Summary In vitro, high-throughput screening (HTS) assays are seeing increasing use in toxicity testing. HTS assays can simultaneously test many chemicals, but have seen limited use in the regulatory arena, in part because of the need to undergo rigorous, time-consuming formal validation. Here we discuss streamlining the validation process, specifically for prioritization applications in which HTS assays are used to identify a high-concern subset of a collection of chemicals. The high-concern chemicals could then be tested sooner rather than later in standard guideline bioassays. The streamlined validation process would continue to ensure the reliability and relevance of assays for this application. We discuss the following practical guidelines: (1) follow current validation practice to the extent possible and practical; (2) make increased use of reference compounds to better demonstrate assay reliability and relevance; (3) deemphasize the need for cross-laboratory testing, and; (4) implement a web-based, transparent and expedited peer review process.

Systematic reviews, pioneered in the clinical field, provide a transparent, methodologically rigorous and reproducible means of summarizing the available evidence on a precisely framed research question. Having matured to a well-established approach in many research fields, systematic reviews are receiving increasing attention as a potential tool for answering toxicological questions. In the larger framework of evidence-based toxicology, the advantages and obstacles of, as well as the approaches for, adapting and adopting systematic reviews to toxicology are still being explored. To provide the toxicology community with a starting point for conducting or understanding systematic reviews, we herein summarized available guidance documents from various fields of application. We have elaborated on the systematic review process by breaking it down into ten steps, starting with planning the project, framing the question, and writing and publishing the protocol, and concluding with interpretation and reporting. In addition, we have identified the specific methodological challenges of toxicological questions and have summarized how these can be addressed. Ultimately, this primer is intended to stimulate scientific discussions of the identified issues to fuel the development of toxicology-specific methodology and to encourage the application of systematic review methodology to toxicological issues.

SummaryBiomedical developments in the 21st century provide an unprecedented opportunity to gain a dynamic systems-level and human-specific understanding of the causes and pathophysiologies of disease. This understanding is a vital need, in view of continuing failures in health research, drug discovery, and clinical translation. The full potential of advanced approaches may not be achieved within a 20th-century conceptual framework dominated by animal models. Novel technologies are being integrated into environmental health research and are also applicable to disease research, but these advances need a new medical research and drug discovery paradigm to gain maximal benefits. We suggest a new conceptual framework that repurposes the 21st-century transition underway in toxicology. Human disease should be conceived as resulting from integrated extrinsic and intrinsic causes, with research focused on modern human-specific models to understand disease pathways at multiple biological levels that are analogous to adverse outcome pathways in toxicology. Systems biology tools should be used to integrate and interpret data about disease causation and pathophysiology. Such an approach promises progress in overcoming the current roadblocks to understanding human disease and successful drug discovery and translation. A discourse should begin now to identify and consider the many challenges and questions that need to be solved.

SummaryThe Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration (EBTC)

No abstract