| Literature DB >> 29051992 |
Marcel Leist1, Ahmed Ghallab2,3, Rabea Graepel4, Rosemarie Marchan2, Reham Hassan2,3, Susanne Hougaard Bennekou5, Alice Limonciel6, Mathieu Vinken7, Stefan Schildknecht8, Tanja Waldmann8, Erik Danen4, Ben van Ravenzwaay9, Hennicke Kamp9, Iain Gardner10, Patricio Godoy2, Frederic Y Bois11, Albert Braeuning12, Raymond Reif2, Franz Oesch13, Dirk Drasdo14,15, Stefan Höhme16, Michael Schwarz17, Thomas Hartung18, Thomas Braunbeck19, Joost Beltman4, Harry Vrieling20, Ferran Sanz21, Anna Forsby22,23, Domenico Gadaleta24, Ciarán Fisher10, Jens Kelm25, David Fluri25, Gerhard Ecker26, Barbara Zdrazil26, Andrea Terron27, Paul Jennings28, Bart van der Burg29, Steven Dooley30, Annemarie H Meijer31, Egon Willighagen32,33, Marvin Martens32, Chris Evelo32,33, Enrico Mombelli11, Olivier Taboureau34,35, Alberto Mantovani36, Barry Hardy37, Bjorn Koch31, Sylvia Escher38, Christoph van Thriel2, Cristina Cadenas2, D Kroese39, Bob van de Water4, Jan G Hengstler40.
Abstract
Adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) are a recent toxicological construct that connects, in a formalized, transparent and quality-controlled way, mechanistic information to apical endpoints for regulatory purposes. AOP links a molecular initiating event (MIE) to the adverse outcome (AO) via key events (KE), in a way specified by key event relationships (KER). Although this approach to formalize mechanistic toxicological information only started in 2010, over 200 AOPs have already been established. At this stage, new requirements arise, such as the need for harmonization and re-assessment, for continuous updating, as well as for alerting about pitfalls, misuses and limits of applicability. In this review, the history of the AOP concept and its most prominent strengths are discussed, including the advantages of a formalized approach, the systematic collection of weight of evidence, the linkage of mechanisms to apical end points, the examination of the plausibility of epidemiological data, the identification of critical knowledge gaps and the design of mechanistic test methods. To prepare the ground for a broadened and appropriate use of AOPs, some widespread misconceptions are explained. Moreover, potential weaknesses and shortcomings of the current AOP rule set are addressed (1) to facilitate the discussion on its further evolution and (2) to better define appropriate vs. less suitable application areas. Exemplary toxicological studies are presented to discuss the linearity assumptions of AOP, the management of event modifiers and compensatory mechanisms, and whether a separation of toxicodynamics from toxicokinetics including metabolism is possible in the framework of pathway plasticity. Suggestions on how to compromise between different needs of AOP stakeholders have been added. A clear definition of open questions and limitations is provided to encourage further progress in the field.Keywords: Binning of events; CCl4; Computational toxicology; Interspecies extrapolation; Liver fibrosis; Metabolism; Multi-scale integration; Multiple hit events; Paracetamol; Pathway unidirectionality; Prioritization of compounds; Proof of non-toxicity; Regulatory toxicology; Systems biology; Tumor promotion; Vinyl acetate
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29051992 DOI: 10.1007/s00204-017-2045-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Arch Toxicol ISSN: 0340-5761 Impact factor: 5.153