The role of the European centre for the validation of alternative methods (ECVAM) in the validation of (Q)SARs

Under the current chemicals legislation, the regulatory use of structure-activity relationships (SARs) and quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSARs), collectively referred to as (Q)SARs, for the assessment of chemicals is limited, partly due to concerns about the extent to which (Q)SAR estimates can be relied upon. On 29 October 2003, the European Commission adopted a legislative proposal that foresees the introduction of a new regulatory system for chemicals called REACH (Registration, Evaluation, and Authorisation of Chemicals), which will impose equivalent information requirements on both new and existing chemicals. For reasons of practicality, cost-effectiveness and animal welfare, it is envisaged that (Q)SARs will play an important role in the assessment of some 30,000 existing chemicals for which further information may be required under the REACH system. It will therefore be essential that the (Q)SAR models used will produce reliable estimates. To overcome the barriers in the acceptance of (Q)SARs for regulatory purposes, it is widely acknowledged that there needs to be international agreement on the principles of (Q)SAR validation, and that the process of (Q)SAR validation should be managed by independent organisations, with a view to providing independent advice to the regulators who make decisions on the acceptability of (Q)SARs. The European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM), which is part of the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC), has a well-established role in providing independent scientific and technical advice to European policy makers. This paper describes progress made at an international level regarding the principles of validation, and explains the role of ECVAM regarding the practical validation of (Q)SARs.     

The role of the European Chemicals Bureau in promoting the regulatory use of (Q)SAR methods†

Under the proposed REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of CHemicals) legislation, (Q)SAR models and grouping methods (chemical categories and read across approaches) are expected to play a significant role in prioritising industrial chemicals for further assessment, and for filling information gaps for the purposes of classification and labelling, risk assessment and the assessment of persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals. The European Chemicals Bureau (ECB), which is part of the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC), has a well-established role in providing independent scientific and technical advice to European policy makers. The ECB also promotes consensus and capacity building on scientific and technical matters among stakeholders in the Member State authorities and industry. To promote the availability and use of (Q)SARs and related estimation methods, the ECB is carrying out a range of activities, including applied research in computational toxicology, the assessment of (Q)SAR models and methods, the development of technical guidance documents and computational tools, and the organisation of training courses. This article provides an overview of ECB activities on computational toxicology, which are intended to promote the development, validation, acceptance and use of (Q)SARs and related estimation methods, both at the European and international levels.     

Regulatory use of (Q)SARs in toxicological hazard assessment strategies

In 2001, the European Commission published a policy statement ("White Paper") on future chemicals regulation and risk reduction that proposed the use of non-animal test systems and tailor-made testing approaches, including (Q)SARs, to reduce financial costs and the number of test animals employed. The authors have compiled a database containing data submitted within the EU chemicals notification procedure. From these data, (Q)SARs for the prediction of local irritation/corrosion and/or sensitisation potential were developed and published. These (Q)SARs, together with an expert system supporting their use, will be submitted for official validation and application within regulatory hazard assessment strategies. The main features are: two sets of structural alerts for the prediction of skin sensitisation hazard classification as defined by the European risk phrase R43, comprising 15 rules for chemical substructures deemed to be sensitising by direct action with cells or proteins, and three rules for substructures acting indirectly, i.e., requiring biochemical transformation; a decision support system (DSS) for the prediction of skin and/or eye lesion potential built from information extracted from our database. This DSS combines SARs defining reactive chemical substructures relevant for local lesions to be classified, and QSARs for the prediction of the absence of such a potential. The role of the BfR database, and (Q)SARs derived from it, in the use of current and future (EU) testing strategies for irritation and sensitisation is discussed.     

The role of the European Chemicals Bureau in promoting the regulatory use of (Q)SAR methods

Under the proposed REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of CHemicals) legislation, (Q)SAR models and grouping methods (chemical categories and read across approaches) are expected to play a significant role in prioritising industrial chemicals for further assessment, and for filling information gaps for the purposes of classification and labelling, risk assessment and the assessment of persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals. The European Chemicals Bureau (ECB), which is part of the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC), has a well-established role in providing independent scientific and technical advice to European policy makers. The ECB also promotes consensus and capacity building on scientific and technical matters among stakeholders in the Member State authorities and industry. To promote the availability and use of (Q)SARs and related estimation methods, the ECB is carrying out a range of activities, including applied research in computational toxicology, the assessment of (Q)SAR models and methods, the development of technical guidance documents and computational tools, and the organisation of training courses. This article provides an overview of ECB activities on computational toxicology, which are intended to promote the development, validation, acceptance and use of (Q)SARs and related estimation methods, both at the European and international levels.     

Regulatory use of (Q)SARs in toxicological hazard assessment strategies

In 2001, the European Commission published a policy statement ("White Paper") on future chemicals regulation and risk reduction that proposed the use of non-animal test systems and tailor-made testing approaches, including (Q)SARs, to reduce financial costs and the number of test animals employed. The authors have compiled a database containing data submitted within the EU chemicals notification procedure. From these data, (Q)SARs for the prediction of local irritation/corrosion and/or sensitisation potential were developed and published. These (Q)SARs, together with an expert system supporting their use, will be submitted for official validation and application within regulatory hazard assessment strategies. The main features are: ? two sets of structural alerts for the prediction of skin sensitisation hazard classification as defined by the European risk phrase R43, comprising 15 rules for chemical substructures deemed to be sensitising by direct action with cells or proteins, and three rules for substructures acting indirectly, i.e., requiring biochemical transformation; ? a decision support system (DSS) for the prediction of skin and/or eye lesion potential built from information extracted from our database. This DSS combines SARs defining reactive chemical substructures relevant for local lesions to be classified, and QSARs for the prediction of the absence of such a potential. The role of the BfR database, and (Q)SARs derived from it, in the use of current and future (EU) testing strategies for irritation and sensitisation is discussed.     

The Application of Structure-Activity Relationships (SARs) in the Aquatic Toxicity Evaluation of Discrete Organic Chemicals

Abstract

The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) routinely uses structure-activity relationships (SAR) for the aquatic hazard assessment of new chemicals submitted under Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). With 15 years of experience and the general acceptance of toxicity predictions based on SARs, OPPT has expanded the use and application of the methodology to include existing chemicals used in printing, dry cleaning, and paint stripping. SAR analysis has also been used in the hazard evaluation of the U.S. and EU/OECD high production volume (HPV) chemicals. This paper describes the assumptions, limitations, and methodology for the use of SARs to evaluate large sets of discrete organic chemicals.     

Evaluation of SARs for the prediction of eye irritation/corrosion potential: structural inclusion rules in the BfR decision support system

The proposed REACH regulation within the European Union (EU) aims to minimise the number of laboratory animals used for human hazard and risk assessment while ensuring adequate protection of human health and the environment. One way to achieve this goal is to develop non-testing methods, such as (quantitative) structure-activity relationships ([Q]SARs), suitable for identifying toxicological hazard from chemical structure and physicochemical properties alone. A database containing data submitted within the EU New Chemicals Notification procedure was compiled by the German Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (BfR). On the basis of these data, the BfR built a decision support system (DSS) for the prediction of several toxicological endpoints. For the prediction of eye irritation and corrosion potential, the DSS contains 31 physicochemical exclusion rules evaluated previously by the European Chemicals Bureau (ECB), and 27 inclusion rules that define structural alerts potentially responsible for eye irritation and/or corrosion. This work summarises the results of a study carried out by the ECB to assess the performance of the BfR structural rulebase. The assessment included: (a) evaluation of the structural alerts by using the training set of 1341 substances with experimental data for eye irritation and corrosion; and (b) external validation by using an independent test set of 199 chemicals. Recommendations are made for the further development of the structural rules in order to increase the overall predictivity of the DSS.     

Global (Q)SARs for skin sensitisation: assessment against OECD principles

As part of a European Chemicals Bureau contract relating to the evaluation of (Q)SARs for toxicological endpoints of regulatory importance, we have reviewed and analysed (Q)SARs for skin sensitisation. Here we consider some recently published global (Q)SAR approaches against the OECD principles and present re-analysis of the data. Our analyses indicate that "statistical" (Q)SARs which aim to be global in their applicability tend to be insufficiently robust mechanistically, leading to an unacceptably high failure rate. Our conclusions are that, for skin sensitisation, the mechanistic chemistry is very important and consequently the best non-animal approach currently applicable to predict skin sensitisation potential is with the help of an expert system. This would assign compounds into mechanistic applicability domains and apply mechanism-based (Q)SARs specific for those domains and, very importantly, recognise when a compound is outside its range of competence. In such situations, it would call for human expert input supported by experimental chemistry studies as necessary.     

Global (Q)SARs for skin sensitisation–assessment against OECD principles‖

As part of a European Chemicals Bureau contract relating to the evaluation of (Q)SARs for toxicological endpoints of regulatory importance, we have reviewed and analysed (Q)SARs for skin sensitisation. Here we consider some recently published global (Q)SAR approaches against the OECD principles and present re-analysis of the data. Our analyses indicate that “statistical” (Q)SARs which aim to be global in their applicability tend to be insufficiently robust mechanistically, leading to an unacceptably high failure rate. Our conclusions are that, for skin sensitisation, the mechanistic chemistry is very important and consequently the best non-animal approach currently applicable to predict skin sensitisation potential is with the help of an expert system. This would assign compounds into mechanistic applicability domains and apply mechanism-based (Q)SARs specific for those domains and, very importantly, recognise when a compound is outside its range of competence. In such situations, it would call for human expert input supported by experimental chemistry studies as necessary.     

Progress and perspectives of quantitative structure-activity relationships used for ecological risk assessment of toxic organic compounds

Structure-activity relationship (SAR) and quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR), collec- tively referred to as (Q)SARs, play an important role in ecological risk assessment (ERA) of organic chemicals. (Q)SARs can fill the data gap for physical-chemical, environmental behavioral and ecotoxicological parameters of organic compounds; they can decrease experimental expenses and reduce the extent of experimental testing (especially animal testing); they can also be used to assess the uncertainty of the experimental data. With the development for several decades, (Q)SARs in envi- ronmental sciences show three features: application orientation, multidisciplinary integration, and in- telligence. Progress of (Q)SAR technology for ERA of toxic organic compounds, including endpoint selection and mathematic methods for establishing simple, transparent, easily interpretable and portable (Q)SAR models, is reviewed. The recent development on defining application domains and diagnosing outliers is summarized. Model characterization with respect to goodness-of-fit, stability and predictive power is specially presented. The purpose of the review is to promote the development of (Q)SARs orientated to ERA of organic chemicals.     

An evaluation of selected global (Q)SARs/expert systems for the prediction of skin sensitisation potential

Skin sensitisation potential is an endpoint that needs to be assessed within the framework of existing and forthcoming legislation. At present, skin sensitisation hazard is normally identified using in vivo test methods, the favoured approach being the local lymph node assay (LLNA). This method can also provide a measure of relative skin sensitising potency which is essential for assessing and managing human health risks. One potential alternative approach to skin sensitisation hazard identification is the use of (Quantitative) structure activity relationships ((Q)SARs) coupled with appropriate documentation and performance characteristics. This represents a major challenge. Current thinking is that (Q)SARs might best be employed as part of a battery of approaches that collectively provide information on skin sensitisation hazard. A number of (Q)SARs and expert systems have been developed and are described in the literature. Here we focus on three models (TOPKAT, Derek for Windows and TOPS-MODE), and evaluate their performance against a recently published dataset of 211 chemicals. The current strengths and limitations of one of these models is highlighted, together with modifications that could be made to improve its performance. Of the models/expert systems evaluated, none performed sufficiently well to act as a standalone tool for hazard identification.     

Evaluation of SARs for the prediction of eye irritation/corrosion potential–structural inclusion rules in the BfR decision support system†

The proposed REACH regulation within the European Union (EU) aims to minimise the number of laboratory animals used for human hazard and risk assessment while ensuring adequate protection of human health and the environment. One way to achieve this goal is to develop non-testing methods, such as (quantitative) structure–activity relationships ([Q]SARs), suitable for identifying toxicological hazard from chemical structure and physicochemical properties alone. A database containing data submitted within the EU New Chemicals Notification procedure was compiled by the German Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (BfR). On the basis of these data, the BfR built a decision support system (DSS) for the prediction of several toxicological endpoints. For the prediction of eye irritation and corrosion potential, the DSS contains 31 physicochemical exclusion rules evaluated previously by the European Chemicals Bureau (ECB), and 27 inclusion rules that define structural alerts potentially responsible for eye irritation and/or corrosion. This work summarises the results of a study carried out by the ECB to assess the performance of the BfR structural rulebase. The assessment included: (a) evaluation of the structural alerts by using the training set of 1341 substances with experimental data for eye irritation and corrosion; and (b) external validation by using an independent test set of 199 chemicals. Recommendations are made for the further development of the structural rules in order to increase the overall predictivity of the DSS.     

Prediction of the rodent carcinogenicity of 60 pesticides by the DEREKfW expert system

The two-year rodent bioassay represents the golden standard for evaluating the carcinogenicity of chemicals. Because of practical and ethical reasons, alternative approaches have been investigated for many years. Among these approaches, the (quantitative) structure-activity relationships [(Q)SARs] offer promising perspectives for quickly screening a large number of chemicals. To increase the acceptance of (Q)SARs among the regulators, their predictive power needs to be scientifically validated. In this article, we tested the capacity of the DEREKfW expert system to qualitatively predict the rodent carcinogenicity and the genotoxic potential of 60 pesticides recently registered in Switzerland. The percentage of false negatives was found to be 31% for carcinogenicity. The associated sensitivity of 69% indicates that most of the pesticides with positive rodent bioassay results were detected by DEREKfW. On the other hand, the low specificity of 47% indicates that many pesticides may be flagged as carcinogenic while rodent bioassays would not confirm this potential. This may lead to unnecessary testing or the unnecessary restriction of a chemical.     

An evaluation of selected global (Q)SARs/expert systems for the prediction of skin sensitisation potential

Skin sensitisation potential is an endpoint that needs to be assessed within the framework of existing and forthcoming legislation. At present, skin sensitisation hazard is normally identified using in vivo test methods, the favoured approach being the local lymph node assay (LLNA). This method can also provide a measure of relative skin sensitising potency which is essential for assessing and managing human health risks. One potential alternative approach to skin sensitisation hazard identification is the use of (Quantitative) structure activity relationships ((Q)SARs) coupled with appropriate documentation and performance characteristics. This represents a major challenge. Current thinking is that (Q)SARs might best be employed as part of a battery of approaches that collectively provide information on skin sensitisation hazard. A number of (Q)SARs and expert systems have been developed and are described in the literature. Here we focus on three models (TOPKAT, Derek for Windows and TOPS-MODE), and evaluate their performance against a recently published dataset of 211 chemicals. The current strengths and limitations of one of these models is highlighted, together with modifications that could be made to improve its performance. Of the models/expert systems evaluated, none performed sufficiently well to act as a standalone tool for hazard identification.     

Experimental verification of structural alerts for the protein binding of cyclic compounds acting as Michael acceptors

This study outlines how a combination of and in vitro data can be used to define the applicability domain of selected structural alerts within the protein binding profilers of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation (OECD) Quantitative Structure–Activity Relationship (QSAR) Toolbox. Thirty chemicals containing a cyclic moiety were profiled for reactivity using the OECD and Optimised Approach based on Structural Indices Set (OASIS) protein binding profilers. The profiling results identified 22 of the chemicals as being reactive towards proteins. Analysis of the experimentally data showed 19 of these chemicals to be reactive. Subsequent analysis allowed refinements to be suggested to improve the applicability domain of the structural alerts investigated. The accurate definition of the applicability domain for structural alerts within in silico profilers is important due to their use in chemical category in predictive and regulatory toxicology.     

Validity and validation of expert (Q)SAR systems

At a recent workshop in Setubal (Portugal) principles were drafted to assess the suitability of (quantitative) structure-activity relationships ((Q)SARs) for assessing the hazards and risks of chemicals. In the present study we applied some of the Setubal principles to test the validity of three (Q)SAR expert systems and validate the results. These principles include a mechanistic basis, the availability of a training set and validation. ECOSAR, BIOWIN and DEREK for Windows have a mechanistic or empirical basis. ECOSAR has a training set for each QSAR. For half of the structural fragments the number of chemicals in the training set is >4. Based on structural fragments and log Kow, ECOSAR uses linear regression to predict ecotoxicity. Validating ECOSAR for three 'valid' classes results in predictivity of > or = 64%. BIOWIN uses (non-)linear regressions to predict the probability of biodegradability based on fragments and molecular weight. It has a large training set and predicts non-ready biodegradability well. DEREK for Windows predictions are supported by a mechanistic rationale and literature references. The structural alerts in this program have been developed with a training set of positive and negative toxicity data. However, to support the prediction only a limited number of chemicals in the training set is presented to the user. DEREK for Windows predicts effects by 'if-then' reasoning. The program predicts best for mutagenicity and carcinogenicity. Each structural fragment in ECOSAR and DEREK for Windows needs to be evaluated and validated separately.