Toward regulatory acceptance and improving the prediction confidence of in silico approaches: a case study of genotoxicity

References

• EFSA. Scientific Opinion on an update on the present knowledge on the occurrence and control of foodborne viruses. EFSA J. 2011;9(7):2379 -n/a..
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency. ICH guideline S2 (R1) on genotoxicity testing and data interpretation for pharmaceuticals intended for human use. 2012. EMA/CHMP/ICH/126642/200.
   Google Scholar
• 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. The Official Journal of the European Union.. L396/1. 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Food and Drug Administration. Use of International Standard ISO 10993–1, “Biological evaluation of medical devices - Part 1: Evaluation and testing within a risk management process.” 2016.
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency. ICH guideline M7(R1) on assessment and control of DNA reactive (mutagenic) impurities in pharmaceuticals to limit potential carcinogenic risk. 2017. EMA/CHMP/ICH/83812/2013
   Google Scholar
• EFSA. Guidance on the establishment of the residue definition for dietary risk assessment. EFSA J. 2016;14(12): 4549.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ECHA. Read-Across Assessment Framework (RAAF): European Chemicals Agency; 2017. [cited 2021 Jun 21]. Available from: https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13628/raaf_en.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• ECHA. The use of alternatives to testing on animals for the REACH Regulation. European Chemicals Agency, 2017 June 2017. Report No.
   Google Scholar
• ECHA. Practical Guide: how to use alternatives to animal testing to fulfil the information requirements for REACH registration: European Chemicals Agency; 2016. [cited 2021 Jun 21]. Available from: https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13655/practical_guide_how_to_use_alternatives_en.pdf/148b30c7-c186-463c-a898-522a888a4404.
   Google Scholar
• ECHA. Practical Guide – how to use and report (Q)SARs: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA); 2016. [cited 2021 Jun 21]. Available from: https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13655/pg_report_qsars_en.pdf/407dff11-aa4a-4eef-a1ce-9300f8460099.
   Google Scholar
• ECHA. Evaluation under REACH Progress Report 2016 – executive summary and recommendations to registrants. European Chemicals Agency, 2016 March 2017. Report No.
   Google Scholar
• SCCS (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety), SCCS Notes of Guidance for the Testing of Cosmetic Ingredients and their Safety Evaluation 10th revision. 24-25 October 2018.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. Guidance Document on the Validation of (Quantitative) Structure-Activity Relationship [(Q)SAR] Models. 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Younes M, Aquilina G, Castle L, et al. Scientific Guidance for the preparation of applications on smoke flavouring primary products. EFSA J. 2021;19(3):e06435.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Honma M, Kitazawa A, Cayley A, et al. Improvement of quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) tools for predicting Ames mutagenicity: outcomes of the Ames/QSAR International Challenge Project. Mutagenesis. 2019;34(1):3–16. Epub 2018/ 10/26.. PubMed PMID: 30357358; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6402315.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hasselgren C, Ahlberg E, Akahori Y, et al. Genetic toxicology in silico protocol. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2019;107:104403. Epub 2019/ 06/14.. PubMed PMID: 31195068; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC7485926. .
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amberg A, Beilke L, Bercu J, et al. Principles and procedures for implementation of ICH M7 recommended (Q)SAR analyses. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2016;77:13–24. Epub 2016/ 02/16.. PubMed PMID: 26877192. .
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benigni R, Serafimova R, Parra Morte JM, et al. Evaluation of the applicability of existing (Q)SAR models for predicting the genotoxicity of pesticides and similarity analysis related with genotoxicity of pesticides for facilitating of grouping and read across: an EFSA funded project. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2020;114:104658.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morita T, Shigeta Y, Kawamura T, et al. In silico prediction of chromosome damage: comparison of three (Q)SAR models. Mutagenesis. 2019;34(1):91–100. Epub 2018/ 08/08.. PubMed PMID: 30085209.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benigni R, Battistelli CL, Bossa C, et al. New perspectives in toxicological information management, and the role of ISSTOX databases in assessing chemical mutagenicity and carcinogenicity. PubMed PMID: 23470317 Mutagenesis. 2013;284:401–409.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benigni R, Bossa C, Tcheremenskaia O, et al. The new ISSMIC database on in vivo micronucleus and its role in assessing genotoxicity testing strategies. PubMed PMID: 21965461 Mutagenesis. 2012;271:87–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metruccio F, Castelli I, Civitella C, et al. Compilation of a database, specific for the pesticide active substance and their metabolites, comprising the main genotoxicity endpoints. EFSA Supporting Publications. 2017;14(5):1229E.
   Google Scholar
• Sasaki JC, Allemang A, Bryce SM, et al. Application of the adverse outcome pathway framework to genotoxic modes of action. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2020;61(1):114–134.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sakuratani Y, Horie M, Leinala E. Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment: OECD activities on the development and use of adverse outcome pathways and case studies. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2018; 123 Suppl 123: 20–28. Epub 2018/ 01/10.. PubMed PMID: 29316278.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barber C, Amberg A, Custer L, et al. Establishing best practise in the application of expert review of mutagenicity under ICH M7. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2015;73(1):367–377. Epub 2015/ 08/08. PubMed PMID: 26248005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Committee ES, Benford D, Halldorsson T, et al. Guidance on uncertainty analysis in scientific assessments. EFSA J. 2018;16(1):e05123.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cronin MTD, Richarz A-N, Schultz TW. Identification and description of the uncertainty, variability, bias and influence in quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSARs) for toxicity prediction. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2019;106:90–104..
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schultz TW, Richarz A-N, Cronin MTD. Assessing uncertainty in read-across: questions to evaluate toxicity predictions based on knowledge gained from case studies. Comput Toxicol. 2019;9:1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Hardy A, Benford D, Halldorsson T, et al. EFSA Scientific Committee. Guidance on the use of the weight of evidence approach in scientific assessments. EFSA J. 2017;15(8):e04971.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SCCS (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety), Memorandum on the use ofIn silico Methodsfor Assessment of Chemical Hazard. 2016 Contract No.: SCCS/1578/16.
   Google Scholar
• ECHA. Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment, Chapter R.6: qSARs and grouping of chemicals May 2008. [cited 2021 Jun 21]. Available from: https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13632/information_requirements_r6_en.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Schultz TW, Diderich R, Kuseva CD, et al. The OECD QSAR Toolbox starts its second decade. Methods Mol Biol Epub 2018/ 06/24. PubMed PMID: 29934887. 2018;1800:55–77.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kuseva C, Schultz TW, Yordanova D, et al. The implementation of RAAF in the OECD QSAR Toolbox. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2019;105:51–61. Epub 2019/ 04/11.. PubMed PMID: 30970268. .
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paternò A, Bocci G, Goracci L, et al. Modelling the aquatic toxicity of ionic liquids by means of VolSurf in silico descriptors. SAR QSAR Environ Res. 2016;27(1):1–17. PubMed PMID: 26892800.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The European Commission. Setting out the data requirements for active substances, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market. Official Journal of European Union. (COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 283/2013).
   Google Scholar
• Scientific EFSA-P-PR. Opinion on Evaluation of the Toxicological Relevance of Pesticide Metabolites for Dietary Risk Assessment. EFSA J. 2012;10(7):2799.
   Google Scholar
• EU-JRC. Applicability of QSAR analysis to the evaluation of the toxicological relevance of metabolites and degradates of pesticide active substances for dietary risk assessment EFSA Supporting Publications. 2010;7(5): 50E-n/a. doi: 10.2903/sp.efsa.2010.EN-50.
   Google Scholar
• Hasselgren C, Bercu J, Cayley A, et al. Management of pharmaceutical ICH M7 (Q)SAR predictions – the impact of model updates. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2020;118:104807.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barber C, Cayley A, Hanser T, et al. Evaluation of a statistics-based Ames mutagenicity QSAR model and interpretation of the results obtained. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2016;76:7–20. SupplementC.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barber C, Hanser T, Judson P, et al. Distinguishing between expert and statistical systems for application under ICH M7. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2017;84:124–130. SupplementC.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cartus A, Schrenk D. Current methods in risk assessment of genotoxic chemicals. Food Chem Toxicol. 2017;106:574–582. PartB.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene N, Dobo KL, Kenyon MO, et al. A practical application of two in silico systems for identification of potentially mutagenic impurities. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2015;72(2):335–349. Epub 2015/ 05/20. PubMed PMID: 25980641.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Powley MW. (Q)SAR assessments of potentially mutagenic impurities: a regulatory perspective on the utility of expert knowledge and data submission. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2015;71(2):295–300.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sutter A, Amberg A, Boyer S, et al. Use of in silico systems and expert knowledge for structure-based assessment of potentially mutagenic impurities. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2013;67(1):39–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teasdale A. Regulatory Highlights. Org Process Res Dev. 2017;21(9):1209–1212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams RV, Amberg A, Brigo A, et al. It’s difficult, but important, to make negative predictions. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2016;76:79–86. SupplementC.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fioravanzo E, Bassan A, Pavan M, et al. Role of in silico genotoxicity tools in the regulatory assessment of pharmaceutical impurities. SAR QSAR Environ Res. 2012;23(3–4):257–277.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serafimova R, Gatnik MF, Worth A. Review of QSAR Models and Software Tools for Predicting Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity. JRC Technical Report EUR 24427 EN, Luxenbourg, 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Benigni R, Battistelli CL, Bossa C, et al. Evaluation of the applicability of existing (Q)SAR models for predicting the genotoxicity of pesticides and similarity analysis related with genotoxicity of pesticides for facilitating of grouping and read across. EFSA Supporting Publications. 2019;16(3):1598E.
   Google Scholar
• Ashby J, Tennant RW. Chemical structure, Salmonella mutagenicity and extent of carcinogenicity as indicators of genotoxic carcinogenesis among 222 chemicals tested in rodents by the U.S. NCI/NTP. Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology. 1988;204(1):17–115. Epub 1988/ 01/01. PubMed PMID: 3277047.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Honma M An assessment of mutagenicity of chemical substances by (quantitative) structure-activity relationship. Genes and environment: the official journal of the Japanese Environmental Mutagen Society. 2020;42:23. Epub 2020/ 07/07. doi: 10.1186/s41021-020-00163-1. PubMed PMID: 32626544; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPmc7330942.
   Google Scholar
• Benigni R, Bossa C. Data-based review of QSARs for predicting genotoxicity: the state of the art. Mutagenesis. 2019;34(1):17–23. Epub 2018/ 09/28. PubMed PMID: 30260416. .
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jolly R, Ahmed KB, Zwickl C, et al. An evaluation of in-house and off-the-shelf in silico models: implications on guidance for mutagenicity assessment. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2015;71(3):388–397. Epub 2015/ 02/07. PubMed PMID: 25656493.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lhasa. Vitic Nexus. [cited 2021 Jun 21]. Available from: http://www.lhasalimited.org/products/vitic-nexus.htm 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Hansen K, Mika S, Schroeter T, et al. Benchmark data set for in silico prediction of Ames mutagenicity. J Chem Inf Model. 2009;49(9):2077–2081. Epub 2009/ 08/26. PubMed PMID: 19702240.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kazius J, McGuire R, Derivation BR. Validation of toxicophores for mutagenicity prediction. J Med Chem. 2005;48:312–320.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feng J, Lurati L, Ouyang H, et al. Predictive Toxicology:  benchmarking Molecular Descriptors and Statistical Methods. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 2003;43(5):1463–1470. Epub 2003/ 09/23. PubMed PMID: 14502479.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gold LS. Carcinogenic Potency Database. [cited 2021 Jun 21]. Available from: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/databases/download/cpdb.html presently hosted at: https://www.lhasalimited.org/products/lhasa-carcinogenicity-database.htm
   Google Scholar
• Chemical Carcinogenesis Research Information System (CCRIS). [cited 2021 Jun 21]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pcsubstance?term=%22Chemical%20Carcinogenesis%20Research%20Information%20System%20(CCRIS)%22%5BSourceName%5D%20AND%20hasnohold%5Bfilt%5D.
   Google Scholar
• Helma C, Cramer T, Kramer S, et al. Data mining and machine learning techniques for the identification of mutagenicity inducing substructures and structure activity relationships of noncongeneric compounds. JChemInfCompSci. 2004;44:1402–1411.
   Google Scholar
• Judson PN, Cooke PA, Doerrer NG, et al. Towards the creation of an international toxicology information centre. Toxicology. 2005;213(1–2):117–128..
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Genetic Toxicology Data Bank (GENE-TOX). [cited 2021 Jun 21]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pcsubstance?term=%22Genetic%20Toxicology%20Data%20Bank%20(GENE-TOX)%22%5BSourceName%5D%20AND%20hasnohold%5Bfilt%5D.
   Google Scholar
• Bakhtyari NG, Raitano G, Benfenati E, et al. Comparison of in silico models for prediction of mutagenicity. J Environ Sci Health Part C, Environmental Carcinogenesis & Ecotoxicology reviews. 2013;31(1):45–66. Epub 2013/ 03/29. PubMed PMID: 23534394.;
   Google Scholar
• Valencia A, Prous J, Mora O, et al. A novel QSAR model of Salmonella mutagenicity and its application in the safety assessment of drug impurities. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2013;273:427–4324.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tcheremenskaia O, Battistelli CL, Giuliani A, et al. In silico approaches for prediction of genotoxic and carcinogenic potential of cosmetic ingredients. Comput Toxicol. 2019;11:91–100.
   Google Scholar
• Nexus D [ cited 2021]. [cited 2021 Jun 21]. Available from: https://www.lhasalimited.org/products/derek-nexus.htm.
   Google Scholar
• MultiCASE. [cited 2021 Jun 21]. Available from: http://www.multicase.com/products.
   Google Scholar
• Leadscope [ cited 2021]. [cited 2021 Jun 21]. Available from: https://www.leadscope.com/(Leadscope now is part of Instem https://www.instem.com/).
   Google Scholar
• ChemTunes Studio [ cited 2021]. [cited 2021 Jun 21]. Available from: https://www.mn-am.com/products/chemtunestoxgps.
   Google Scholar
• Percepta Impurities Suite—Assess Genotoxic and Carcinogenic Risk [ cited 2021 Jun 21]. Available from: https://www.acdlabs.com/products/percepta/impurities.php.
   Google Scholar
• LAZAR toxicity predictions 2021. [cited 2021 Jun 21]. Available from: https://lazar.in-silico.ch/predict.
   Google Scholar
• Benigni R, Bossa C, Jeliazkova N, et al. The Benigni/Bossa Rulebase for Mutagenicity and Carcinogenicity - A Module of Toxtree. EUR 23241 EN: 2008 JRC43157.
   Google Scholar
• Benfenati E, Manganaro A, Gini G, editors. VEGA-QSAR: AI inside a platform for predictive toxicology. CEUR Workshop Proceedings; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Piegorsch W.W and Zeiger E., Measuring intra-assay agreement for the Ames Salmonella assay; in Rienhoff O. and Lindberg D.A.B., Statistical methods in toxicology, 43: 35-41; 1991; Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg.
   Google Scholar
• Araya S, Lovsin-Barle E, Glowienke S. Mutagenicity assessment strategy for pharmaceutical intermediates to aid limit setting for occupational exposure. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2015;73(2):515–520.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoo JW, Kruhlak NL, Landry C, et al. Development of improved QSAR models for predicting the outcome of the in vivo micronucleus genetic toxicity assay. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2020;113:104620.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsu C-W, Hewes KP, Stavitskaya L, et al. Construction and application of (Q)SAR models to predict chemical-induced in vitro chromosome aberrations. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol Epub 2018/ 10/03. PubMed PMID: 30278198. 2018;99:274–288. .
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baderna D, Gadaleta D, Lostaglio E, et al. New in silico models to predict in vitro micronucleus induction as marker of genotoxicity. J Hazard Mater. 2020;385:121638. Epub 2019/ 11/24.. PubMed PMID: 31757721. .
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EC. Directive 2003/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 February 2003 amending Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products. OffJEurUnion. 2003:(L66):26–35.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. Guidance on grouping of chemicals. Second Edition. Series on Testing & Assessment, No. 194.: OECD; 2014. [cited 2021 Jun]. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/publications/guidance-on-grouping-of-chemicals-second-edition-9789264274679-en.htm.
   Google Scholar
• ECHA. Read-across Assessment Framework (RAAF). Helsinki: ECHA; 2017. [cited 2021 Jun 21]. Available from: https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13628/raaf_en.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Patlewicz G, Helman G, Pradeep P, et al. Navigating through the minefield of read-across tools: a review of in silico tools for grouping. Comput Toxicol. 2017;3:1–18.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Patlewicz G, Fitzpatrick JM. Current and future perspectives on the development, evaluation, and application of in silico approaches for predicting toxicity. Chem Res Toxicol. 2016;29(4):438–451. Epub 2015/ 12/22. PubMed PMID: 26686752.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu S, Blackburn K, Amburgey J, et al. A framework for using structural, reactivity, metabolic and physicochemical similarity to evaluate the suitability of analogs for SAR-based toxicological assessments. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2010;56(1):67–81. Epub 2009/ 09/23. PubMed PMID: 19770017.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madden JC. Tools for Grouping Chemicals and Forming Categories. In: Cronin MT, Madden JC, Enoch SJ, et al., editors. Chemical Toxicity Prediction: category Formation and Read-Across Issues in Toxicology. 17. London: Royal Society of Chemistry; 2013. p. 72–97.
   Google Scholar
• OASIS TIMES [ cited 2021 Jun]. Available from: http://oasis-lmc.org/products/software/times.aspx.
   Google Scholar
• Rathman JF, Yang C, Zhou H. Dempster-Shafer theory for combining in silico evidence and estimating uncertainty in chemical risk assessment. Comput Toxicol. 2018;6:16–31.
   Google Scholar
• Yang C, Tarkhov A, Marusczyk J, et al. New Publicly Available Chemical Query Language, CSRML, To Support Chemotype Representations for Application to Data Mining and Modeling. J Chem Inf Model. 2015;55(3):510–528.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ridder L, Wagener M. SyGMa: combining expert knowledge and empirical scoring in the prediction of metabolites. ChemMedChem. 2008;3(5):821–832. Epub 2008/ 03/04. PubMed PMID: 18311745.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD. Handbook supplement to the Guidance Document for developing and assessing Adverse Outcome Pathways. 2018. doi: 10.1787/5jlv1m9d1g32-en.
   Google Scholar
• Ives C, Campia I, Wang R-L, et al. Creating a structured adverse outcome pathway knowledgebase via ontology-based annotations. PubMed PMID: 30057931 Appl In Vitro Toxicol. 2017;34:298–311.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wittwehr C, Aladjov H, Ankley G, et al. How adverse outcome pathways can aid the development and use of computational prediction models for regulatory toxicology. Toxicol Sci. 2017;155(2):326–336. Epub 2016/ 12/21. PubMed PMID: 27994170; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5340205.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartwig A, Arand M, Epe B, et al. Mode of action-based risk assessment of genotoxic carcinogens. Arch Toxicol. 2020;94(6):1787–1877.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willett C. (2019) The use of Adverse Outcome Pathways to support chemical safety decisions within the context of integrated approaches to testing and assessment (IATA). In Kojima H., Seidle T., and Spielmann H. (Eds), Alternatives to animal testing, pp: 83-90; Springer, Singapore.
   Google Scholar
• Yauk C, Lambert I, Marchetti F, et al. Adverse Outcome Pathway on Alkylation of DNA in Male Pre-Meiotic Germ Cells Leading to Heritable Mutations. 2016. doi: 10.1787/5jlsvvxn1zjc-en.
   Google Scholar
• Marchetti F, Massarotti A, Yauk CL, et al. The adverse outcome pathway (AOP) for chemical binding to tubulin in oocytes leading to aneuploid offspring. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2016;57(2):87–113. Epub 2015/ 11/20. PubMed PMID: 26581746.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yauk CL, Lambert IB, Meek ME, et al. Development of the adverse outcome pathway “alkylation of DNA in male premeiotic germ cells leading to heritable mutations” using the OECD’s users‘ handbook supplement. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2015;56(9):724–750. Epub 2015/ 05/27. PubMed PMID: 26010389.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD. Guidance Document for the Use of Adverse Outcome Pathways in Developing Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment (IATA). ENV/JM/MONO(2016)67. 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Prachi Pradeep RJ, Patlewicz G. Evaluation of the Predictive Accuracy of QSAR Models and Alerts for Genotoxicity Using a Newly Compiled Experimental Dataset. 9th Annual Meeting of the ASCCT. 2020.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. Case Study on Grouping and Read-Across for Nanomaterials — genotoxicity of Nano-TiO2. Series on Testing and Assessment No 292. [cited 2021 Jun]. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=ENV/JM/MONO(2018)28&docLanguage=En.
   Google Scholar
• Case OECD Study on the Use of Integrated Approaches for Testing and Assessment for In Vitro Mutagenicity of 3,3ʹ Dimethoxybenzidine (DMOB) Based Direct Dyes. ENV/JM/MONO(2016)49. [cited 2021 Jun]. Available from: https://one.oecd.org/document/ENV/JM/MONO%282016%2949/en/pdf.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. Report of a Workshop on Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment (IATA). ENV/JM/MONO(2008) 10: OECD Publishing; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Tollefsen KE, Scholz S, Cronin MT, et al. Applying Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOPs) to support Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment (IATA). Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2014;70(3):629–640. PubMed PMID: 25261300.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD. Draft OECD Guideline Defined Approaches for Skin 1Sensitisation. [cited 2021 Jun]. Available from: https://wwwoecdorg/env/ehs/testing/GL%20DASS_22Sep2019v2pdf. 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Petkov PI, Ivanova H, Schultz TW, et al. Criteria for assessing the reliability of toxicity predictions: i. TIMES Ames mutagenicity model. Comput Toxicol. 2021;17:100143.
   Google Scholar
• Blackburn K, Stuard SB. A framework to facilitate consistent characterization of read across uncertainty. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2014;68(3):353–362. Epub 2014/ 01/25. PubMed PMID: 24457134.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schultz TW, Cronin MTD. Lessons learned from read-across case studies for repeated-dose toxicity. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2017;88(1):85–91. Epub 2017/ 06/29. PubMed PMID: 28655656.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. The Adverse Outcome Pathway for Skin Sensitisation Initiated by Covalent Binding to Proteins 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Benigni R, Bossa C, Tcheremenskaia O. A data-based exploration of the adverse outcome pathway for skin sensitization points to the necessary requirements for its prediction with alternative methods. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol Epub 2016/ 04/20. PubMed PMID: 27090483. 2016;78:45–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benigni R, Bossa C, Tcheremenskaia O. Nongenotoxic carcinogenicity of chemicals: mechanisms of action and early recognition through a new set of structural alerts. Chem Rev. 2013;113(5):2940–2957. Epub 2013/ 03/09. PubMed PMID: 23469814.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benigni R, Serafimova R, Parra Morte JM, et al. Evaluation of the applicability of existing (Q)SAR models for predicting the genotoxicity of pesticides and similarity analysis related with genotoxicity of pesticides for facilitating of grouping and read across: an EFSA funded project. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. Epub 2020/ 04/26. PubMed PMID: 32334037. 2020;114:104658. .
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myatt GJ, Ahlberg E, Akahori Y, et al. In silico toxicology protocols. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2018;96:1–17. Epub 2018/ 04/22.. PubMed PMID: 29678766; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6026539. .
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar