Anthony R Scialli1, George Daston2, Connie Chen3, Prägati S Coder4, Susan Y Euling5, Jennifer Foreman6, Alan M Hoberman7, Julia Hui8, Thomas Knudsen9, Susan L Makris10, LaRonda Morford11, Aldert H Piersma12, Dinesh Stanislaus13, Kary E Thompson14. 1. Reproductive Toxicology Center and Scialli Consulting LLC, Washington, DC. 2. Proctor & Gamble, Mason, Ohio. 3. ILSI Health and Environmental Sciences Institute, Washington, DC. 4. Charles River Laboratories, Ashland, Ohio. 5. Office of Children's Health Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 6. ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc, Annandale, New Jersey. 7. Charles River Laboratories, Horsham, Pennsylvania. 8. Celgene Corporation, Summit, New Jersey. 9. National Center for Computational Toxicology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 10. National Center for Environmental Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 11. Lilly Research Laboratories, Indianapolis, Indiana. 12. Center for Health Protection, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment RIVM, Bilthoven and Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands. 13. GlaxoSmithKline, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. 14. Drug Safety Evaluation, Bristol-Myers Squibb, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current developmental toxicity testing adheres largely to protocols suggested in 1966 involving the administration of test compound to pregnant laboratory animals. After more than 50 years of embryo-fetal development testing, are we ready to consider a different approach to human developmental toxicity testing? METHODS: A workshop was held under the auspices of the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicology Technical Committee of the ILSI Health and Environmental Sciences Institute to consider how we might design developmental toxicity testing if we started over with 21st century knowledge and techniques (revolution). We first consider what changes to the current protocols might be recommended to make them more predictive for human risk (evolution). RESULTS: The evolutionary approach includes modifications of existing protocols and can include humanized models, disease models, more accurate assessment and testing of metabolites, and informed approaches to dose selection. The revolution could start with hypothesis-driven testing where we take what we know about a compound or close analog and answer specific questions using targeted experimental techniques rather than a one-protocol-fits-all approach. Central to the idea of hypothesis-driven testing is the concept that testing can be done at the level of mode of action. It might be feasible to identify a small number of key events at a molecular or cellular level that predict an adverse outcome and for which testing could be performed in vitro or in silico or, rarely, using limited in vivo models. Techniques for evaluating these key events exist today or are in development. DISCUSSION: Opportunities exist for refining and then replacing current developmental toxicity testing protocols using techniques that have already been developed or are within reach.
BACKGROUND: Current developmental toxicity testing adheres largely to protocols suggested in 1966 involving the administration of test compound to pregnant laboratory animals. After more than 50 years of embryo-fetal development testing, are we ready to consider a different approach to human developmental toxicity testing? METHODS: A workshop was held under the auspices of the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicology Technical Committee of the ILSI Health and Environmental Sciences Institute to consider how we might design developmental toxicity testing if we started over with 21st century knowledge and techniques (revolution). We first consider what changes to the current protocols might be recommended to make them more predictive for human risk (evolution). RESULTS: The evolutionary approach includes modifications of existing protocols and can include humanized models, disease models, more accurate assessment and testing of metabolites, and informed approaches to dose selection. The revolution could start with hypothesis-driven testing where we take what we know about a compound or close analog and answer specific questions using targeted experimental techniques rather than a one-protocol-fits-all approach. Central to the idea of hypothesis-driven testing is the concept that testing can be done at the level of mode of action. It might be feasible to identify a small number of key events at a molecular or cellular level that predict an adverse outcome and for which testing could be performed in vitro or in silico or, rarely, using limited in vivo models. Techniques for evaluating these key events exist today or are in development. DISCUSSION: Opportunities exist for refining and then replacing current developmental toxicity testing protocols using techniques that have already been developed or are within reach.
Authors: Aldert H Piersma; Nancy C Baker; George P Daston; Burkhard Flick; Michio Fujiwara; Thomas B Knudsen; Horst Spielmann; Noriyuki Suzuki; Katya Tsaioun; Hajime Kojima Journal: Curr Res Toxicol Date: 2022-05-13
Authors: Thomas B Knudsen; Suzanne Compton Fitzpatrick; K Nadira De Abrew; Linda S Birnbaum; Anne Chappelle; George P Daston; Dana C Dolinoy; Alison Elder; Susan Euling; Elaine M Faustman; Kristi Pullen Fedinick; Jill A Franzosa; Derik E Haggard; Laurie Haws; Nicole C Kleinstreuer; Germaine M Buck Louis; Donna L Mendrick; Ruthann Rudel; Katerine S Saili; Thaddeus T Schug; Robyn L Tanguay; Alexandra E Turley; Barbara A Wetmore; Kimberly W White; Todd J Zurlinden Journal: Toxicol Sci Date: 2021-04-12 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Duong Thuy Tran; David B Preen; Kristjana Einarsdottir; Anna Kemp-Casey; Deborah Randall; Louisa R Jorm; Stephanie K Y Choi; Alys Havard Journal: BMC Med Date: 2020-02-05 Impact factor: 8.775