BACKGROUND AND AIMS\nMETHODS\nRESULTS\nCONCLUSIONS\nDrug-induced liver injury (DILI) is one of the most frequent reasons for failure of drugs in clinical trials or market withdrawal. Early... Show moreBACKGROUND AND AIMS\nMETHODS\nRESULTS\nCONCLUSIONS\nDrug-induced liver injury (DILI) is one of the most frequent reasons for failure of drugs in clinical trials or market withdrawal. Early assessment of DILI risk remains a major challenge during drug development. Here, we present a mechanism-based weight-of-evidence approach able to identify certain candidate compounds with DILI liabilities due to mitochondrial toxicity.\nA total of 1587 FDA-approved drugs and 378 kinase inhibitors were screened for cellular stress response activation associated with DILI using an imaging-based HepG2 BAC-GFP reporter platform including the integrated stress response (CHOP), DNA damage response (P21) and oxidative stress response (SRXN1).\nIn total 389, 219 and 104 drugs were able to induce CHOP-GFP, P21-GFP and SRXN1-GFP expression at 50 μM respectively. Concentration response analysis identified 154 FDA-approved drugs as critical CHOP-GFP inducers. Based on predicted and observed (pre-)clinical DILI liabilities of these drugs, nine antimycotic drugs (e.g. butoconazole, miconazole, tioconazole) and 13 central nervous system (CNS) agents (e.g. duloxetine, fluoxetine) were selected for transcriptomic evaluation using whole-genome RNA-sequencing of primary human hepatocytes. Gene network analysis uncovered mitochondrial processes, NRF2 signalling and xenobiotic metabolism as most affected by the antimycotic drugs and CNS agents. Both the selected antimycotics and CNS agents caused impairment of mitochondrial oxygen consumption in both HepG2 and primary human hepatocytes.\nTogether, the results suggest that early pre-clinical screening for CHOP expression could indicate liability of mitochondrial toxicity in the context of DILI, and, therefore, could serve as an important warning signal to consider during decision-making in drug development. Show less
This read-across case study characterises thirteen, structurally similar carboxylic acids demonstrating the application of in vitro and in silico human-based new approach methods, to determine... Show moreThis read-across case study characterises thirteen, structurally similar carboxylic acids demonstrating the application of in vitro and in silico human-based new approach methods, to determine biological similarity. Based on data from in vivo animal studies, the read-across hypothesis is that all analogues are steatotic and so should be considered hazardous. Transcriptomic analysis to determine differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in hepatocytes served as first tier testing to confirm a common mode-of-action and identify differences in the potency of the analogues. An adverse outcome pathway (AOP) network for hepatic steatosis, informed the design of an in vitro testing battery, targeting AOP relevant MIEs and KEs, and Dempster-Shafer decision theory was used to systematically quantify uncertainty and to define the minimal testing scope. The case study shows that the read-across hypothesis is the critical core to designing a robust, NAM-based testing strategy. By summarising the current mechanistic understanding, an AOP enables the selection of NAMs covering MIEs, early KEs, and late KEs. Experimental coverage of the AOP in this way is vital since MIEs and early KEs alone are not confirmatory of progression to the AO. This strategy exemplifies the workflow previously published by the EUTOXRISK project driving a paradigm shift towards NAM-based NGRA. Show less
Krebs, A.; Vugt-Lussenburg, B.M.A. van; Waldmann, T.; Albrecht, W.; Boei, J.; Braak, B. ter; ... ; Leist, M. 2020
Hazard assessment, based on new approach methods (NAM), requires the use of batteries of assays, where individual tests may be contributed by different laboratories. A unified strategy for such... Show moreHazard assessment, based on new approach methods (NAM), requires the use of batteries of assays, where individual tests may be contributed by different laboratories. A unified strategy for such collaborative testing is presented. It details all procedures required to allow test information to be usable for integrated hazard assessment, strategic project decisions and/or for regulatory purposes. The EU-ToxRisk project developed a strategy to provide regulatorily valid data, and exemplified this using a panel of > 20 assays (with > 50 individual endpoints), each exposed to 19 well-known test compounds (e.g. rotenone, colchicine, mercury, paracetamol, rifampicine, paraquat, taxol). Examples of strategy implementation are provided for all aspects required to ensure data validity: (i) documentation of test methods in a publicly accessible database; (ii) deposition of standard operating procedures (SOP) at the European Union DB-ALM repository; (iii) test readiness scoring accoding to defined criteria; (iv) disclosure of the pipeline for data processing; (v) link of uncertainty measures and metadata to the data; (vi) definition of test chemicals, their handling and their behavior in test media; (vii) specification of the test purpose and overall evaluation plans. Moreover, data generation was exemplified by providing results from 25 reporter assays. A complete evaluation of the entire test battery will be described elsewhere. A major learning from the retrospective analysis of this large testing project was the need for thorough definitions of the above strategy aspects, ideally in form of a study pre-registration, to allow adequate interpretation of the data and to ensure overall scientific/toxicological validity. Show less
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... Show moreRead-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 imilarities. 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. Show less
The EU-ToxRisk research project is an interdisciplinary research project that aims to advance the paradigm shift in toxicology towards new approach methodology (NAM)–based approaches for risk... Show moreThe EU-ToxRisk research project is an interdisciplinary research project that aims to advance the paradigm shift in toxicology towards new approach methodology (NAM)–based approaches for risk assessment. In this European research project, experts in the fields of in vitro and in silico techniques and risk assessment from academia, industry and regulatory agencies work together. Using a series of custom-designed case studies, the EU-ToxRisk battery of NAMs is being evaluated to learn how to carry out safety assessment using NAMs. This review article provides an overview of the project, its aims and approach and the methodologies that are being used. Show less
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... Show moreAdverse 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. Show less
