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.

No abstract

Methyl methacrylate (MMA) is a respiratory irritant and dermal sensitizer that has been associated with occupational asthma in a small number of case reports. Those reports have raised concern that it might be a respiratory sensitizer. To better understand that possibility, we reviewed the in silico, in chemico, in vitro, and in vivo toxicology literature, and also epidemiologic and occupational medicine reports related to the respiratory effects of MMA. Numerous in silico and in chemico studies indicate that MMA is unlikely to be a respiratory sensitizer. The few in vitro studies suggest that MMA has generally weak effects. In vivo studies have documented contact skin sensitization, nonspecific cytotoxicity, and weakly positive responses on local lymph node assay; guinea pig and mouse inhalation sensitization tests have not been performed. Cohort and cross-sectional worker studies reported irritation of eyes, nose, and upper respiratory tract associated with short-term peaks exposures, but little evidence for respiratory sensitization or asthma. Nineteen case reports described asthma, laryngitis, or hypersensitivity pneumonitis in MMA-exposed workers; however, exposures were either not well described or involved mixtures containing more reactive respiratory sensitizers and irritants.The weight of evidence, both experimental and observational, argues that MMA is not a respiratory sensitizer.

No abstract

No abstract