KREATiS SAS, L'Isle D'Abeau, France.
Integr Environ Assess Manag. 2019 Jan;15(1):40-50. doi: 10.1002/ieam.4108.
In silico methods are typically underrated in the current risk assessment paradigm, as evidenced by the recent document from the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) on animal alternatives, in which quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSARs) were practically used only as a last resort. Their primary use is still to provide supporting evidence for read-across strategies or to add credence to experimental results of unknown or limited validity (old studies, studies without good laboratory practices [GLPs], limited information reported, etc.) in hazard assessment, but under the pressure of increasing burdens of testing, industry and regulators alike are at last warming to them. Nevertheless, their true potential for data-gap filling and for resolving sticking points in risk assessment methodology and beyond has yet to be recognized. We postulate that it is possible to go beyond the level of simply increasing confidence to the point of using in silico approaches to accurately predict results that cannot be resolved analytically. For example, under certain conditions it is possible to obtain meaningful results by in silico extrapolation for tests that would be technically impossible to conduct in the laboratory or at least extremely challenging to obtain reliable results. The following and other concepts are explored in this article: the mechanism of action (MechoA) of the substance should be determined, as an aid verifying that the QSAR model is applicable to the substance under review; accurate QSARs should be built with high-quality data that were not only curated but also validated with expert judgment; although a rule of thumb for acute to chronic ratios appears applicable for nonpolar narcotics, it seems unlikely that a "one-value-fits-all" answer exists for other MechoAs; a holistic approach to QSARs can be employed (via reverse engineering) to help validate or invalidate an experimental endpoint value on the basis of multiple experimental studies. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2019;15:40-50. © 2018 SETAC.
在当前的风险评估范式中,计算方法通常被低估,欧洲化学品管理局(ECHA)最近关于动物替代方法的文件就是明证,其中定量构效关系(QSAR)实际上仅被用作最后的手段。它们的主要用途仍然是为同源类推策略提供支持证据,或者在危害评估中为未知或有效性有限(旧研究、没有良好实验室规范 [GLP] 的研究、报告的信息有限等)的实验结果增加可信度,但在测试负担不断增加的压力下,工业界和监管机构终于开始对它们感兴趣。然而,它们在填补数据空白以及解决风险评估方法和其他方面的难点方面的真正潜力尚未得到认可。我们假设,有可能超越仅仅增加信心的水平,利用计算方法准确预测无法通过分析解决的结果。例如,在某些条件下,通过计算外推可以获得有意义的结果,而这些测试在实验室中进行在技术上是不可能的,或者至少很难获得可靠的结果。本文探讨了以下和其他概念:应确定物质的作用机制(MechoA),作为辅助验证 QSAR 模型是否适用于正在审查的物质;应使用高质量数据构建准确的 QSAR,这些数据不仅经过策展,而且还经过专家判断验证;虽然对于非极性麻醉品,急性到慢性的比值规则似乎适用,但对于其他 MechoA,似乎不太可能存在“一刀切”的答案;可以采用整体 QSAR 方法(通过逆向工程),根据多项实验研究来帮助验证或否定实验终点值。《综合环境评估与管理》2019 年;15:40-50. © 2018 SETAC。