Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
During the last years, the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement) principle is increasingly taken into consideration in setting up integrated testing strategies. As such, in silico methods received substantial attention, which stimulated their development and made them become more interesting for the assessment of chemical hazards. In silico tools are essentially computer models, able to make predictions for a non-evaluated compound based on knowledge extracted from a collection of structurally related substances with experimental toxicity data. Progressively acknowledged by regulatory bodies, in silico tools are gaining importance in toxicology not only as a first tier screening tool, but also for complementing in vivo and in vitro test results (for example, Buist et al. 2013; Nendza et al. 2013; Schilter et al. 2014; Scholz et al. 2013). Their widespread use, however, remains limited due to (1) the non-flexibility of the current regulatory framework, strictly describing the required experimental tests, (2) the oversupply of computer models while often uncertainty exists as to which model (combination) is most suitable to assess a given (type of) substance for a particular endpoint, and (3) the rather poor predictive capacity for toxicological endpoints other than Ames mutagenicity (Barber and Myatt 2016).
Therefore, the most promising application of in silico tools today remains its use in priority setting upon screening of a large number of compounds. The general public is exposed, intentionally or not, to a large variety of different substances, sometimes not or not recently evaluated for their safety. Environmental pollutants or food contaminants are evident examples of non-intentional exposure to predominantly non-evaluated substances. A detailed characterization of the complete toxicological profile of all these substances is not feasible from an economic and ethical (animal welfare) point of view. In silico tools, however, can provide substantial help in assigning priority to those substances for which a comprehensive safety evaluation is most urgently needed.
In a recent study, we illustrated the potential of in silico tools for such priority setting in the field of printed paper and board food contact materials (FCM) (Van Bossuyt et al. 2017). Paper and board FCM, like other non-plastic FCMs, can contain a large number of non-evaluated substances (European Parliament 2016; Liu et al. 2016; Muncke et al. 2014; Van Bossuyt et al. 2016). Several food crises have confirmed that FCM substances can migrate into food and drinks, subsequently causing unwanted exposure of the consumer to potentially harmful substances (European Commission 2016; EFSA 2011). As a result, health concerns have been raised which are justified especially since migration from FCM is estimated to be the main source of food contamination, quantitatively exceeding most others—including pesticide residues—by a factor of 100–1000 (Grob et al. 2006).
The study focused on Ames mutagenicity, an important toxicological endpoint related to serious adverse health effects including carcinogenicity. For Ames mutagenicity, a number of valid in silico models are available to make substantiated predictions. Four different in silico tools were used to select currently non-evaluated printed paper and board FCM substances that most likely exhibit mutagenic properties. In particular, the substances identified as being of ‘highest priority’ need immediate further investigation. By identifying substances of highest concern, the resources available for experimental testing can be attributed in a more efficient way. Indeed, it would be impossible to carry out elaborate toxicological investigations for hundreds of chemicals in the course of an acceptable time span.
Similarly, in silico tools can be of particular interest to screen ‘non-intentionally added substances’ (NIAS) migrating from FCM. These NIAS include impurities, oligomers and degradation products (Muncke 2011; Nerin et al. 2016). NIAS typically represent the larger part of the migrants and their exact composition is often unknown (Grob 2014). In this context, we recently reported on the use of in silico tools as part of a strategy to identify non-authorized chemicals of genotoxic concern found to migrate from plastic baby bottles used as alternative to bisphenol A-containing polycarbonate baby bottles (Mertens et al. 2016). In addition, in this case study, the importance of in silico tools for prioritization of FCM substances was clearly demonstrated.
This prioritization strategy based on in silico methodology can also be applied in several other domains where there is a need to identify priority substances requiring (geno)toxicological evaluation. Actual examples include compounds used in tattoo inks, permanent make-up, printed baby napkins and sanitary towels, medical devices, textile products and nanomaterials. In all these cases, human health safeguarding can be realized already to some extent without the use of experimental (animal) systems.
References
Barber CG, Myatt GJ (ed.) (2016) 17th International Conference on QSAR in Environmental and Health Sciences (QSAR 2016), conference proceedings, 13–17 June, Miami Beach, USA, SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 27, 781–948 (Special edition)
Buist H, Aldenberg T, Batke M, Escher S, Klein Entink R, Kühne R, Marquart H, Pauné H, Rorije E, Schüürmann G, Kroese D, (2013). The OSIRIS weight of evidence approach: ITS mutagenicity and ITS carcinogenicity. Regul Tox Pharm 67:170–181. 10.1016/j.yrtph.2013.01.002
EFSA (2011). Report of ESCO WG on non-plastic food contact materials. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/scientific_output/files/main_documents/139e.pdf. Accessed 5 Dec 2016
European Commission (2016) Rapid alert system in food and feed. http://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/rasff/portal/index_en.htm. Accessed 5 Dec 2016
European Parliament (2016) Food contact materials—how to ensure food safety and technological innovation in the future? http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/578967/IPOL_STU(2016)578967_EN.pdf. Accessed 5 Dec 2016
Grob K (2014) Work plans to get out of the deadlock for the safety assurance of migration from food contact materials? A proposal. Food Control 46:312–318. 10.1016/j.foodcont.2014.05.044
Grob K, Biedermann M, Scherbaum E, Roth M, Rieger K (2006) Food contamination with organic materials in perspective: packaging materials as the largest and least controlled source? A view focusing on the European situation. Cri Rev Food Sci Nutr 46:529–535. 10.1080/10408390500295490
Liu R, Lin Y, Hu F, Liu R, Ruan T, Jiang G (2016) Observation of emerging photoinitiator additives in household environment and sewage sludge in China. Environ Sci Technol 50:97–104. doi:10.1021/acs.est.5b04977
Mertens B, Simon C, Van Bossuyt M, Onghena M, Vandermarken T, Van Langenhove K, Demaegdt H, Van Hoeck E, Van Loco J, Vandermeiren K, Covaci A, Scippo M-L, Elskens M, Verschaeve L (2016) Investigation of the genotoxicity of substances migrating from polycarbonate replacement baby bottles to identify chemicals of high concern. Food Chem Toxicol 89:126–137. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2016.01.009
Muncke J (2011) Endocrine disrupting chemicals and other substances of concern in food contact materials: an updated review of exposure, effect and risk assessment. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 127:118–127. doi:10.1016/j.jsbmb.2010.10.004
Muncke J, Myers JP, Scheringer M, Porta M (2014) Food packaging and migration of food contact materials: will epidemiologists rise to the neotoxic challenge? J Epidemiol Community Health 0:1–3. doi:10.1136/jech-2013-202593
Nendza M, Gabbert S, Kühne R, Lombardo A, Roncaglioni A, Benfenati E, Benigni R, Bossa C, Strempel S, Scheringer M, Fernández A, Rallo R, Giralt F, Dimitrov S, Mekenyan O, Bringezu F, Schüürmann G (2013) A comparative survey of chemistry-driven in silico methods to identify hazardous substances under REACH. Regul Tox Pharm 66:301–314. doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2013.05.007
Nerin C, Aznar M, Carrizo D (2016) Food contamination during food process. Trends Food Sci Tech 48:63–68
Schilter B, Benigni R, Boobis A, Chiodini A, Cockburn A, Cronin MTD, Lo Piparo E, Modi S, Thiel A, Worth A (2014) Establishing the level of safety concern for chemicals in food without the need for toxicity testing. Regul Tox Pharm 68:275–296. doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2013.08.018
Scholz S, Sela E, Blaha L, Braunbeck T, Galay-Burgos M, García-Franco M, Guinea J, Klüver N, Schirmer K, Tanneberger K, Tobor-Kapłon M, Witters H, Belanger S, Benfenati E, Creton S, Cronin MT, Eggen RI, Embry M, Ekman D, Gourmelon A, Halder M, Hardy B, Hartung T, Hubesch B, Jungmann D, Lampi MA, Lee L, Léonard M, Küster E, Lillicrap A, Luckenbach T, Murk AJ, Navas JM, Peijnenburg W, Repetto G, Salinas E, Schüürmann G, Spielmann H, Tollefsen KE, Walter-Rohde S, Whale G, Wheeler JR, Winter MJ (2013) A European perspective on alternatives to animal testing for environmental hazard identification and risk assessment. Regul Tox Pharm 67:506–530. doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2013.10.003
Van Bossuyt M, Van Hoeck E, Vanhaecke T, Rogiers V, Mertens B, (2016) Printed paper and board food contact materials as a potential source of food contamination. Regul Tox Pharm 81:10–19. doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2016.06.025
Van Bossuyt M, Van Hoeck E, Raitano G, Manganelli S, Braeken E, Ates G, Vanhaecke T, Van Miert S, Benfenati E, Mertens B, Rogiers V (2017) (Q)SAR tools for priority setting: a case study with printed paper and board food contact material substances. Food Chem Toxicol. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2017.02.002
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
V. Rogiers and B. Mertens are equally contributing last authors.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Van Bossuyt, M., Van Hoeck, E., Vanhaecke, T. et al. Safeguarding human health using in silico tools?. Arch Toxicol 91, 2705–2706 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-017-1931-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-017-1931-z