4.7 Review

Chemical Safety Assessment Using Read-Across: Assessing the Use of Novel Testing Methods to Strengthen the Evidence Base for Decision Making

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES
卷 123, 期 12, 页码 1232-1240

出版社

US DEPT HEALTH HUMAN SCIENCES PUBLIC HEALTH SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1409342

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) [267044]
  2. Cosmetics Europe

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Safety assessment for repeated dose toxicity is one of the largest challenges in the process to replace animal testing. This is also one of the proof of concept ambitions of SEURAT-1, the largest ever European Union research initiative on alternative testing, co-funded by the European Commission and Cosmetics Europe. This review is based on the discussion and outcome of a workshop organized on initiative of the SEURAT-1 consortium joined by a group of international experts with complementary knowledge to further develop traditional read-across and include new approach data. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the suggested strategy for chemical read-across is to show how a traditional read-across based on structural similarities between source and target substance can be strengthened with additional evidence from new approach data-for example, information from in-vitro molecular screening, -omics assays and computational models-to reach regulatory acceptance. METHODS: We identified four read-across scenarios that cover typical human health assessment situations. For each such decision context, we suggested several chemical groups as examples to prove when read-across between group members is possible, considering both chemical and biological similarities. CONCLUSIONS: We agreed to carry out the complete read-across exercise for at least one chemical category per read-across scenario in the context of SEURAT-1, and the results of this exercise will be completed and presented by the end of the research initiative in December 2015.

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

4.7
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