Use of computer-assisted prediction of toxic effects of chemical substances.

The current revision of the European policy for the evaluation of chemicals (REACH) has lead to a controversy with regard to the need of additional animal safety testing. To avoid increases in animal testing but also to save time and resources, alternative in silico or in vitro tests for the assessment of toxic effects of chemicals are advocated. The draft of the original document issued in 29th October 2003 by the European Commission foresees the use of alternative methods but does not give further specification on which methods should be used. Computer-assisted prediction models, so-called predictive tools, besides in vitro models, will likely play an essential role in the proposed repertoire of "alternative methods". The current discussion has urged the Advisory Committee of the German Toxicology Society to present its position on the use of predictive tools in toxicology. Acceptable prediction models already exist for those toxicological endpoints which are based on well-understood mechanism, such as mutagenicity and skin sensitization, whereas mechanistically more complex endpoints such as acute, chronic or organ toxicities currently cannot be satisfactorily predicted. A potential strategy to assess such complex toxicities will lie in their dissection into models for the different steps or pathways leading to the final endpoint. Integration of these models should result in a higher predictivity. Despite these limitations, computer-assisted prediction tools already today play a complementary role for the assessment of chemicals for which no data is available or for which toxicological testing is impractical due to the lack of availability of sufficient compounds for testing. Furthermore, predictive tools offer support in the screening and the subsequent prioritization of compound for further toxicological testing, as expected within the scope of the European REACH program. This program will also lead to the collection of high-quality data which will broaden the database for further (Q)SAR approaches and will in turn increase the predictivity of predictive tools.

[1]  I Gerner,et al.  Development of a Decision Support System for the Introduction of Alternative Methods into Local Irritancy/Corrosivity Testing Strategies. Creation of Fundamental Rules for a Decision Support System , 2000, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[2]  P. Jurs,et al.  Development of binary classification of structural chromosome aberrations for a diverse set of organic compounds from molecular structure. , 2003, Chemical research in toxicology.

[3]  D. E. Clark,et al.  Progress in computational methods for the prediction of ADMET properties. , 2002, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

[4]  John D. Walker,et al.  Global Government applications of analogues, SAR s and QSAR s to predict aquatic toxicity, chemical or physical properties, environmental fate parameters and health effects of organic chemicals , 2002, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

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

[6]  Petra S. Kern,et al.  Skin Sensitization: Modeling Based on Skin Metabolism Simulation and Formation of Protein Conjugates , 2005, International journal of toxicology.

[7]  Robert Combes,et al.  A Scientific and Animal Welfare Assessment of the OECD Health Effects Test Guidelines for the Safety Testing of Chemicals under the European Union REACH System , 2004, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[8]  Romualdo Benigni,et al.  Carcinogenicity of the aromatic amines: from structure-activity relationships to mechanisms of action and risk assessment. , 2002, Mutation research.

[9]  S Kettle,et al.  Mechanistically-based Human Hazard Assessment of Peroxisome Proliferator-induced Hepatocarcinogenesis , 1994, Human & experimental toxicology.

[10]  B J Blaauboer,et al.  An alternative approach for the safety evaluation of new and existing chemicals, an exercise in integrated testing. , 2005, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[11]  M D Barratt,et al.  The computational prediction of toxicity. , 2001, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[12]  Eva Schlede,et al.  Introduction of in vitro data into local irritation/corrosion testing strategies by means of SAR considerations: assessment of chemicals. , 2002, Toxicology letters.

[13]  Nina Nikolova-Jeliazkova,et al.  An Approach to Determining Applicability Domains for QSAR Group Contribution Models: An Analysis of SRC KOWWIN , 2005, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[14]  C Helma,et al.  Data quality in predictive toxicology: reproducibility of rodent carcinogenicity experiments. , 2001, Environmental health perspectives.

[15]  Nina Nikolova-Jeliazkova,et al.  QSAR Applicability Domain Estimation by Projection of the Training Set in Descriptor Space: A Review , 2005, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

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

[17]  R. Snyder,et al.  Assessment of the sensitivity of the computational programs DEREK, TOPKAT, and MCASE in the prediction of the genotoxicity of pharmaceutical molecules , 2004, Environmental and molecular mutagenesis.

[18]  A.M. Richard,et al.  AI and SAR approaches for predicting chemical carcinogenicity: Survey and status report , 2002, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

[19]  Horst Spielmann,et al.  Animal testing and alternative approaches for the human health risk assessment under the proposed new European chemicals regulation , 2004, Archives of Toxicology.

[20]  Nigel Greene,et al.  Computer systems for the prediction of toxicity: an update. , 2002, Advanced drug delivery reviews.

[21]  Alan R. Katritzky,et al.  Theoretical Descriptors for the Correlation of Aquatic Toxicity of Environmental Pollutants by Quantitative Structure-Toxicity Relationships , 2001, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[22]  R. Tennant,et al.  Chemical structure, Salmonella mutagenicity and extent of carcinogenicity as indicators of genotoxic carcinogenesis among 222 chemicals tested in rodents by the U.S. NCI/NTP. , 1988, Mutation research.

[23]  Alan G. E. Wilson,et al.  A multiple in silico program approach for the prediction of mutagenicity from chemical structure. , 2003, Mutation research.