Abstract
Advances in omics techniques and molecular toxicology are necessary to provide new perspectives for regulatory toxicology. By the application of modern molecular techniques, more mechanistic information should be gained to support standard toxicity studies and to contribute to a reduction and refinement of animal experiments required for certain regulatory purposes. The relevance and applicability of data obtained by omics methods to regulatory purposes such as grouping of chemicals, mode of action analysis or classification and labelling needs further improvement, defined validation and cautious expert judgment. Based on the results of an international expert workshop organized 2014 by the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment in Berlin, this paper is aimed to provide a critical overview of the regulatory relevance and reliability of omics methods, basic requirements on data quality and validation, as well as regulatory criteria to decide which effects observed by omics methods should be considered adverse or non-adverse. As a way forward, it was concluded that the inclusion of omics data can facilitate a more flexible approach for regulatory risk assessment and may help to reduce or refine animal testing.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Boobis AR, Doe JE, Heinrich-Hirsch B et al (2008) IPCS framework for analyzing the relevance of a noncancer mode of action for humans. Crit Rev Toxicol 38(2):87–96. doi:10.1080/10408440701749421
Chervitz SA, Deutsch EW, Field D et al (2011) Data standards for Omics data: the basis of data sharing and reuse. Methods Mol Biol 719:31–69. doi:10.1007/978-1-61779-027-0_2
ECETOC (2013) Omics and risk assessment science. In: ECETOC (ed) Workshop report No 25, Brussels. ISSN-2078-7200-25
ECHA (2011) Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment Part B: hazard assessment Version 2.1, accessible at https://www.echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13643/information_requirements_part_b_en.pdf. Accessed Sept 2015
EFSA (2011) Statistical significance and biological relevance. EFSA 9(9):2372
EFSA (2014) Modern methodologies and tools for human hazard assessment of chemicals. EFSA 12(4):3638
EMEA (2007) Note for guidance on definitions for genomic biomarkers, pharmacogenomics, pharmacogenetics, genomic data and sample coding categories. EMEA. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500002880.pdf. Accessed Sept 2015
Fuscoe JC, Tong W, Shi L (2007) QA/QC issues to aid regulatory acceptance of microarray gene expression data. Environ Mol Mutagen 48(5):349–353. doi:10.1002/em.20293
Hartung T (2009) Toxicology for the twenty-first century. Nature 460(7252):208–212. doi:10.1038/460208a
Hartung T, Hoffmann S, Stephens M (2013) Mechanistic validation. ALTEX 30(2):119–130
Jennen D, Ruiz-Aracama A, Magkoufopoulou C et al (2011) Integrating transcriptomics and metabonomics to unravel modes-of-action of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) in HepG2 cells. BMC Syst Biol 5:139. doi:10.1186/1752-0509-5-139
OECD (2013) Guidance document on developing and assessing adverse outcome pathways OECD environment. Health and Safety Publications, Paris
Paules RS (2006) Toxicogenomics and environmental diseases: the search for biomarkers predictive of adverse effects. Med Lav 97(2):322–323
Robinson JF, Pennings JL, Piersma AH (2012) A review of toxicogenomic approaches in developmental toxicology. Methods Mol Biol 889:347–371. doi:10.1007/978-1-61779-867-2_22
Shi L, Reid LH, Jones WD et al (2006) The MicroArray Quality Control (MAQC) project shows inter- and intraplatform reproducibility of gene expression measurements. Nat Biotechnol 24(9):1151–1161. doi:10.1038/nbt1239
Stahl S, Ittrich C, Marx-Stoelting P et al (2005) Genotype–phenotype relationships in hepatocellular tumors from mice and man. Hepatology 42(2):353–361. doi:10.1002/hep.20768
Tarazona JV (2013) Use of new scientific developments in regulatory risk assessments: challenges and opportunities. Integr Environ Assess Manag 9(3):e85–e91. doi:10.1002/ieam.1445
Tinwell H, Friry-Santini C, Rouquie D et al (2007) Evaluation of the antiandrogenic effects of flutamide, DDE, and linuron in the weanling rat assay using organ weight, histopathological, and proteomic approaches. Toxicol Sci 100(1):54–65. doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfm208
Tralau T, Oelgeschlager M, Gurtler R et al (2015) Regulatory toxicology in the twenty-first century: challenges, perspectives and possible solutions. Arch Toxicol 89(6):823–850. doi:10.1007/s00204-015-1510-0
van Ravenzwaay B, Brunborg G, Kleinjans J, Galay BM, Vrijhof H (2012) Use of ‘omics to elucidate mechanism of action and integration of ‘omics in a systems biology concept. Mutat Res 746(2):95–96. doi:10.1016/j.mrgentox.2012.04.004
WHO/IPCS (2004) IPCS risk assessment terminology (Part 1). http://www.inchem.org/documents/harmproj/harmproj/harmproj1.pdf. Accessed Sept 2015
Acknowledgments
The present meeting report was prepared on the basis of the results of an international expert workshop held at the BfR in October 2014. We gratefully thank all workshop participants for their valuable contributions as well as Uta Grunwaldt, Constanze Knebel and the BfR Academy team for their technical and logistic support.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Disclaimer:
This manuscript has been reviewed by the above-mentioned institution and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents reflect the views of the institutions, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Marx-Stoelting, P., Braeuning, A., Buhrke, T. et al. Application of omics data in regulatory toxicology: report of an international BfR expert workshop. Arch Toxicol 89, 2177–2184 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-015-1602-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-015-1602-x