While human regulatory risk assessment (RA) still largely relies on animal studies, new approach methodologies (NAMs) based on in vitro, in silico or non-mammalian alternative models are... Show moreWhile human regulatory risk assessment (RA) still largely relies on animal studies, new approach methodologies (NAMs) based on in vitro, in silico or non-mammalian alternative models are increasingly used to evaluate chemical hazards. Moreover, human epidemiological studies with biomarkers of effect (BoE) also play an invaluable role in identifying health effects associated with chemical exposures. To move towards the next generation risk assessment (NGRA), it is therefore crucial to establish bridges between NAMs and standard approaches, and to establish processes for increasing mechanistically-based biological plausibility in human studies. The Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) framework constitutes an important tool to address these needs but, despite a significant increase in knowledge and awareness, the use of AOPs in chemical RA remains limited. The objective of this paper is to address issues related to using AOPs in a regulatory context from various perspectives as it was discussed in a workshop organized within the European Union partnerships HBM4EU and PARC in spring 2022. The paper presents examples where the AOP framework has been proven useful for the human RA process, particularly in hazard prioritization and characterization, in integrated approaches to testing and assessment (IATA), and in the identification and validation of BoE in epidemiological studies. Nevertheless, several limitations were identified that hinder the optimal usability and acceptance of AOPs by the regulatory community including the lack of quantitative information on response-response relationships and of efficient ways to map chemical data (exposure and toxicity) onto AOPs. The paper summarizes suggestions, ongoing initiatives and third-party tools that may help to overcome these obstacles and thus assure better implementation of AOPs in the NGRA. Show less
Sluijs, P.J. van der; Jansen, S.; Vergano, S.A.; Adachi-Fukuda, M.; Alanay, Y.; AlKindy, A.; ... ; Santen, G.W.E. 2019
Purpose: Pathogenic variants in ARID1B are one of the most frequent causes of intellectual disability (ID) as determined by large-scale exome sequencing studies. Most studies published thus far... Show morePurpose: Pathogenic variants in ARID1B are one of the most frequent causes of intellectual disability (ID) as determined by large-scale exome sequencing studies. Most studies published thus far describe clinically diagnosed Coffin-Siris patients (ARID1BCSS) and it is unclear whether these data are representative for patients identified through sequencing of unbiased ID cohorts (ARID1B-ID). We therefore sought to determine genotypic and phenotypic differences between ARID1B-ID and ARID1B-CSS. In parallel, we investigated the effect of different methods of phenotype reporting.Methods: Clinicians entered clinical data in an extensive webbased survey.Results: 79 ARID1B-CSS and 64 ARID1B-ID patients were included. CSS-associated dysmorphic features, such as thick eyebrows, long eyelashes, thick alae nasi, long and/or broad philtrum, small nails and small or absent fifth distal phalanx and hypertrichosis, were observed significantly more often (p < 0.001) in ARID1B-CSS patients. No other significant differences were identified.Conclusion: There are only minor differences between ARID1BID and ARID1B-CSS patients. ARID1B-related disorders seem to consist of a spectrum, and patients should be managed similarly. We demonstrated that data collection methods without an explicit option to report the absence of a feature (such as most Human Phenotype Ontology-based methods) tended to underestimate gene-related features. Show less
