Integrated Testing Strategies Research Articles

Overcoming Barriers to Validation of Non-animal Partial Replacement Methods/Integrated Testing Strategies: The Report of an EPAA–ECVAM Workshop

The use of Integrated Testing Strategies (ITS) in toxicological hazard identification and characterisation is becoming increasingly common as a method for enabling the integration of diverse types of toxicology data. At present, there are no existing procedures and guidelines for the construction and validation of ITS, so a joint EPAA WG5-ECVAM workshop was held with the following objectives: a) to investigate the role of ITS and the need for validation of ITS in the different industry sectors (pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, chemicals); b) to formulate a common definition of ITS applicable across different sectors; c) to explore how and when Three Rs methods are used within ITS; and d) to propose a validation rationale for ITS and for alternative methods that are foreseen to be used within ITS. The EPAA provided a platform for comparing experiences with ITS across different industry sectors. It became clear that every ITS has to be adapted to the product type, R&D stage, and regulatory context. However, common features of ITS were also identified, and this permitted the formulation of a general definition of ITS in a regulatory context. The definition served as a basis for discussing the needs, rationale and process of formal ITS validation. One of the main conclusions was that a formal validation should not be required, unless the strategy will serve as full replacement of an in vivo study used for regulatory purposes. Finally, several challenges and bottlenecks to the ITS validation were identified, and it was agreed that a roadmap on how to address these barriers would be established by the EPAA partners.

Kinetic glutathione chemoassay—A non-animal component of integrated testing strategies to identify compounds with an electrophilic potential for reactive toxicity

Kinetic glutathione chemoassay—A non-animal component of integrated testing strategies to identify compounds with an electrophilic potential for reactive toxicity

Kinetic Glutathione Chemoassay To Quantify Thiol Reactivity of Organic Electrophiles—Application to α,β-Unsaturated Ketones, Acrylates, and Propiolates

Glutathione (GSH) is a soft nucleophile and, as such, can be used to sense the reactivity of electrophilic agents toward the thiol group and other electron-rich sites of molecular structures. A new kinetic GSH chemoassay is introduced that employs a photometric method to quantify GSH loss and enables an efficient determination of second-order rate constants, k(GSH), of the reaction between electrophilic substances and GSH. Comparison with an existing 2 h static assay shows that the new kinetic variant is superior with respect to the detectable range of electrophilic reactivity and to confounding factors such as additional GSH loss due to oxidation. Analysis of the chemoassay degradation kinetics provides insight into the characteristic reaction times and the contributions of GSH-electrophile Michael addition and GSH oxidation to the overall GSH loss. For 15 alpha,beta-unsaturated ketones, nine acrylates, and two propiolates acting as Michael acceptors, the measured k(GSH) values span ca. 5 orders of magnitude. Moreover, log k(GSH) correlates with the compounds' toxicity toward the ciliates Tetrahymena pyriformis in terms of 48 h log EC(50) (50% growth inhibition) values, yielding a squared correlation coefficient (r(2)) of 0.91 and a root-mean-square error of 0.30 log units. It shows that for these and related compounds, aquatic toxicity is driven by electrophilic reactivity. The findings demonstrate that the kinetic GSH chemoassay can be used as an efficient tool to analyze, interpret, and predict correspondingly reactive toxicity in the context of qualitative and quantitative structure-activity relationship studies and as a nonanimal tool of integrated testing strategies for REACH to screen compounds for excess toxicity.

An Integrated Decision-tree Testing Strategy for Eye Irritation with Respect to the Requirements of the EU REACH Legislation

This paper presents some results of a joint research project, sponsored by Defra and conducted by FRAME and Liverpool John Moores University, on the status of alternatives to animal testing with regard to the European Union REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) system for the safety testing and risk assessment of chemicals. The project covered all the main toxicity endpoints associated with REACH. This paper focuses on the use of alternative (non-animal) methods (both in vitro and in silico) for eye irritation testing. The manuscript reviews numerous in vitro tests and their possible collation into test batteries, in silico models and a refined in vivo method (the low volume eye test), before combining the use of all these methods into an integrated testing strategy. The aim of this strategy is a reduction in the number of animal tests which would need to be performed in the process of fulfilling the REACH system criteria; this would also lead to a lowering of the number of animals required in compliance with the REACH system requirements.

An Integrated Decision-tree Testing Strategy for Repeat Dose Toxicity with Respect to the Requirements of the EU REACH Legislation

This paper presents some results of a joint research project conducted by FRAME and Liverpool John Moores University, and sponsored by Defra, on the status of alternatives to animal testing with regard to the European Union REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) system for the safety testing and risk assessment of chemicals. The project covered all the main toxicity endpoints associated with REACH. This paper focuses on the use of alternative (non-animal) methods (both in vitro and in silico) for repeat dose (sub-acute, sub-chronic and chronic) toxicity testing. It reviews the limited number of in silico and in vitro tests available for this endpoint, and outlines new technologies which could be used in the future, e.g. the use of biomarkers and the 'omics' technologies. An integrated testing strategy is proposed, which makes use of as much non-animal data as possible, before any essential in vivo studies are performed. Although none of the non-animal tests are currently undergoing validation, their results could help to reduce the number of animals required for testing for repeat dose toxicity.

Integrated Decision-tree Testing Strategies for Acute Systemic Toxicity and Toxicokinetics with Respect to the Requirements of the EU REACH Legislation

Liverpool John Moores University and FRAME conducted a joint research project, sponsored by Defra, on the status of alternatives to animal testing with regard to the European Union REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) system for the safety testing and risk assessment of chemicals. The project covered all the main toxicity endpoints associated with REACH. This paper focuses on the use of alternative (non-animal) methods (both in vitro and in silico) for acute systemic toxicity and toxicokinetic testing. The paper reviews in vitro tests based on basal cytotoxicity and target organ toxicity, along with QSAR models and expert systems available for this endpoint. The use of PBPK modelling for the prediction of ADME properties is also discussed. These tests are then incorporated into a decision-tree style, integrated testing strategy, which also includes the use of refined in vivo acute toxicity tests, as a last resort. The implementation of the strategy is intended to minimise the use of animals in the testing of acute systemic toxicity and toxicokinetics, whilst satisfying the scientific and logistical demands of the EU REACH legislation.

Integrated Testing Strategies for Use with Respect to the Requirements of the EU REACH Legislation

Integrated testing strategies have been proposed to facilitate the process of chemicals risk assessment to fulfil the requirements of the proposed EU REACH system. Here, we present individual, decision-tree style, strategies for the eleven major toxicity endpoints of the REACH system, including human health effects and ecotoxicity. These strategies make maximum use of non-animal approaches to hazard identification, before resorting to traditional animal test methods. Each scheme: a) comprises a mixture of validated and non-validated assays (distinguished in the schemes); and b) decision points at key stages to allow the cessation of further testing, should it be possible to use the available information to classify and label and/or undertake risk assessment. The rationale and scientific justification for each of the schemes, with respect to the validation status of the tests involved and their individual advantages and limitations, will be discussed in detail in a series of future publications.

An Integrated Decision-tree Testing Strategy for Skin Sensitisation with Respect to the Requirements of the EU REACH Legislation

This report presents some of the results of a joint research project, sponsored by Defra and conducted by FRAME and Liverpool John Moores University, on the status of alternatives to animal testing with regard to the European Union REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) system for the safety testing and risk assessment of chemicals. The project covered all the main toxicity endpoints associated with the REACH system. This report focuses on the use of alternative (non-animal) methods (both in vitro and in silico) for skin sensitisation testing. The manuscript reviews in vitro tests based on protein-ligand binding, dendritic/Langerhans cells and T-lymphocyte activation, and also the QSAR models and expert systems available for this endpoint. These tests are then incorporated into an integrated, decision-tree testing strategy, which also includes the Local Lymph Node Assay (in its original and new reduced protocols) and the traditional guinea-pig tests (which should only be used as a last resort). The aim of the strategy is to minimise the use of animals in testing for skin sensitisation, while satisfying the scientific and logistical demands of the EU REACH legislation.

Development of Integrated Testing Strategies for REACH: Motivation, Background and Introduction

Development of Integrated Testing Strategies for REACH: Motivation, Background and Introduction

Integrated Decision-tree Testing Strategies for Environmental Toxicity with Respect to the Requirements of the EU REACH Legislation

Liverpool John Moores University and FRAME recently conducted a research project sponsored by Defra on the status of alternatives to animal testing with regard to the European Union REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) system for safety testing and risk assessment of chemicals. The project covered all the main toxicity endpoints associated with the REACH system. This paper focuses on the prospects for using alternative methods (both in vitro and in silico) for environmental (aquatic) toxicity testing. The manuscript reviews tests based on fish cells and cell lines, fish embryos, lower organisms, and the many expert systems and QSARs for aquatic toxicity testing. Ways in which reduction and refinement measures can be used are also discussed, including the Upper Threshold Concentration--Step Down (UTC) approach, which has recently been retrospectively validated by ECVAM and subsequently endorsed by the ECVAM Scientific Advisory Committee (ESAC). It is hoped that the application of this approach could reduce the number of fish used in acute toxicity studies by around 65-70%. Decision-tree style integrated testing strategies are also proposed for acute aquatic toxicity and chronic toxicity (including bioaccumulation), followed by a number of recommendations for the future facilitation of aquatic toxicity testing with respect to environmental risk assessment.

Integrated Decision-tree Testing Strategies for Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity with Respect to the Requirements of the EU REACH Legislation

Liverpool John Moores University and FRAME conducted a research project, sponsored by Defra, on the status of alternatives to animal testing with regard to the European Union REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) system for the safety testing and risk assessment of chemicals. The project covered all the main toxicity endpoints associated with the REACH system. This paper focuses on the prospects for the use of alternative methods (both in vitro and in silico) in developmental and reproductive toxicity testing. It considers many tests based on primary cells and cell lines, and the available expert systems and QSARs for developmental and reproductive toxicity, and also covers tests for endocrine disruption. Ways in which reduction and refinement measures can be used are also discussed, particularly the use of an enhanced one-generation reproductive study, which could potentially replace the two-generation study, and therefore considerably reduce the number of animals required in reproductive toxicity. Decision-tree style integrated testing strategies are also proposed for developmental and reproductive toxicity and for endocrine disruption, followed by a number of recommendations for the future facilitation of developmental and reproductive toxicity testing, with respect to human risk assessment.

Integrated testing and intelligent assessment—new challenges under REACH

Due to a number of drawbacks associated with the previous regime for the assessment of new and existing chemicals, the European Union established a new regulation concerning the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH). All relevant industrial chemicals must now be assessed. Instead of the authorities, industry itself is responsible for the risk assessment. To achieve better and more efficient assessments while reducing animal testing, all information-standard, non-standard and non-testing-has to be used in an integrated manner. To meet these challenges, the current technical guidance documents for risk assessment of new and existing chemicals had to be updated and extended considerably. This was done by experts in a number of REACH Implementation Projects. This paper presents the most relevant results of the expert Endpoint Working Group on Aquatic Toxicity in order to illustrate the change of paradigm in the future assessment of hazards to the aquatic environment by chemical substances. REACH sets certain minimum data requirements in order to achieve a high level of protection for human health and the environment. It encourages the assessor to use alternative information instead of or in addition to standard one. This information has to be equivalent to the standard information requirement and adequate to draw overall conclusions with respect to the regulatory endpoints classification and labelling, persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) assessment and predicted no-effect concentrations (PNEC) derivation. The main task of the expert working group was to develop guidance on how to evaluate the toxicity of a substance based on integration of information from different sources and of various degrees of uncertainty in a weight of evidence approach. In order to verify the equivalence and adequacy of different types of information, a flexible sequence of steps was proposed, covering characterisation of the substance, analysis of modes of action, identification of possible analogues, evaluation of existing in vivo and in vitro testing data as well as of QSAR results. Finally, all available data from the different steps have to be integrated to come to an overall conclusion on the toxicity of the substance. This weight of evidence approach is the basis for the development of integrated testing strategies (ITS), in that the available evidence can help to determine subsequent testing steps and is essential for an optimal assessment. Its flexibility helps to meet the different requirements for drawing conclusions on the endpoints classification and labelling, PNEC derivation as well as PBT assessment. The integration of all kinds of additional information in a multi-criteria assessment reduces the uncertainties involved with extrapolation to the ecosystem level. The weight of evidence approach is illustrated by practical examples. REACH leads to higher challenges in order to make sound decisions with fewer resources, i.e. to move away from extensive standard testing to an intelligent substance-tailored approach. Expert judgement and integrated thinking are key elements of the weight of evidence concept and ITS, potentially leading to better risk assessments. Important sub-lethal effects such as endocrine disruption, which are not covered by the current procedure, can be considered. Conclusions have to be fully substantiated: Risk communication will be an important aspect of future assessments.

Development of an in vitro test battery for assessing chemical effects on bovine germ cells under the ReProTect umbrella

Current European legislation for the registration and authorisation of chemicals (REACH) will require a dramatic increase in the use of animals for reproductive toxicity testing. Since one objective of REACH is to use vertebrates only as last resort, the development and validation of alternative methods is urgently needed. For this purpose ReProTect, an integrated research project funded by the European Union, joining together 33 partners with complementary expertise in reproductive toxicology, was designed. The study presented here describes a battery of two tests developed within ReProTect. The objective of these tests is the detection of chemical effects during the processes of oocyte maturation and fertilisation in a bovine model. The corresponding toxicological endpoints are the reaching of metaphase II and the formation of the pronuclei respectively. Fifteen chemicals have been tested (Benzo[a]pyrene, Busulfan, Butylparaben, Cadmium Chloride, Carbendazim, Cycloheximide, Diethylstilbestrol, Genistein, Ionomycin, Ketoconazole, Lindane, Methylacetoacetate, Mifepristone, Nocodazole and DMSO as solvent) demonstrating high intra-laboratory reproducibility of the tests. Furthermore, the responses obtained in both tests, for several substances, had a good correlation with the available in vivo and in vitro data. These tests therefore, could predictably become part of an integrated testing strategy that combines the bovine models with additional in vitro tests, in order to predict chemical hazards on mammalian fertility.

Alternative Test Models: Ocular Safety Assays Accepted

In a significant step forward for alternative safety test methods designed to reduce, refine, or replace the use of live test animals, the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) recently announced the regulatory acceptance of two new in vitro ocular safety assays by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, and Consumer Product Safety Commission. The acceptance was based on recommendations made by ICCVAM after an extensive evaluation of the methods. The United States tallies an estimated 125,000 eye injuries in the home each year caused by accidental exposure to common household products such as bleach and oven cleaner, according to the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Proper identification and labeling of substances that can damage the eye is one way to combat such injuries. Several agencies require manufacturers to test new products for their potential to cause temporary or permanent blindness, irritation, or other eye injuries. Working with the National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM), ICCVAM evaluated and recommended the bovine corneal opacity and permeability (BCOP) and the isolated chicken eye (ICE) test methods—the first nonanimal ocular safety test methods to be accepted by the regulators. In both cases, the animal eyes used for the tests are slaughterhouse waste, so no animals are euthanized specifically to obtain these tissues. The assays have been in development since the early 1990s. Now that the BCOP and ICE assays have earned regulatory acceptance, they must be considered as the first option for ocular safety testing under the Animal Welfare Act, which requires the consideration of alternative methods before animals are used for procedures that may cause more than slight or momentary pain or distress. “If you get a positive result in either of these assays, you can use that as a positive for the purposes of classifying and labeling [a material] as a severe irritant,” says Marilyn Wind, chair of ICCVAM and a deputy associate executive director with the Consumer Product Safety Commission. “If it’s negative, then [manufacturers] have to go to the next step and test in animals. This eliminates the most corrosive and severe chemicals from having to be tested in animals, so there is a reduction in potential pain and distress.” Although precise numbers are not available for the use of live animals in ocular testing, William Stokes, director of NICEATM and executive director of ICCVAM, estimates that based on the relative distribution of adverse effects, use of the two assays could reduce the use of live animals for eye safety testing by 10% or more. “The overall goal is to come up with an integrated testing strategy using several nonanimal tests that will accurately predict whether chemical products have the potential to damage the eye or not,” he says. ICCVAM and NICEATM are in the process of evaluating other in vitro methods for ocular safety, hoping to eventually eliminate altogether the need for in vivo testing in this realm. In the near term, ICCVAM is working with its counterparts in Europe and Japan to expedite approval of the BCOP and ICE assays at the international level by the 30-member Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. This group includes the United States, Canada, Japan, and most of the European Union, where a ban on live animal testing of cosmetic ingredients takes effect in March 2009 and the newly implemented REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemical Substances) legislation will require testing of thousands of chemicals by 2018.

Heuristics for the Identification of Class Integration Order in Object-Oriented Software Testing


 
 
 Dependency cycles among components (classes) represent a practical challenge when identifying the class integration order in object-oriented software testing. Classical approaches, such as “top-down” or “bottom-up” integration (or their combination) become less useful due to their acyclic characteristics. Some OO integration testing strategies explore the principle of breaking these dependency cycles, but broken dependencies imply that the target class will have to be stubbed when integrating and testing the source class, which increases the testing effort. This paper describes an integration testing strategy that guides software engineers to identify the class integration order with the minimum number of implemented stubs. This strategy can be directly applied to high level OO design (UML class) diagrams allowing the reduction of extra construction efforts related to additional classes needed in other strategies. The results from experimental studies have indicated its feasibility and effectiveness. The use of such integration testing strategy can be supported by a case tool, also described in this
 paper.
 
 

A feasibility study developing an integrated testing strategy assessing skin irritation potential of chemicals

The regulatory assessment of chemical safety is still driven by hazard testing in animals. The Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of Chemicals (REACH) legislation and new technologies require a shift in the way in which safety assessments are conducted. Integrated testing strategies (ITSs) help in providing such a framework. Many of the ITS building blocks are already in use, but the concepts for their integration and application in a regulatory setting have yet to be fully implemented. This paper describes a feasibility study investigating how a combination of in silico, in vitro, and in vivo information could be applied in the assessment of skin irritation hazard. Therefore, a database of 100 existing and new chemicals was compiled. A number of strategies, both animal-free and inclusive of animal data were constructed and subsequently evaluated considering predictive capacities, severity of misclassifications and testing costs. Comparison of constructed ITS based on these assessment parameters identified best performing strategies for chemical classification. However, defining the in vivo test as the reference test limited the evaluation of the ITS inclusive of animal data. This study demonstrated that ITS can be constructed, evaluated and compared in a systematic fashion. To promote ITS, further guidance on construction and multi-parameter evaluation need to be developed.

Alternative methods to safety studies in experimental animals: role in the risk assessment of chemicals under the new European Chemicals Legislation (REACH)

During the last two decades, substantial efforts have been made towards the development and international acceptance of alternative methods to safety studies using laboratory animals. In the EU, challenging timelines for phasing out of many standard tests using laboratory animals were established in the seventh Amending Directive 2003/15/EC to Cosmetics Directive 76/768/EEC. In continuation of this policy, the new European Chemicals Legislation (REACH) favours alternative methods to conventional in vivo testing, if validated and appropriate. Even alternative methods in the status of prevalidation or validation, but without scientific or regulatory acceptance may be used under certain conditions. Considerable progress in the establishment of alternative methods has been made in some fields, in particular with respect to methods predicting local toxic effects and genotoxicity. In more complex important fields of safety and risk assessment such as systemic single and repeated dose toxicity, toxicokinetics, sensitisation, reproductive toxicity and carcinogenicity, it is expected that the development and validation of in silico methods, testing batteries (in vitro and in silico) and tiered testing systems will have to overcome many scientific and regulatory obstacles which makes it extremely difficult to predict the outcome and the time needed. The main reasons are the complexity and limited knowledge of the biological processes involved on one hand and the long time frame until validation and regulatory acceptance of an alternative method on the other. New approaches in safety testing and evaluation using "Integrated Testing Strategies" (ITS) (including combinations of existing data, the use of chemical categories/grouping, in vitro tests and QSAR) that have not been validated or not gained wide acceptance in the scientific community and by regulatory authorities will need a thorough justification of their appropriateness for a given purpose. This requires the availability of knowledge and experience of experts in toxicology. The challenging deadlines for phasing out of in vivo tests in the Cosmetics Amending Directive 2003/15/EC appear unrealistic. Likewise, we expect that the application of validated alternative methods will only have a small or moderate impact on the reduction of in vivo tests under the regimen of REACH, provided that at least the same level of protection of human health as in the past is envisaged. As a consequence, under safety aspects, it appears wise to consider established in vivo tests to be indispensable as basic tools for hazard and risk assessment with respect to systemic single and repeated dose toxicity, sensitisation, carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity, especially regarding quantitative aspects of risk assessment such as NOAELs, LOAELs and health-related limit values derived from them. Based on the overall evaluation in this review, the authors are of the opinion that in the short- and mid-term, the strategy of the development of alternative methods should be more directed towards the refinement or reduction of in vivo tests. The lessons learnt during these efforts will provide a substantial contribution towards the replacement initiatives in the long-term.

An Integrated Decision-tree Testing Strategy for Repeat Dose Toxicity with Respect to the Requirements of the EU REACH Legislation

This paper presents some results of a joint research project conducted by FRAME and Liverpool John Moores University, and sponsored by Defra, on the status of alternatives to animal testing with regard to the European Union REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) system for the safety testing and risk assessment of chemicals. The project covered all the main toxicity endpoints associated with REACH. This paper focuses on the use of alternative (non-animal) methods (both in vitro and in silico) for repeat dose (sub-acute, sub-chronic and chronic) toxicity testing. It reviews the limited number of in silico and in vitro tests available for this endpoint, and outlines new technologies which could be used in the future, e.g. the use of biomarkers and the 'omics' technologies. An integrated testing strategy is proposed, which makes use of as much non-animal data as possible, before any essential in vivo studies are performed. Although none of the non-animal tests are currently undergoing validation, their results could help to reduce the number of animals required for testing for repeat dose toxicity.

An Integrated Decision-tree Testing Strategy for Eye Irritation with Respect to the Requirements of the EU REACH Legislation

This paper presents some results of a joint research project, sponsored by Defra and conducted by FRAME and Liverpool John Moores University, on the status of alternatives to animal testing with regard to the European Union REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) system for the safety testing and risk assessment of chemicals. The project covered all the main toxicity endpoints associated with REACH. This paper focuses on the use of alternative (non-animal) methods (both in vitro and in silico) for eye irritation testing. The manuscript reviews numerous in vitro tests and their possible collation into test batteries, in silico models and a refined in vivo method (the low volume eye test), before combining the use of all these methods into an integrated testing strategy. The aim of this strategy is a reduction in the number animal tests which would need to be performed in the process of fulfilling the REACH system criteria; this would also lead to a lowering of the number of animals required in compliance with the REACH system requirements.

Integrated Decision-tree Testing Strategies for Acute Systemic Toxicity and Toxicokinetics with Respect to the Requirements of the EU REACH Legislation

Liverpool John Moores University and FRAME conducted a joint research project, sponsored by Defra, on the status of alternatives to animal testing with regard to the European Union REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) system for the safety testing and risk assessment of chemicals. The project covered all the main toxicity endpoints associated with REACH. This paper focuses on the use of alternative (non-animal) methods (both in vitro and in silico) for acute systemic toxicity and toxicokinetic testing. The paper reviews in vitro tests based on basal cytotoxicity and target organ toxicity, along with QSAR models and expert systems available for this endpoint. The use of PBPK modelling for the prediction of ADME properties is also discussed. These tests are then incorporated into a decision-tree style, integrated testing strategy, which also includes the use of refined in vivo acute toxicity tests, as a last resort. The implementation of the strategy is intended to minimise the use of animals in the testing of acute systemic toxicity and toxicokinetics, whilst satisfying the scientific and logistical demands of the EU REACH legislation.