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.

Read-across is one of the most frequently used alternative tools for hazard assessment, in particular for complex endpoints such as repeated dose or developmental and reproductive toxicity. Read-across extrapolates the outcome of a specific toxicological in vivo endpoint from tested (source) compounds to "similar" (target) compound(s). If appropriately applied, a read-across approach can be used instead of de novo animal testing. The read-across approach starts with structural/ physicochemical similarity between target and source compounds, assuming that similar structural characteristics lead to similar human hazards. In addition, similarity also has to be shown for the toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic properties of the grouped compounds. To date, many read-across cases fail to demonstrate toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic similarities. New concepts, in vitro and in silico tools are needed to better characterise these properties, collectively called new approach methodologies (NAMs). This white paper outlines a general read-across assessment concept using NAMs to support hazard characterization of the grouped compounds by generating data on their dynamic and kinetic properties. Based on the overarching read-across hypothesis, the read-across workflow suggests targeted or untargeted NAM testing also outlining how mechanistic knowledge such as adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) can be utilized. Toxicokinetic models (biokinetic and PBPK), enriched by in vitro parameters such as plasma protein binding and hepatocellular clearance, are proposed to show (dis)similarity of target and source compound toxicokinetics. Furthermore, in vitro to in vivo extrapolation is proposed to predict a human equivalent dose, as potential point of departure for risk assessment. Finally, the generated NAM data are anchored to the existing in vivo data of source compounds to predict the hazard of the target compound in a qualitative and/ or quantitative manner. To build this EU-ToxRisk read-across concept, case studies have been conducted and discussed with the regulatory community. These case studies are briefly outlined.

Acute systemic toxicity testing provides the basis for hazard labeling and risk management of chemicals. A number of international efforts have been directed at identifying non-animal alternatives for in vivo acute systemic toxicity tests. A September 2015 workshop, Alternative Approaches for Identifying Acute Systemic Toxicity: Moving from Research to Regulatory Testing, reviewed the state-of-the-science of non-animal alternatives for this testing and explored ways to facilitate implementation of alternatives. Workshop attendees included representatives from international regulatory agencies, academia, nongovernmental organizations, and industry. Resources identified as necessary for meaningful progress in implementing alternatives included compiling and making available high-quality reference data, training on use and interpretation of in vitro and in silico approaches, and global harmonization of testing requirements. Attendees particularly noted the need to characterize variability in reference data to evaluate new approaches. They also noted the importance of understanding the mechanisms of acute toxicity, which could be facilitated by the development of adverse outcome pathways. Workshop breakout groups explored different approaches to reducing or replacing animal use for acute toxicity testing, with each group crafting a roadmap and strategy to accomplish near-term progress. The workshop steering committee has organized efforts to implement the recommendations of the workshop participants.

BackgroundAn increasing number of manufactured nanomaterials (NMs) are being used in industrial products and need to be registered under the REACH legislation. The hazard characterisation of all these forms is not only technically challenging but resource and time demanding. The use of non-testing strategies like read-across is deemed essential to assure the assessment of all NMs in due time and at lower cost. The fact that read-across is based on the structural similarity of substances represents an additional difficulty for NMs as in general their structure is not unequivocally defined. In such a scenario, the identification of physicochemical properties affecting the hazard potential of NMs is crucial to define a grouping hypothesis and predict the toxicological hazards of similar NMs. In order to promote the read-across of NMs, ECHA has recently published “Recommendations for nanomaterials applicable to the guidance on QSARs and Grouping”, but no practical examples were provided in the document. Due to the lack of publicly available data and the inherent difficulties of reading-across NMs, only a few examples of read-across of NMs can be found in the literature. This manuscript presents the first case study of the practical process of grouping and read-across of NMs following the workflow proposed by ECHA.MethodsThe workflow proposed by ECHA was used and slightly modified to present the read-across case study. The Read-Across Assessment Framework (RAAF) was used to evaluate the uncertainties of a read-across within NMs. Chemoinformatic techniques were used to support the grouping hypothesis and identify key physicochemical properties.ResultsA dataset of 6 nanoforms of TiO2 with more than 100 physicochemical properties each was collected. In vitro comet assay result was selected as the endpoint to read-across due to data availability. A correlation between the presence of coating or large amounts of impurities and negative comet assay results was observed.ConclusionThe workflow proposed by ECHA to read-across NMs was applied successfully. Chemoinformatic techniques were shown to provide key evidence for the assessment of the grouping hypothesis and the definition of similar NMs. The RAAF was found to be applicable to NMs.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12989-018-0273-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.