4.4 Article

Applicability of generic PBK modelling in chemical hazard assessment: A case study with IndusChemFate

期刊

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2022.105267

关键词

Generic PBK models; Applicability domain; QSAR; Toxicokinetics; In vitro; QIVIVE; IndusChemFate; TNO Model

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article discusses the shift from animal testing to in vitro tools in toxicology research and introduces a quantitative method - kinetic modelling - for assessing chemical safety. The study shows that computational models and in vitro parameters can accurately simulate toxicokinetics.
Toxicology is moving away from animal testing towards in vitro tools to assess chemical safety. This new testing framework requires a quantitative method, i.e. kinetic modelling, which extrapolates effective concentrations in vitro to a bioequivalent human dose in vivo and which can be applied on ???high throughput screening??? of a wide variety of chemicals. Generic physiologically based kinetic (PBK) models help account for the role of toxicokinetics in setting human toxic exposure levels. Furthermore these models may be parameterized only on in silico QSARs and in vitro metabolism assays, thereby circumventing the use of in vivo toxicokinetics for this purpose. Though several such models exist their applicability domains have yet to be comprehensively assessed. This study extends previous evaluations of the PBK model IndusChemFate and compares it with its more complex biological complement (???TNO Model???). Both models were evaluated with a broad span of chemicals, varying regarding physicochemical properties. The results reveal that the ???simpler??? performed best, illustrating that IndusChemFate can be a useful first-tier for simulating toxicokinetics based on QSARs and in vitro parameters. Finally, proper quantitative in vitro to in vivo extrapolation conditions were illustrated starting with acetaminophen induced in vitro cytotoxicity in human HepaRG cells.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据