IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0020887.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: Defining New Risk Assessment Approaches Based on Perturbation of Intracellular Toxicity Pathways

Author

Listed:
  • Sudin Bhattacharya
  • Qiang Zhang
  • Paul L Carmichael
  • Kim Boekelheide
  • Melvin E Andersen

Abstract

The approaches to quantitatively assessing the health risks of chemical exposure have not changed appreciably in the past 50 to 80 years, the focus remaining on high-dose studies that measure adverse outcomes in homogeneous animal populations. This expensive, low-throughput approach relies on conservative extrapolations to relate animal studies to much lower-dose human exposures and is of questionable relevance to predicting risks to humans at their typical low exposures. It makes little use of a mechanistic understanding of the mode of action by which chemicals perturb biological processes in human cells and tissues. An alternative vision, proposed by the U.S. National Research Council (NRC) report Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy, called for moving away from traditional high-dose animal studies to an approach based on perturbation of cellular responses using well-designed in vitro assays. Central to this vision are (a) “toxicity pathways” (the innate cellular pathways that may be perturbed by chemicals) and (b) the determination of chemical concentration ranges where those perturbations are likely to be excessive, thereby leading to adverse health effects if present for a prolonged duration in an intact organism. In this paper we briefly review the original NRC report and responses to that report over the past 3 years, and discuss how the change in testing might be achieved in the U.S. and in the European Union (EU). EU initiatives in developing alternatives to animal testing of cosmetic ingredients have run very much in parallel with the NRC report. Moving from current practice to the NRC vision would require using prototype toxicity pathways to develop case studies showing the new vision in action. In this vein, we also discuss how the proposed strategy for toxicity testing might be applied to the toxicity pathways associated with DNA damage and repair.

Suggested Citation

  • Sudin Bhattacharya & Qiang Zhang & Paul L Carmichael & Kim Boekelheide & Melvin E Andersen, 2011. "Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: Defining New Risk Assessment Approaches Based on Perturbation of Intracellular Toxicity Pathways," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(6), pages 1-11, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0020887
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020887
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0020887
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0020887&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0020887?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Paulina Vilela & Gabriel Jácome & Wladimir Moya & Pouya Ifaei & Sungku Heo & Changkyoo Yoo, 2023. "A Brief Insight into the Toxicity Conundrum: Modeling, Measuring, Monitoring and Evaluating Ecotoxicity for Water Quality towards Environmental Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-28, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0020887. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.