Alepee N et al (2019) Development of a defined approach for eye irritation or serious eye damage for liquids, neat and in dilution, based on cosmetics Europe analysis of in vitro STE and BCOP test methods. Toxicol in Vitro 57:154–163
CAS
Article
Google Scholar
ALTEM (2021) Altem Discovery Studio | Computational biology | ligand, drug designing—Altem. Accessed Sep 2021
Aschner M, Ceccatelli S, Daneshian M, Fritsche E, Hasiwa N, Hartung T, Hogberg HT, Leist M, Li A, Mundi WR, Padilla S, Piersma AH, Bal-Price A, Seiler A, Westerink RH, Zimmer B, Lein PJ (2017) Reference compounds for alternative test methods to indicate developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) potential of chemicals: example lists and criteria for their selection and use. Altex 34(1):49–74. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.1604201
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Bal-Price A, Pistollato F, Sachana M, Bopp S, Munn S, Worth A (2018) Strategies to improve the regulatory assessment of developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) using in vitro methods. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 354:7–18
CAS
Article
Google Scholar
Baltazar M, Cable S, Carmichael P, Cubberly R, Cull T, Delagrange M, Dent M, Hatherell S, Houghton J, Kukic P, Li H, Lee M-Y, Malcomber S, Middleton A, Moxon T, Nathanail A, Nicol B, Pendlington R, Reynolds G, Reynolds J, White A, Westmoreland C (2020) A next-generation risk assessment case study for Coumarin in cosmetic products. Toxicol Sci 176(1):236–252. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfaa048
CAS
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Basketter DA, Clewell H, Kimber I, Rossi A, Blaauboer B, Burrier R, Daneshian M, Eskes C, Goldberg A, Hasiwa N, Hoffmann S, Jaworska J, Knudsen TB, Landsiedel R, Leist M, Locke P, Maxwell G, McKim J, McVey EA, Ouédraogo G, Patlewicz G, Pelkonen O, Roggen E, Rovida C, Ruhdel I, Schwarz M, Schepky A, Schoeters G, Skinner N, Trentz K, Turner M, Vanparys P, Yager J, Zurlo J, Hartung T (2012) A roadmap for the development of alternative (non-animal) methods for systemic toxicity testing. Altex 29(1):3–91. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2012.1.003
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Beames T, Moreau M, Roberts LA, Mansouri K, Haider S, Smeltz M, Nicolas CI, Doheny D, Phillips MB, Yoon M, Becker RA, McMullen PD, Andersen ME, Clewell RA, Hartman JK (2020) The role of fit-for-purpose assays within tiered testing approaches: a case study evaluating prioritized estrogen-active compounds in an in vitro human uterotrophic assay. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 387:114774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.taap.2019.114774
CAS
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Beekhuijzen M, de Raaf MA, Zmarowski A, van Otterdijk F, Peter B, Emmen H (2014) The underestimated value of OECD 421 and 422 repro screening studies: putting it in the right perspective. Reprod Toxicol 48:81–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reprotox.2014.04.003
CAS
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Blaauboer BJ, Boekelheide K, Clewell HJ, Daneshian M, Dingemans MM, Goldberg AM, Heneweer M, Jaworska J, Kramer NI, Leist M, Seibert H, Testai E, Vandebriel RJ, Yager JD, Zurlo J (2012) The use of biomarkers of toxicity for integrating in vitro hazard estimates into risk assessment for humans. Altex 29(4):411–425. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2012.4.411
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Bos PMJ, Geraets L, De Wit-Bos L, Heringa M, Van Engelen J (2020) Towards an animal-free human health assessment: starting from the current regulatory needs. Altex 37(3):395–408. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.1912041
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Browne P, Van Der Wal L, Gourmelon A (2020) OECD approaches and considerations for regulatory evaluation of endocrine disruptors. Mol Cell Endocrinol 15(504):110675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mce.2019.110675
CAS
Article
Google Scholar
Casey WM, Chang X, Allen DG, Ceger PC, Choksi NY, Hsieh JH, Wetmore BA, Ferguson SS, DeVito MJ, Sprankle CS, Kleinstreuer NC (2018) Evaluation and optimization of pharmacokinetic models for in vitro to in vivo extrapolation of estrogenic activity for environmental chemicals. Environ Health Perspect 126(9):97001. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1655
CAS
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Cave A, Brun NC, Sweeney F, Rasi G, Senderovitz T, HMA-EMA Joint Big Data Taskforce (2020) Big Data—how to realize the promise. Clin Pharmacol Ther 107(4):753–761. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.1736
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Cohen SM, Boobis AR, Dellarco VL, Doe JE, Fenner-Crisp PA, Moretto A, Pastoor TP, Schoeny RS, Seed JG, Wolf DC (2019) Chemical carcinogenicity revisited 3: risk assessment of carcinogenic potential based on the current state of knowledge of carcinogenesis in humans. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 103:100–105
CAS
Article
Google Scholar
Corvi R, Madia F (2017) In vitro genotoxicity testing—can the performance be enhanced? Food Chem Toxicol 106:600–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2016.08.024
CAS
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Daston G, Knight DJ, Schwarz M, Gocht T, Thomas RS, Mahony C, Whelan M (2015) SEURAT: safety evaluation ultimately replacing animal testing—recommendations for future research in the field of predictive toxicology. Arch Toxicol 89(1):15–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-014-1421-5
CAS
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Dent M, Amaral RT, Da Silva PA, Ansell J, Boisleve F, Hatao M, Hirose A, Kasai Y, Posada NPC, Weiss C, Kojima H (2018) Principles underpinning the use of new methodologies in the risk assessment of cosmetic ingredients. Comput Toxicol 7:2468–1113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comtox.2018.06.001
Article
Google Scholar
Dent MP, Vaillancourt E, Thomas RS, Carmichael PL, Ouedraogo G, Kojima H, Barroso J, Ansell J, Barton-Maclaren TS, Bennekou SH, Boekelheide K, Ezendam J, Field J, Fitzpatrick S, Hatao M, Kreiling R, Lorencini M, Mahony C, Montemayor B, Mazaro-Costa R, Oliveira J, Rogiers V, Smegal D, Taalman R, Tokura Y, Verma R, Willett C, Yang C (2021) Paving the way for application of next generation risk assessment to safety decision-making for cosmetic ingredients. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 125:105026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2021.105026
CAS
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Doe JE, Boobis AR, Dellarco V, Fenner-Crisp PA, Moretto A, Pastoor TP, Schoeny RS, Seed JG, Wolf DC (2019) Chemical carcinogenicity revisited 2: current knowledge of carcinogenesis shows that categorization as a carcinogen or non-carcinogen is not scientifically credible. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 103:124–129
CAS
Article
Google Scholar
Doe J, Boobis A, Cohen S, Dellarco V, Fenner-Crisp P, Moretto A, Pastoor T, Schoeny R, Seed J, Wolf D (2021) The codification of hazard and its impact on the hazard versus risk controversy. Arch Toxicol 95:3611–3621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-021-03145-6
CAS
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
EC (1999) Guidelines for setting specific concentration limits for carcinogens in Annex I of directive 67/548/EEC. Inclusion of potency considerations. In: Commission working group on the classification and labelling of dangerous substances. Office for the Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg (ISBN 92-828-7443-5)
EC (2006) European Commission. Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/ EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC. Off J Euro Union 2006; L396, pp 1–849
ECETOC (2021a) Guidance on dose selection technical report no. 138 Brussels, March 2021 (online) ECETOC-TR-138-Guidance-on-Dose-Selection.pdf (ISSN-2079-1526-138)
ECETOC (2021b) TRA—ECETOC targeted risk assessment tool—targeted risk assessment (TRA)—Ecetoc. Accessed 21 Sep 2021
ECHA (2017) Annex VI background document to the guidance for setting specific concentration limits for substances classified for reproductive toxicity according to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008624 in guidance to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 on classification, labelling and packaging (CLP) of chemicals and mixtures Version 5.0 July 2017. https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/23036412/clp_en.pdf/58b5dc6d-ac2a-4910-9702-e9e1f5051cc5. Accessed 10 Nov 2021
ECHA (2021) The use of alternatives to testing on animals for the REACH regulation. In: Fourth Report under Article 117(3) of the REACH Regulation. https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13639/alternatives_test_animals_2020_en.pdf/b9af7cf7-4ce0-f3a1-1bcb-8de3fd84a1fb. Accessed 10 Nov 2021
EFSA (2019) Guidance on the use of the threshold of toxicological concern approach in food safety assessment. EFSA J. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5708
Article
Google Scholar
EMA website (2021). https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/regulatory-acceptance-3r-replacement-reduction-refinement-testing-approaches. Accessed Sept 2021
Erhirhie EO, Ihekwereme CP, Ilodigwe EE (2018) Advances in acute toxicity testing: strengths, weaknesses and regulatory acceptance. Interdiscip Toxicol 11(1):5–12. https://doi.org/10.2478/intox-2018-0001
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
EU (2020) Communication from the commission to the European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic And Social Committee And The Committee Of The Regions Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability Towards a Toxic-Free Environment. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/pdf/chemicals/2020/10/Strategy.pdf
Fentem J, Malcomber I, Maxwell G, Westmoreland C (2021) Upholding the EU’s commitment to ‘Animal Testing as a Last Resort’ under REACH requires a paradigm shift in how we assess chemical safety to close the gap between regulatory testing and modern safety science. Altern Lab Anim 30:2611929211040824. https://doi.org/10.1177/02611929211040824
Article
Google Scholar
Firman J, Cronin M, Doe J, Rowe P, Semenova E (2022) The use of Bayesian methodology in the development and validation of a tiered assessment approach towards prediction of rat acute oral toxicity. Arch Toxicol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-021-03205-x
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Fransman W, van Tongeren M, Cherrie J, Tischer M, Schneider T, Schinkel J, Kromhout H, Warren N, Goede H, Tielemans E (2011) Advanced Reach Tool (ART): development of the mechanistic model. Ann Occup Hyg 55:957–979. https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/mer083
CAS
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Friedman KP, Papineni S, Marty MS, Yi KD, Goetz AK, Rasoulpour RJ, Kwiatkowski P, Wolf DC, Blacker AM, Peffer RC (2016) A predictive data-driven framework for endocrine prioritization: a triazole fungicide case study. Crit Rev Toxicol 46(9):785–833. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2016.1193722
CAS
Article
Google Scholar
Friedman KP, Gagne M, Loo L-H, Karmertzanis P, Netzeva T, Sobanski T, Franzosa J, Richard A, Lougee R, Gissi A, Lee J-Y, Angrish M, Dorne J, Foster S, Raffaele K, Bahadori T, Gwinn M, Lambert J, Whelan M, Rasenberg M, Barton-MacLaren T, Thomas RS (2019) Utility of in vitro bioactivity as a lower bound estimate of in vivo adverse effect levels and in risk-based prioritization. Toxicol Sci. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfz201
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Golden E, Macmillan DS, Dameron G, Kern P, Hartung T, Maertens A (2021) Evaluation of the global performance of eight in silico skin sensitization models using human data. Altex 38(1):33–48. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.1911261
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Harrison DJ, Doe JE (2021) The modification of cancer risk by chemicals. Toxicol Res (camb) 10(4):800–809. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxres/tfab064
Article
Google Scholar
Herzler M, Marx-Stoelting P, Pirow R, Riebeling C, Luch A, Tralaue T, Schwerdtle T, Hensel A (2021) The “EU chemicals strategy for sustainability” questions regulatory toxicology as we know it: is it all rooted in sound scientific evidence? Arch Toxicol 95:2589–2601
CAS
Article
Google Scholar
Jaworska J, Dancik Y, Kern P, Gerberick F, Natsch A (2013) Bayesian integrated testing strategy to assess skin sensitization potency: from theory to practice. J Appl Toxicol 33:1353–1364. https://doi.org/10.1002/jat.2869
CAS
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Kisitu J, Hollert H, Fisher C, Leist M (2020) Chemical concentrations in cell culture compartments (C5)—free concentrations. Altex 37(4):693–708. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2008251
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Knight D, Deluyker B, Chaudry Q, Vidal J-M, Boer A (2021) A call for action on the development and implementation of new methodologies for safety assessment of chemical-based products in the EU—a short communication. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 119:104837
Article
Google Scholar
Kolle SN, Landsiedel R, Natsch A (2020) Replacing the refinement for skin sensitization testing: considerations to the implementation of adverse outcome pathway (AOP)-based defined approaches (DA) in OECD guidelines. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 115:104713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2020.104713
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Krebs A, van Vugt-Lussenburg BMA, Waldmann T, Albrecht W, Boei J, Ter Braak B, Brajnik M, Braunbeck T, Brecklinghaus T, Busquet F, Dinnyes A, Dokler J, Dolde X, Exner TE, Fisher C, Fluri D, Forsby A, Hengstler JG, Holzer AK, Janstova Z, Jennings P, Kisitu J, Kobolak J, Kumar M, Limonciel A, Lundqvist J, Mihalik B, Moritz W, Pallocca G, Ulloa APC, Pastor M, Rovida C, Sarkans U, Schimming JP, Schmidt BZ, Stöber R, Strassfeld T, van de Water B, Wilmes A, van der Burg B, Vrieling H, Vrijenhoek NG, Leist M (2020) The EU-ToxRisk method documentation, data processing and chemical testing pipeline for the regulatory use of new approach methods. Arch Toxicol 94(7):2435–2461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-020-02802-6
CAS
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Lanzoni A, Castoldi AF, Kass GE, Terron A, De Seze G, Bal-Price A, Bois FY, Delclos KB, Doerge DR, Fritsche E, Halldorsson T, Kolossa-Gehring M, Hougaard Bennekou S, Koning F, Lampen A, Leist M, Mantus E, Rousselle C, Siegrist M, Steinberg P, Tritscher A, Van de Water B, Vineis P, Walker N, Wallace H, Whelan M, Younes M (2019) Advancing human health risk assessment. EFSA J 17(Suppl 1):e170712. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.e170712
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Leist M, Hartung T, Nicotera P (2008) The dawning of a new age of toxicology. Altex 25(2):103–114
Article
Google Scholar
Leist M, Lidbury BA, Yang C, Hayden PJ, Kelm JM, Ringeissen S, Detroyer A, Meunier JR, Rathman JF, Jackson GR Jr, Stolper G, Hasiwa N (2012a) Novel technologies and an overall strategy to allow hazard assessment and risk prediction of chemicals, cosmetics, and drugs with animal-free methods. Altex 29(4):373–388. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2012.4.373
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Leist M, Hasiwa N, Daneshian M, Hartung T (2012b) Validation and quality control of replacement alternatives—current status and future challenges. Toxicol Res 1:8–22. https://doi.org/10.1039/C2TX20011B
CAS
Article
Google Scholar
Leist M, Hasiwa N, Rovida C, Daneshian M, Basketter D, Kimber I, Clewell H, Gocht T, Goldberg A, Busquet F, Rossi AM, Schwarz M, Stephens M, Taalman R, Knudsen TB, McKim J, Harris G, Pamies D, Hartung T (2014) Consensus report on the future of animal-free systemic toxicity testing. Altex 31(3):341–356. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.1406091
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Leist M, Ghallab A, Graepel R, Marchan R, Hassan R, Bennekou SH, Limonciel A, Vinken M, Schildknecht S, Waldmann T, Danen E, van Ravenzwaay B, Kamp H, Gardner I, Godoy P, Bois FY, Braeuning A, Reif R, Oesch F, Drasdo D, Höhme S, Schwarz M, Hartung T, Braunbeck T, Beltman J, Vrieling H, Sanz F, Forsby A, Gadaleta D, Fisher C, Kelm J, Fluri D, Ecker G, Zdrazil B, Terron A, Jennings P, van der Burg B, Dooley S, Meijer AH, Willighagen E, Martens M, Evelo C, Mombelli E, Taboureau O, Mantovani A, Hardy B, Koch B, Escher S, van Thriel C, Cadenas C, Kroese D, van de Water B, Hengstler JG (2017) Adverse outcome pathways: opportunities, limitations and open questions. Arch Toxicol 91(11):3477–3505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-017-2045-3
CAS
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Lhasa Ltd (2021) Derek Nexus (lhasalimited.org). Accessed Sep 2021
Louro H, Heinälä M, Bessems J, Buekers J, Vermeire T, Woutersen M, van Engelen J, Borges T, Rousselle C, Ougier E, Alvito P, Martins C, Assunção R, Silva MJ, Pronk A, Schaddelee-Scholten B, Del Carmen GM, de Alba M, Castaño A, Viegas S, Humar-Juric T, Kononenko L, Lampen A, Vinggaard AM, Schoeters G, Kolossa-Gehring M, Santonen T (2019) Human biomonitoring in health risk assessment in Europe: current practices and recommendations for the future. Int J Hyg Environ Health 222(5):727–737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2019.05.009
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Luechtefeld T, Rowlands C, Hartung T (2018) Big-data and machine learning to revamp computational toxicology and its use in risk assessment. Toxicol Res (camb) 7(5):732–744. https://doi.org/10.1039/c8tx00051d
CAS
Article
Google Scholar
Mahony C, Ashton R, Birk B, Boobis A, Cull T, Daston G, Ewart L, Manou I, Maurer-Stroh S, Margiotta-Casaluci L, Müller B, Nordlund P, Roberts R, Steger-Hartmann T, Vandenbossche E, Viant M, Vinken M, Whelan M, Zvonimir Z, Cronin M (2020) New ideas for non-animal approaches to predict repeated-dose systemic toxicity: report from an EPAA blue sky workshop. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 114:104668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2020.104668
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Marx U, Akabane T, Andersson TB, Baker E, Beilmann M, Beken S, Brendler-Schwaab S, Cirit M, David R, Dehne EM, Durieux I, Ewart L, Fitzpatrick SC, Frey O, Fuchs F, Griffith LG, Hamilton GA, Hartung T, Hoeng J, Hogberg H, Hughes DJ, Ingber DE, Iskandar A, Kanamori T, Kojima H, Kuehnl J, Leist M, Li B, Loskill P, Mendrick DL, Neumann T, Pallocca G, Rusyn I, Smirnova L, Steger-Hartmann T, Tagle DA, Tonevitsky A, Tsyb S, Trapecar M, Van de Water B, Van den Eijnden-van Raaij J, Vulto P, Watanabe K, Wolf A, Zhou X, Roth A (2020) Biology-inspired microphysiological systems to advance patient benefit and animal welfare in drug development. Altex 37(3):365–394. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2001241
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
MIE Atlas Tool (2021) Towards-an-MIE-Atlas-Tools-for-Toxicity-Prediction.pdf (tt21c.org). Accessed Sep 2021
Moné M, Pallocca G, Escher S, Exner T, Herzler M, Bennekou H, Kamp H, Kroese ED, Leist M, Steger-Hartmann T, van de Water B (2020) Setting the stage for next-generation risk assessment with non-animal approaches: the EU-ToxRisk project experience. Arch Toxicol 94:3581–3592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-020-02866-4
CAS
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
NAS (2021) Ad Hoc Committee National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine: Variability and relevance of current laboratory mammalian toxicity tests and expectations for New Approach Methods (NAMs) for use in Human Health Risk Assessment | National Academies
Natsch A, Landsiedel R, Kolle SN (2021) A triangular approach for the validation of new approach methods for skin sensitization. Altex. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2105111
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
OECD (2009) Secretariat document in support to the Peer Review of the validation of the Hershberger Bioassay. http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/testing/37478899.pdf. Accessed 10 Nov 2021
OECD (2016) Guidance document on the reporting of defined approaches and individual information sources to be used within integrated approaches to testing and assessment (IATA) for skin sensitisation No. 256. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264279285-en
OECD (2017) Guidance document on an integrated approach on testing and assessment (IATA) for skin corrosion and irritation, OECD series on testing and assessment, no. 203. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264274693-en
Book
Google Scholar
OECD (2021a) The integrated approaches to testing and assessment: case studies project. IATA website accessed 14 September 2021. Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment (IATA)—OECD
OECD (2021b) Guidance document on the characterisation, validation and reporting of Physiologically Based Kinetic (PBK) models for regulatory purposes, OECD Series on Testing and Assessment, No. 331, Environment, Health and Safety, Environment Directorate, OECD
OECD (2021c) Case study on use of an Integrated Approach for Testing and Assessment (IATA) for systemic toxicity of phenoxyethanol when included at 1% in a body lotion Series on Testing and Assessment, No. 349 https://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=ENV/CBC/MONO(2021)35&docLanguage=En. Accessed 10 Nov 2021
Paini A, Leonard JA, Joossens E, Bessems JGM, Desalegn A, Dorne JL, Gosling JP, Heringa MB, Klaric M, Kliment T, Kramer NI, Loizou G, Louisse J, Lumen A, Madden JC, Patterson EA, Proença S, Punt A, Setzer RW, Suciu N, Troutman J, Yoon M, Worth A, Tan YM (2019) Next generation physiologically based kinetic (NG-PBK) models in support of regulatory decision making. Comput Toxicol 9:61–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comtox.2018.11.002
CAS
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Paini A, Tan YM, Sachana M, Worth A (2021) Gaining acceptance in next generation PBK modelling approaches for regulatory assessments—an OECD international effort. Comput Toxicol 18:100163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comtox.2021.100163
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Pastoor T, Bachman A, Bell D, Cohen S, Dellarco M, Dewhurst I, Doe J, Doerrer N, Embry M, Hines R, Moretto A, Phillips R, Rowlands C, Tanir J, Wolf D, Boobis A (2014) A 21st century roadmap for human health risk assessment. Crit Rev Toxicol 44(sup3):1–5. https://doi.org/10.3109/10408444.2014.931923
CAS
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Patterson EA, Whelan MP, Worth AP (2021) The role of validation in establishing the scientific credibility of predictive toxicology approaches intended for regulatory application. Comput Toxicol 17:100144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comtox.2020.100144
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Petkov PI, Patlewicz G, Schultz TW, Honma M, Todorov M, Kotov S, Dimitrov SD, Donner EM, Mekenyan OG (2015) A feasibility study: can information collected to classify for mutagenicity be informative in predicting carcinogenicity? Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 72(1):17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.03.003
CAS
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Punt A, Bouwmeester H, Blaauboer BJ, Coecke S, Hakkert B, Hendriks DFG, Jennings P, Kramer NI, Neuhoff S, Masereeuw R, Paini A, Peijnenburg AACM, Rooseboom M, Shuler ML, Sorrell I, Spee B, Strikwold M, Van der Meer AD, Van der Zande M, Vinken M, Yang H, Bos PMJ, Heringa MB (2020) New approach methodologies (NAMs) for human-relevant biokinetics predictions. Meeting the paradigm shift in toxicology towards an animal-free chemical risk assessment. Altex 37(4):607–622. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2003242 (Epub 2020 Jun 8)
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
RIVM (2018) ConsExpo Web. Consumer exposure models—model documentation: update for ConsExpo Web 1.0.2. https://doi.org/10.21945/RIVM-2017-0197
RIVM (2021) ConsExpo online tool designed to estimate the consumer exposure to substances in several consumer products. https://www.rivm.nl/en/consexpo
Rovida C, Barton-Maclaren T, Benfenati E, Caloni F, Chandrasekera PC, Chesné C, Cronin MTD, De Knecht J, Dietrich DR, Escher SE, Fitzpatrick S, Flannery B, Herzler M, Bennekou SH, Hubesch B, Kamp H, Kisitu J, Kleinstreuer N, Kovarich S, Leist M, Maertens A, Nugent K, Pallocca G, Pastor M, Patlewicz G, Pavan M, Presgrave O, Smirnova L, Schwarz M, Yamada T, Hartung T (2020) Internationalization of read-across as a validated new approach method (NAM) for regulatory toxicology. Altex 37(4):579–606. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.1912181 (Epub 2020 Apr 30)
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
SCEDS AISE (2015) SCEDs specific consumer exposure determinants A.I.S.E. supporting explanation 20150602150650-aise_sceds_supportingexplanation_document_may2015_v1.pdf
Spinu N, Cronin M, Enoch S, Madden J, Worth A (2020) Quantitative adverse outcome pathway (qAOP) models for toxicity prediction. Arch Toxicol 94:1497–1510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-020-02774-7
CAS
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Taylor K (2018) Ten years of REACH—an animal protection perspective. Altern Lab Anim 46:347–373
Article
Google Scholar
Terron A, Bal-Price A, Paini A, Monnet-Tschudi F, Bennekou SH, EFSA WG EPI1 Members, Leist M, Schildknecht S (2018) An adverse outcome pathway for parkinsonian motor deficits associated with mitochondrial complex I inhibition. Arch Toxicol 92(1):41–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-017-2133-4 (Epub 2017 Dec 5. Erratum in: Arch Toxicol. 2019 Jun;93(6):1771)
CAS
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Thomas RS, Paules RS, Simeonov A, Fitzpatrick SC, Crofton KM, Casey WM, Mendrick DL (2018) The US Federal Tox21 program: a strategic and operational plan for continued leadership. Altern Anim Exp 35(2):163–168. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.1803011
Article
Google Scholar
Tluczkiewicz I, Buist HE, Martin MT, Mangelsdorf I, Escher SE (2011) Improvement of the Cramer classification for oral exposure using the database TTC RepDose–a strategy description. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 61:340–350
CAS
Article
Google Scholar
Tralau T, Oelgeschläger M, Gürtler R, Heinemeyer G, Herzler M, Höfer T, Itter H, Kuhl T, Lange N, Lorenz N, Müller-Graf C, Pabel U, Pirow R, Ritz V, Schafft H, Schneider H, Schulz T, Schumacher D, Zellmer S, Fleur-Böl G, Greiner M, Lahrssen-Wiederholt M, Lampen A, Luch A, Schönfelder G, Solecki R, Wittkowski R, Hensel A (2015) Regulatory toxicology in the twenty-first century: challenges, perspectives and possible solutions. Arch Toxicol 89:823–850. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-015-1510-0
CAS
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Van der Jagt K, Munn S, Torslov J, de Bruijn J (2004) Alternative approaches can reduce the use of test animals under REACH, Addendum to Report EUR 21405, EC, JRC, Ispra, Italy. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC29111/EUR%2021405%20EN.pdf. Accessed 10 Nov 2021
Van der Stel W, Carta G, Eakins J, Delp J, Suciu I, Forsby A, Cediel-Ulloa A, Attoff K, Troger F, Kamp H, Gardner I, Zdrazil B, Moné MJ, Ecker GF, Pastor M, Gómez-Tamayo JC, White A, Danen EHJ, Leist M, Walker P, Jennings P, Bennekou SH, Van de Water B (2021) New approach methods supporting read-across: two neurotoxicity AOP-based IATA case studies. Altex. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2103051
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Van Norman G (2019) Limitations of animal studies for predicting toxicity in clinical trials: is it time to rethink our current approach? JACC Basic Transl Sci 4:2452–3302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacbts.2019.10.008
Article
Google Scholar
Vinken M, Benfenati E, Busquet F, Castell J, Clevert DA, de Kok TM, Dirven H, Fritsche E, Geris L, Gozalbes R, Hartung T, Jennen D, Jover R, Kandarova H, Kramer N, Krul C, Luechtefeld T, Masereeuw R, Roggen E, Schaller S, Vanhaecke T, Yang C, Piersma AH (2021) Safer chemicals using less animals: kick-off of the European ONTOX project. Toxicology 30(458):152846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2021.152846
CAS
Article
Google Scholar
Wolf DC, Cohen SM, Boobis AR, Dellarco VL, Fenner-Crisp PA, Moretto A, Pastoor TP, Schoeny RS, Seed JG, Doe JE (2019) Chemical carcinogenicity revisited 1: a unified theory of carcinogenicity based on contemporary knowledge. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 103:86–92
CAS
Article
Google Scholar