4.5 Article

Representing the Process of Inflammation as Key Events in Adverse Outcome Pathways

Journal

TOXICOLOGICAL SCIENCES
Volume 163, Issue 2, Pages 346-352

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfy047

Keywords

networks; cell activation; damage repair; knowledge management; adverse outcome pathway

Categories

Funding

  1. European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC)
  2. Directorate F-Health, Consumers and Reference Materials
  3. European Union Reference Laboratory for Alternatives to Animal Testing (EURL ECVAM), Ispra, Italy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Inflammation is an important biological process involved in many target organ toxicities. However, there has been little consensus on how to represent inflammatory processes using the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) framework. In particular, there were concerns that inflammation was not being represented in a way that it would be recognized as a highly connected, central node within the global AOP network. The consideration of salient features common to the inflammatory process across tissues was used as a basis to propose 3 hub key events (KEs) for use in AOP network development. Each event, tissue resident cell activation, increased pro-inflammatory mediators, and leukocyte recruitment/activation, is viewed as a hallmark of inflammation, independent of tissue, and can be independently measured. Using these proposed hub KEs, it was possible to link together a series of AOPs that previously had no shared KEs. Significant challenges remain with regard to accurate prediction of inflammation-related toxicological outcomes even if a broader and more connected network of inflammation-centered AOPs is developed. Nonetheless, the current proposal addresses one of the major hurdles associated with representation of inflammation in AOPs and may aid fit-for-purpose evaluations of other AOPs operating in a network context.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available