Flexible, rapid, and predictive approaches that do not require the use of large numbers of vertebrate test animals are needed because the chemical universe remains largely untested for potential hazards. Development of robust new approach methodologies and nontesting approaches requires the use of existing information via curated, integrated data sets. The ecological threshold of toxicological concern (ecoTTC) represents one such new approach methodology that can predict a conservative de minimis toxicity value for chemicals with little or no information available. For the creation of an ecoTTC tool, a large, diverse environmental data set was developed from multiple sources, with harmonization, characterization, and information quality assessment steps to ensure that the information could be effectively organized and mined. The resulting EnviroTox database contains 91 217 aquatic toxicity records representing 1563 species and 4016 unique Chemical Abstracts Service numbers and is a robust, curated database containing high‐quality aquatic toxicity studies that are traceable to the original information source. Chemical‐specific information is also linked to each record and includes physico‐chemical information, chemical descriptors, and mode of action classifications. Toxicity data are associated with the physico‐chemical data, mode of action classifications, and curated taxonomic information for the organisms tested. The EnviroTox platform also includes 3 analysis tools: a predicted‐no‐effect concentration calculator, an ecoTTC distribution tool, and a chemical toxicity distribution tool. Although the EnviroTox database and tools were originally developed to support ecoTTC analysis and development, they have broader applicability to the field of ecological risk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 2019;9999:1–12. © 2019 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of SETAC.
The mode of toxic action (MOA) is recognized as a key determinant of chemical toxicity and as an alternative to chemical class-based predictive toxicity modeling. However, MOA classification has never been standardized in ecotoxicology, and a comprehensive comparison of classification tools and approaches has never been reported. Here we critically evaluate three MOA classification methodologies using an aquatic toxicity data set of 3448 chemicals, compare the approaches, and assess utility and limitations in screening and early tier assessments. The comparisons focused on three commonly used tools: Verhaar prediction of toxicity MOA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ASsessment Tool for Evaluating Risk (ASTER) QSAR (quantitative structure activity relationship) application, and the EPA Mode of Action and Toxicity (MOAtox) database. Of the 3448 MOAs predicted using the Verhaar scheme, 1165 were classified by ASTER, and 802 were available in MOAtox. Of the subset of 432 chemicals with MOA assignments for each of the three schemes, 42% had complete concordance in MOA classification, and there was no agreement for 7% of the chemicals. The research shows the potential for large differences in MOA classification between the five broad groups of the Verhaar scheme and the more mechanism-based assignments of ASTER and MOAtox. Harmonization of classification schemes is needed to use MOA classification in chemical hazard and risk assessment more broadly.
USA. The main workshop objectives were to improve the reliability and reproducibility of ecotoxicity studies, improve the use of peer-reviewed studies in regulatory risk assessment of chemicals, and improve the methods used in risk assessments when evaluating single or multiple lines of evidence. ABSTRACTIn general, reliable studies are well designed and well performed, and enough details on study design and performance are reported to assess the study. For hazard and risk assessment in various legal frameworks, many different types of ecotoxicity studies need to be evaluated for reliability. These studies vary in study design, methodology, quality, and level of detail reported (e.g., reviews, peer-reviewed research papers, or industry-sponsored studies documented under Good Laboratory Practice [GLP] guidelines). Regulators have the responsibility to make sound and verifiable decisions and should evaluate each study for reliability in accordance with scientific principles regardless of whether they were conducted in accordance with GLP and/or standardized methods. Thus, a systematic and transparent approach is needed to evaluate studies for reliability. In this paper, 8 different methods for reliability assessment were compared using a number of attributes: categorical versus numerical scoring methods, use of exclusion and critical criteria, weighting of criteria, whether methods are tested with case studies, domain of applicability, bias toward GLP studies, incorporation of standard guidelines in the evaluation method, number of criteria used, type of criteria considered, and availability of guidance material. Finally, some considerations are given on how to choose a suitable method for assessing reliability of ecotoxicity studies. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2017;13:640-651. C
Multiple mode of action (MOA) frameworks have been developed in aquatic ecotoxicology, mainly based on fish toxicity. These frameworks provide information on a key determinant of chemical toxicity, but the MOA categories and level of specificity remain unique to each of the classification schemes. The present study aimed to develop a consensus MOA assignment within EnviroTox, a curated in vivo aquatic toxicity database, based on the following MOA classification schemes: Verhaar (modified) framework, Assessment Tool for Evaluating Risk, Toxicity Estimation Software Tool, and OASIS. The MOA classifications from each scheme were first collapsed into one of 3 categories: non–specifically acting (i.e., narcosis), specifically acting, or nonclassifiable. Consensus rules were developed based on the degree of concordance among the 4 individual MOA classifications to attribute a consensus MOA to each chemical. A confidence rank was also assigned to the consensus MOA classification based on the degree of consensus. Overall, 40% of the chemicals were classified as narcotics, 17% as specifically acting, and 43% as unclassified. Sixty percent of chemicals had a medium to high consensus MOA assignment. When compared to empirical acute toxicity data, the general trend of specifically acting chemicals being more toxic is clearly observed for both fish and invertebrates but not for algae. EnviroTox is the first approach to establishing a high‐level consensus across 4 computationally and structurally distinct MOA classification schemes. This consensus MOA classification provides both a transparent understanding of the variation between MOA classification schemes and an added certainty of the MOA assignment. In terms of regulatory relevance, a reliable understanding of MOA can provide information that can be useful for the prioritization (ranking) and risk assessment of chemicals. Environ Toxicol Chem 2019;38:2294–2304. © 2019 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of SETAC.
Tools exist to evaluate large ecotoxicity databases for risk assessment purposes, but these tools are less useful for alternative analytical purposes. In the present study, the authors developed the Stepwise Information-Filtering Tool (SIFT), a strategic method to select relevant, reliable data from a large ecotoxicity database; demonstrated utility in a case study of chronic toxicity data for statistical endpoint comparison purposes; and evaluated SIFT by comparison with 2 existing data evaluation methods.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.