Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2017 Dec;91 Suppl 1:S3-S13. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2017.09.002. Epub 2017 Sep 25.

Applying 'omics technologies in chemicals risk assessment: Report of an ECETOC workshop.

Author information

1
BASF SE, Germany.
2
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, USA.
3
iMED.Ulisboa and Faculty of Pharmacy, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal.
4
Procter and Gamble, USA.
5
ExxonMobil Petroleum and Chemical, Belgium.
6
Computational and Systems Medicine, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, United Kingdom.
7
Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards (CRCE), Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Public Health England (PHE), United Kingdom.
8
Syngenta Crop Protection LLC, USA.
9
Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Yeshiva University, USA.
10
European Commission, Joint Research Centre, European Reference Laboratory for Alternatives to Animal Testing (EURL ECVAM), Italy.
11
Department of Molecular Systems Biology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Germany.
12
Hubesch Consult BVBA, Belgium.
13
Department of Toxicogenomics, GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, The Netherlands.
14
Dow Chemical Company, USA.
15
Japan Organization of Occupational Health and Safety, Japan.
16
European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC), Belgium.
17
ScitoVation, USA.
18
MRC Human Genetics Unit, IGMM, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom.
19
Systox Ltd., United Kingdom.
20
Center for Environmental Toxicology, Agency for Prevention, Environment and Energy (Arpae), Emilia-Romagna, Italy.
21
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), The Netherlands; IRAS Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, The Netherlands.
22
Scientific Consultancy - Animal Welfare, Germany.
23
BioMath GmbH, Germany.
24
Institut de Génétique Humain (IGH), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - National Centre of Scientific Research (CNRS), France.
25
Sumitomo Chemical Co. Ltd., Japan.
26
Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA), Norway.
27
National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR), U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), USA.
28
Department of Chemical and Product Safety, German Federal Institute of Risk Assessment (BfR), Germany.
29
Phenome Centre Birmingham, School of Biosciences, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom.
30
Environmental Health Science and Research Bureau, Health Canada, Canada.
31
European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC), Belgium. Electronic address: alan.poole@ecetoc.org.

Abstract

Prevailing knowledge gaps in linking specific molecular changes to apical outcomes and methodological uncertainties in the generation, storage, processing, and interpretation of 'omics data limit the application of 'omics technologies in regulatory toxicology. Against this background, the European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC) convened a workshop Applying 'omics technologies in chemicals risk assessment that is reported herein. Ahead of the workshop, multi-expert teams drafted frameworks on best practices for (i) a Good-Laboratory Practice-like context for collecting, storing and curating 'omics data; (ii) the processing of 'omics data; and (iii) weight-of-evidence approaches for integrating 'omics data. The workshop participants confirmed the relevance of these Frameworks to facilitate the regulatory applicability and use of 'omics data, and the workshop discussions provided input for their further elaboration. Additionally, the key objective (iv) to establish approaches to connect 'omics perturbations to phenotypic alterations was addressed. Generally, it was considered promising to strive to link gene expression changes and pathway perturbations to the phenotype by mapping them to specific adverse outcome pathways. While further work is necessary before gene expression changes can be used to establish safe levels of substance exposure, the ECETOC workshop provided important incentives towards achieving this goal.

KEYWORDS:

Adverse outcome pathway (AOP); Differentially expressed genes; Gene expression; Good laboratory practice (GLP); Metabolomics; Mode-of-action (MoA); Regulatory toxicology; Transcriptomics; Weight-of-evidence (WoE)

PMID:
28958911
DOI:
10.1016/j.yrtph.2017.09.002
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center