DuPont Haskell Global Centers for Health and Environmental Sciences, Newark, USA.
SAR QSAR Environ Res. 2011 Mar;22(1-2):67-88. doi: 10.1080/1062936X.2010.528448.
Legislation such as REACH strongly advocates the use of alternative approaches including in vitro, (Q)SARs, and chemical categories as a means to satisfy the information requirements for risk assessment. One of the most promising alternative approaches is that of chemical categories, where the underlying hypothesis is that the compounds within the category are similar and therefore should have similar biological activities. The challenge lies in characterizing the chemicals, understanding the mode/mechanism of action for the activity of interest and deriving a way of relating these together to form inferences about the likely activity outcomes. (Q)SARs are underpinned by the same hypothesis but are packaged in a more formalized manner. Since the publication of the White Paper for REACH, there have been a number of efforts aimed at developing tools, approaches and techniques for (Q)SARs and read-across for regulatory purposes. While technical guidance is available, there still remains little practical guidance about how these approaches can or should be applied in either the evaluation of existing (Q)SARs or in the formation of robust categories. Here we provide a perspective of how some of these approaches have been utilized to address our in-house REACH requirements.
立法，如 REACH 强烈主张使用替代方法，包括在体外，（Q）SARs 和化学分类，作为满足风险评估信息要求的手段。最有前途的替代方法之一是化学分类方法，其基本假设是类别内的化合物是相似的，因此应该具有相似的生物学活性。挑战在于描述化学物质的特征，理解感兴趣的活性的作用模式/机制，并找到一种将它们联系起来的方法，以对可能的活性结果形成推断。（Q）SARs 基于相同的假设，但以更形式化的方式包装。自 REACH 白皮书发布以来，已经有许多旨在为监管目的开发（Q）SARs 和读框工具、方法和技术的努力。虽然有技术指南，但关于如何在评估现有（Q）SARs 或形成稳健的类别中应用这些方法，仍然几乎没有实际指导。在这里，我们提供了一些如何利用这些方法来满足我们内部 REACH 要求的观点。
