Advancing the adverse outcome pathway framework—An international horizon scanning approach

Our ability to conduct whole-organism toxicity tests to understand chemical safety has been outpaced by the synthesis of new chemicals for a wide variety of commercial applications. As a result, scientists and risk assessors are turning to mechanistically based studies to increase efficiencies in chemical risk assessment and making greater use of in vitro and in silico methods to evaluate potential environmental and human health hazards. In this context, the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) framework has gained traction in regulatory science because it offers an efficient and effective means for capturing available knowledge describing the linkage between mechanistic data and the apical toxicity end points required for regulatory assessments. A number of international activities have focused on AOP development and various applications to regulatory decision-making. These initiatives have prompted dialogue between research scientists and regulatory communities to consider how best to use the AOP framework. Although expert-facilitated discussions and AOP development have been critical in moving the science of AOPs forward, it was recognized that a survey of the broader scientific and regulatory communities would aid in identifying current limitations while guiding future initiatives for the AOP framework. To that end, a global horizon scanning exercise was conducted to solicit questions concerning the challenges or limitations that must be addressed to realize the full potential of the AOP framework in research and regulatory decision-making. The questions received fell into several broad topical areas: AOP networks, quantitative AOPs, collaboration on and communication of AOP knowledge, AOP discovery and development, chemical and cross-species extrapolation, exposure/toxicokinetics considerations, and AOP applications. Expert ranking was then used to prioritize questions for each category, where 4 broad themes emerged that could help inform and guide future AOP research and regulatory initiatives. In addition, frequently asked questions were identified and addressed by experts in the field. Answers to frequently asked questions will aid in addressing common misperceptions and will allow for clarification of AOP topics. The need for this type of clarification was highlighted with surprising frequency by our question submitters, indicating that improvements are needed in communicating the AOP framework among the scientific and regulatory communities. Overall, horizon scanning engaged the global scientific community to help identify key questions surrounding the AOP framework and guide the direction of future initiatives. Environ Toxicol Chem 2017;36:1411-1421. © 2017 SETAC.

[1]  Richard Cubberley,et al.  Applying the skin sensitisation adverse outcome pathway (AOP) to quantitative risk assessment. , 2014, Toxicology in vitro : an international journal published in association with BIBRA.

[2]  Maurice Whelan,et al.  How Adverse Outcome Pathways Can Aid the Development and Use of Computational Prediction Models for Regulatory Toxicology , 2016, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[3]  Elizabeth Cook,et al.  Horizon scanning for invasive alien species with the potential to threaten biodiversity in Great Britain , 2014, Global change biology.

[4]  M. Angrish,et al.  Tipping the Balance: Hepatotoxicity and the 4 Apical Key Events of Hepatic Steatosis. , 2016, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[5]  Timothy E H Allen,et al.  Defining molecular initiating events in the adverse outcome pathway framework for risk assessment. , 2014, Chemical research in toxicology.

[6]  Florence March,et al.  2016 , 2016, Affair of the Heart.

[7]  W. R. King,et al.  Environmental scanning and forecasting in strategic planning—The state of the art , 1981 .

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

[9]  Dries Knapen,et al.  The potential of AOP networks for reproductive and developmental toxicity assay development. , 2015, Reproductive toxicology.

[10]  Stephen W. Edwards,et al.  An integrative data mining approach to identifying adverse outcome pathway signatures. , 2016, Toxicology.

[11]  Kellie A Fay,et al.  Practical approaches to adverse outcome pathway development and weight‐of‐evidence evaluation as illustrated by ecotoxicological case studies , 2017, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[12]  John A. Hall,et al.  Top 40 Priorities for Science to Inform US Conservation and Management Policy , 2011 .

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

[14]  Muin J Khoury,et al.  Horizon scanning for new genomic tests , 2011, Genetics in Medicine.

[15]  William J Sutherland,et al.  The need for environmental horizon scanning. , 2009, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[16]  Sharon Munn,et al.  Adverse outcome pathway (AOP) development I: strategies and principles. , 2014, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[17]  Des B. A. Thompson,et al.  Future novel threats and opportunities facing UK biodiversity identified by horizon scanning , 2007 .

[18]  Igor Linkov,et al.  Increasing Scientific Confidence in Adverse Outcome Pathways: Application of Tailored Bradford-Hill Considerations for Evaluating Weight of Evidence. , 2015, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[19]  M. Rudd,et al.  How Research‐Prioritization Exercises Affect Conservation Policy , 2011, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[20]  Gerald T Ankley,et al.  International scientists' priorities for research on pharmaceutical and personal care products in the environment , 2014, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[21]  Kyle Painter,et al.  Using In Vitro High‐Throughput Screening Data for Predicting Benzo[k]Fluoranthene Human Health Hazards , 2017 .

[22]  J. Bailar,et al.  Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy , 2010, Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews.

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

[24]  Murray A. Rudd,et al.  Methods for collaboratively identifying research priorities and emerging issues in science and policy , 2011 .

[25]  W. Penrose,et al.  Induction of aryl hydrocarbon (benzo[a]pyrene) hydroxylase in fish by petroleum , 1975, Bulletin of environmental contamination and toxicology.

[26]  Stephen W. Edwards,et al.  Integrating Publicly Available Data to Generate Computationally Predicted Adverse Outcome Pathways for Fatty Liver. , 2016, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[27]  Ocspp,et al.  The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act , 2016 .

[28]  Edward J. Perkins,et al.  Quantitative Adverse Outcome Pathways and Their Application to Predictive Toxicology. , 2017, Environmental science & technology.

[29]  Daniel L Villeneuve,et al.  Weight of evidence evaluation of a network of adverse outcome pathways linking activation of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor in honey bees to colony death. , 2017, The Science of the total environment.

[30]  Kyungho Choi,et al.  Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products in the Environment: What Are the Big Questions? , 2012, Environmental health perspectives.

[31]  Leon Bennun,et al.  Horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2011. , 2011, Trends in ecology & evolution.