This report describes the proceedings of the BfR-RIVM workshop on validation of alternative methods which was held 23 and 24 March 2017 in Berlin, Germany. Stakeholders from governmental agencies, regulatory authorities, universities, industry and the OECD were invited to discuss current problems concerning the regulatory acceptance and implementation of alternative test methods and testing strategies, with the aim to develop feasible solutions. Classical validation of alternative methods usually involves one to one comparison with the gold standard animal study. This approach suffers from the reductionist nature of an alternative test as compared to the animal study as well as from the animal study being considered as the gold standard. Modern approaches combine individual alternatives into testing strategies, for which integrated and defined approaches are emerging at OECD. Furthermore, progress in mechanistic toxicology, e.g. through the adverse outcome pathway approach, and in computational systems toxicology allows integration of alternative test battery results into toxicity predictions that are more fine-tuned to the human situation. The road towards transition to a mechanistically-based human-focused hazard and risk assessment of chemicals requires an open mind towards stepping away from the animal study as the gold standard and defining human biologically based regulatory requirements for human hazard and risk assessment.

 Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.  You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain  You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

No abstract

In animal studies, both in basic science and in toxicological assessment of potential endocrine disruptors, the state of the thyroid hormone (TH) axis is often described and defined exclusively by the concentrations of circulating THs and TSH. Although it is known that the local, organ-specific effects of THs are also substantially regulated by local mechanisms such as TH transmembrane transport and metabolism of TH by deiodinases, such endpoint parameters of the axis are rarely assessed in these experiments. Currently developed in vitro assays utilize the Sandell-Kolthoff reaction, a photometric method of iodide determination, to test the effect of chemicals on iodotyrosine and iodothyronine deiodinases. Furthermore, this technology offers the possibility to determine the iodine content of various sample types (e.g., urine, ex vivo tissue) in a simple way. Here, we measured deiodinase type 1 and iodotyrosine dehalogenase activity by means of the Sandell-Kolthoff reaction in ex vivo samples of hypo- and hyperthyroid mice of two age groups (young; 3 months and old; 20 months). In thyroid, liver and kidney, organ-specific regulation patterns emerged across both age groups, which, based on this pilot study, may serve as a starting point for a deeper characterization of the TH system in relevant studies in the future and support the development of Integrated Approach for Testing and Assessment (IATA).

Organ-on-chip (OoC) systems are microfabricated cell culture devices designed to model functional units of human organs by harboring an in vitro generated organ surrogate. In the present study, we reviewed issues and opportunities related to the application of OoC in the safety and efficacy assessment of chemicals and pharmaceuticals, as well as the steps needed to achieve this goal. The relative complexity of OoC over simple in vitro assays provides advantages and disadvantages in the context of compound testing. The broader biological domain of OoC potentially enhances their predictive value, whereas their complexity present issues with throughput, standardization and transferability. Using OoCs for regulatory purposes requires detailed and standardized protocols, providing reproducible results in an interlaboratory setting. The extent to which interlaboratory standardization of OoC is feasible and necessary for regulatory application is a matter of debate. The focus of applying OoCs in safety assessment is currently directed to characterization (the biology represented in the test) and qualification (the performance of the test). To this aim, OoCs are evaluated on a limited scale, especially in the pharmaceutical industry, with restricted sets of reference substances. Given the low throughput of OoC, it is questionable whether formal validation, in which many reference substances are extensively tested in different laboratories, is feasible for OoCs. Rather, initiatives such as open technology platforms, and collaboration between OoC developers and risk assessors may prove an expedient strategy to build confidence in OoCs for application in safety and efficacy assessment.