Literature DB >> 20574895

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency strategic plan for evaluating the toxicity of chemicals.

Michael Firestone1, Robert Kavlock, Hal Zenick, Melissa Kramer.   

Abstract

In the 2007 report Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences envisioned a major transition in toxicity testing from cumbersome, expensive, and lengthy in vivo testing with qualitative endpoints, to in vitro robotic high-throughput screening with mechanistic quantitative parameters. Recognizing the need for agencies to partner and collaborate to ensure global harmonization, standardization, quality control and information sharing, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is leading by example and has established an intra-agency Future of Toxicity Testing Workgroup (FTTW). This workgroup has produced an ambitious blueprint for incorporating this new scientific paradigm to change the way chemicals are screened and evaluated for toxicity. Four main components of this strategy are discussed, as follows: (1) the impact and benefits of various types of regulatory activities, (2) chemical screening and prioritization, (3) toxicity pathway-based risk assessment, and (4) institutional transition. The new paradigm is predicated on the discovery of molecular perturbation pathways at the in vitro level that predict adverse health effects from xenobiotics exposure, and then extrapolating those events to the tissue, organ, or whole organisms by computational models. Research on these pathways will be integrated and compiled using the latest technology with the cooperation of global agencies, industry, and other stakeholders. The net result will be that chemical toxicity screening will become more efficient and cost-effective, include real-world exposure assessments, and eliminate currently used uncertainty factors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20574895     DOI: 10.1080/10937404.2010.483178

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev        ISSN: 1093-7404            Impact factor:   6.393


  12 in total

1.  Pathways of Toxicity.

Authors:  Andre Kleensang; Alexandra Maertens; Michael Rosenberg; Suzanne Fitzpatrick; Justin Lamb; Scott Auerbach; Richard Brennan; Kevin M Crofton; Ben Gordon; Albert J Fornace; Kevin Gaido; David Gerhold; Robin Haw; Adriano Henney; Avi Ma'ayan; Mary McBride; Stefano Monti; Michael F Ochs; Akhilesh Pandey; Roded Sharan; Rob Stierum; Stuart Tugendreich; Catherine Willett; Clemens Wittwehr; Jianguo Xia; Geoffrey W Patton; Kirk Arvidson; Mounir Bouhifd; Helena T Hogberg; Thomas Luechtefeld; Lena Smirnova; Liang Zhao; Yeyejide Adeleye; Minoru Kanehisa; Paul Carmichael; Melvin E Andersen; Thomas Hartung
Journal:  ALTEX       Date:  2013-10-15       Impact factor: 6.043

2.  Editor's Highlight: Genetic Targets of Acute Toluene Inhalation in Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  Philip J Bushnell; William O Ward; Tatiana V Morozova; Wendy M Oshiro; Mimi T Lin; Richard S Judson; Susan D Hester; John M McKee; Mark Higuchi
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 4.849

3.  Removal of Trace Elements by Cupric Oxide Nanoparticles from Uranium In Situ Recovery Bleed Water and Its Effect on Cell Viability.

Authors:  Jodi R Schilz; K J Reddy; Sreejayan Nair; Thomas E Johnson; Ronald B Tjalkens; Kem P Krueger; Suzanne Clark
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2015-06-21       Impact factor: 1.355

4.  Toxicoepigenetics for Risk Assessment: Bridging the Gap Between Basic and Regulatory Science.

Authors:  Anne Le Goff; Séverine Louvel; Henri Boullier; Patrick Allard
Journal:  Epigenet Insights       Date:  2022-07-15

Review 5.  Toxicity testing in the 21 century: defining new risk assessment approaches based on perturbation of intracellular toxicity pathways.

Authors:  Sudin Bhattacharya; Qiang Zhang; Paul L Carmichael; Kim Boekelheide; Melvin E Andersen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-06-20       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  A signal-to-noise crossover dose as the point of departure for health risk assessment.

Authors:  Salomon Sand; Christopher J Portier; Daniel Krewski
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2011-08-03       Impact factor: 9.031

7.  Has Toxicity Testing Moved into the 21st Century? A Survey and Analysis of Perceptions in the Field of Toxicology.

Authors:  Virginia Zaunbrecher; Elizabeth Beryt; Daniela Parodi; Donatello Telesca; Joseph Doherty; Timothy Malloy; Patrick Allard
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2017-08-30       Impact factor: 9.031

8.  Recommended approaches in the application of toxicogenomics to derive points of departure for chemical risk assessment.

Authors:  Reza Farmahin; Andrew Williams; Byron Kuo; Nikolai L Chepelev; Russell S Thomas; Tara S Barton-Maclaren; Ivan H Curran; Andy Nong; Michael G Wade; Carole L Yauk
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2016-12-07       Impact factor: 5.153

9.  Concern-driven integrated approaches to nanomaterial testing and assessment--report of the NanoSafety Cluster Working Group 10.

Authors:  Agnes G Oomen; Peter M J Bos; Teresa F Fernandes; Kerstin Hund-Rinke; Diana Boraschi; Hugh J Byrne; Karin Aschberger; Stefania Gottardo; Frank von der Kammer; Dana Kühnel; Danail Hristozov; Antonio Marcomini; Lucia Migliore; Janeck Scott-Fordsmand; Peter Wick; Robert Landsiedel
Journal:  Nanotoxicology       Date:  2013-05-28       Impact factor: 5.913

10.  A cellular genetics approach identifies gene-drug interactions and pinpoints drug toxicity pathway nodes.

Authors:  Oscar T Suzuki; Amber Frick; Bethany B Parks; O Joseph Trask; Natasha Butz; Brian Steffy; Emmanuel Chan; David K Scoville; Eric Healy; Cristina Benton; Patricia E McQuaid; Russell S Thomas; Tim Wiltshire
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2014-08-29       Impact factor: 4.599

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.