxicokinetics in developmental and reproductive toxicology , 2016 .

[2]  Teruko Imai,et al.  Substrate Specificity of Carboxylesterase Isozymes and Their Contribution to Hydrolase Activity in Human Liver and Small Intestine , 2006, Drug Metabolism and Disposition.

[3]  I. Rietjens,et al.  Prediction of in vivo developmental toxicity of all-trans-retinoic acid based on in vitro toxicity data and in silico physiologically based kinetic modeling , 2014, Archives of Toxicology.

[4]  R A Ford,et al.  Correlation of structural class with no-observed-effect levels: a proposal for establishing a threshold of concern. , 1996, Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association.

[5]  D. Krewski,et al.  Comparison of Points of Departure for Health Risk Assessment Based on High-Throughput Screening Data , 2016, Environmental health perspectives.

[6]  A. Matias,et al.  Comparison of in vitro methods for carboxylesterase activity determination in immortalized cells representative of the intestine, liver and kidney. , 2015, Molecular and cellular probes.

[7]  D A Smith,et al.  The use of C(av) rather than AUC in safety assessment. , 2010, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[8]  A. Piersma,et al.  A different approach to validating screening assays for developmental toxicity. , 2010, Birth defects research. Part B, Developmental and reproductive toxicology.

[9]  G. Koren,et al.  Pregnancy-Associated Changes in Pharmacokinetics: A Systematic Review , 2016, PLoS medicine.

[10]  Kayoko Ohura,et al.  Species difference of esterase expression and hydrolase activity in plasma. , 2012, Journal of pharmaceutical sciences.

[11]  R A Ford,et al.  Estimation of toxic hazard--a decision tree approach. , 1978, Food and cosmetics toxicology.

[12]  Melvin E. Andersen,et al.  Editor’s Highlight: Screening ToxCast Prioritized Chemicals for PPARG Function in a Human Adipose-Derived Stem Cell Model of Adipogenesis , 2016, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[13]  Geert F Houben,et al.  Reevaluation of the Munro dataset to derive more specific TTC thresholds. , 2014, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[14]  Karen Blackburn,et al.  A framework for using structural, reactivity, metabolic and physicochemical similarity to evaluate the suitability of analogs for SAR-based toxicological assessments. , 2010, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[15]  Tuula Heinonen,et al.  Relevance and Application of Read-Across - Mini Review of European Consensus Platform for Alternatives and Scandinavian Society for Cell Toxicology 2017 Workshop Session. , 2018, Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology.

[16]  V. Herring,et al.  The Role of Human Carboxylesterases in Drug Metabolism: Have We Overlooked Their Importance? , 2013, Pharmacotherapy.

[17]  Tim Morris,et al.  Physiological Parameters in Laboratory Animals and Humans , 1993, Pharmaceutical Research.

[18]  M. W. Hornung,et al.  Avoiding False Positives and Optimizing Identification of True Negatives in Estrogen Receptor Binding and Agonist/Antagonist Assays. , 2017, Applied in vitro toxicology.

[19]  Peter Calow,et al.  The safety assessment of fragrance materials. , 2003, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[20]  Nicholas Ball,et al.  The challenge of using read-across within the EU REACH regulatory framework; how much uncertainty is too much? Dipropylene glycol methyl ether acetate, an exemplary case study. , 2014, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[21]  George Daston,et al.  Correlation of chemical structure with reproductive and developmental toxicity as it relates to the use of the threshold of toxicological concern. , 2012, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[22]  E W Carney,et al.  Development of a physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for ethylene glycol and its metabolite, glycolic Acid, in rats and humans. , 2005, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[23]  William F Bosron,et al.  Human carboxylesterases: an update on CES1, CES2 and CES3. , 2009, Protein and peptide letters.

[24]  L. Maltais,et al.  Recommended nomenclature for five mammalian carboxylesterase gene families: human, mouse, and rat genes and proteins , 2010, Mammalian Genome.

[25]  Ruili Huang,et al.  Development and Validation of a Computational Model for Androgen Receptor Activity , 2016, Chemical research in toxicology.

[26]  Robert G. Pearce,et al.  An Intuitive Approach for Predicting Potential Human Health Risk with the Tox21 10k Library. , 2017, Environmental science & technology.

[27]  T. Maurer,et al.  In Vitro-In Vivo Extrapolation of Intestinal Availability for Carboxylesterase Substrates Using Portal Vein-Cannulated Monkey. , 2017, Journal of pharmaceutical sciences.

[28]  P. Potter,et al.  Inhibition of human carboxylesterases hCE1 and hiCE by cholinesterase inhibitors. , 2013, Chemico-biological interactions.

[29]  T. Slaga,et al.  Safety Assessment of Alkyl PEG/PPG Ethers as Used in Cosmetics , 2012, International journal of toxicology.

[30]  R A Corley,et al.  Development of a physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for propylene glycol monomethyl ether and its acetate in rats and humans. , 2005, Toxicology letters.