Adverse outcome pathway (AOP) development I: strategies and principles.

An adverse outcome pathway (AOP) is a conceptual framework that organizes existing knowledge concerning biologically plausible, and empirically supported, links between molecular-level perturbation of a biological system and an adverse outcome at a level of biological organization of regulatory relevance. Systematic organization of information into AOP frameworks has potential to improve regulatory decision-making through greater integration and more meaningful use of mechanistic data. However, for the scientific community to collectively develop a useful AOP knowledgebase that encompasses toxicological contexts of concern to human health and ecological risk assessment, it is critical that AOPs be developed in accordance with a consistent set of core principles. Based on the experiences and scientific discourse among a group of AOP practitioners, we propose a set of five fundamental principles that guide AOP development: (1) AOPs are not chemical specific; (2) AOPs are modular and composed of reusable components-notably key events (KEs) and key event relationships (KERs); (3) an individual AOP, composed of a single sequence of KEs and KERs, is a pragmatic unit of AOP development and evaluation; (4) networks composed of multiple AOPs that share common KEs and KERs are likely to be the functional unit of prediction for most real-world scenarios; and (5) AOPs are living documents that will evolve over time as new knowledge is generated. The goal of the present article was to introduce some strategies for AOP development and detail the rationale behind these 5 key principles. Consideration of these principles addresses many of the current uncertainties regarding the AOP framework and its application and is intended to foster greater consistency in AOP development.

[1]  Gerald T Ankley,et al.  INVESTIGATING ALTERNATIVES TO THE FISH EARLY-LIFE STAGE TEST: A STRATEGY FOR DISCOVERING AND ANNOTATING ADVERSE OUTCOME PATHWAYS FOR EARLY FISH DEVELOPMENT , 2013, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[2]  Revised Guidance Document on Developing and Assessing Adverse Outcome Pathways , 2013 .

[3]  Nicole C. Kleinstreuer,et al.  Disruption of embryonic vascular development in predictive toxicology. , 2011, Birth defects research. Part C, Embryo today : reviews.

[4]  Darrell R Boverhof,et al.  Chemical respiratory allergy: reverse engineering an adverse outcome pathway. , 2014, Toxicology.

[5]  Andrew Worth,et al.  Applying Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOPs) to support Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment (IATA). , 2014, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[6]  Stephen W. Edwards,et al.  Reverse engineering adverse outcome pathways , 2011, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[7]  Ivan Rusyn,et al.  Identification of putative estrogen receptor-mediated endocrine disrupting chemicals using QSAR- and structure-based virtual screening approaches. , 2013, Toxicology and applied pharmacology.

[8]  Dongmei Wu,et al.  Sequence and in vitro function of chicken, ring-necked pheasant, and Japanese quail AHR1 predict in vivo sensitivity to dioxins. , 2012, Environmental science & technology.

[9]  M E Meek,et al.  New developments in the evolution and application of the WHO/IPCS framework on mode of action/species concordance analysis , 2013, Journal of applied toxicology : JAT.

[10]  S. Bradbury,et al.  Meeting the scientific needs of ecological risk assessment in a regulatory context. , 2004, Environmental science & technology.

[11]  M. Kawanishi,et al.  Development of yeast reporter assay for screening specific ligands of retinoic acid and retinoid X receptor subtypes. , 2014, Journal of pharmacological and toxicological methods.

[12]  Alan R. Boobis,et al.  IPCS Framework for Analyzing the Relevance of a Cancer Mode of Action for Humans , 2006 .

[13]  J. Bailar,et al.  Toxicity testing in the 21st century—a vision and a strategy , 2012 .

[14]  J. Doyle,et al.  Bow Ties, Metabolism and Disease , 2022 .

[15]  Sharon Munn,et al.  Adverse outcome pathway development II: best practices. , 2014, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[16]  Stefan Scholz,et al.  Adverse outcome pathways during early fish development: a conceptual framework for identification of chemical screening and prioritization strategies. , 2011, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[17]  Carlie A. LaLone,et al.  Development of an adverse outcome pathway for acetylcholinesterase inhibition leading to acute mortality , 2014, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[18]  Reinhard Schneider,et al.  Using graph theory to analyze biological networks , 2011, BioData Mining.

[19]  Carolyn Vickers,et al.  IPCS framework for analysing the relevance of a cancer mode of action for humans , 2006 .

[20]  Daniel L Villeneuve,et al.  Adverse outcome pathways: A conceptual framework to support ecotoxicology research and risk assessment , 2010, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[21]  Stephen W. Edwards,et al.  Endocrine disrupting chemicals in fish: developing exposure indicators and predictive models of effects based on mechanism of action. , 2009, Aquatic toxicology.

[22]  Kevin M Crofton,et al.  Thyroid disrupting chemicals: mechanisms and mixtures. , 2008, International journal of andrology.

[23]  Tala R Henry,et al.  Use of trout liver slices to enhance mechanistic interpretation of estrogen receptor binding for cost-effective prioritization of chemicals within large inventories. , 2004, Environmental science & technology.