Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28958911›Full record

ReviewRegulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP2017

Applying 'omics technologies in chemicals risk assessment: Report of an ECETOC workshop.

Roland Buesen, Brian N Chorley, Beatriz da Silva Lima, George Daston, Lize Deferme, Timothy Ebbels, Timothy W Gant, Amber Goetz, John Greally, Laura Gribaldo and 24 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. New approach methodologies: A quantitative in vitro to in vivo extrapolation case study with PFASs.Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association · 2023
    Article
  18. Review
  19. From vision toward best practices: EvaluatingFrontiers in toxicology · 2023
    Article
  20. The use of NAMs and omics data in risk assessment.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

34 authors.

Roland BuesenBASF SE, Germany.
Brian N ChorleyU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, USA.
Beatriz da Silva LimaiMED.Ulisboa and Faculty of Pharmacy, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal.
George DastonProcter and Gamble, USA.
Lize DefermeExxonMobil Petroleum and Chemical, Belgium.
Timothy EbbelsComputational and Systems Medicine, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, United Kingdom.
Timothy W GantCentre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards (CRCE), Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Public Health England (PHE), United Kingdom.
Amber GoetzSyngenta Crop Protection LLC, USA.
John GreallyAlbert Einstein College of Medicine, Yeshiva University, USA.
Laura GribaldoEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre, European Reference Laboratory for Alternatives to Animal Testing (EURL ECVAM), Italy.
Jörg HackermüllerDepartment of Molecular Systems Biology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Germany.
Bruno HubeschHubesch Consult BVBA, Belgium.
Danyel JennenDepartment of Toxicogenomics, GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, The Netherlands.
Kamin JohnsonDow Chemical Company, USA.
Jun KannoJapan Organization of Occupational Health and Safety, Japan.
Hans-Martin KauffmannBASF SE, Germany.
Madeleine LaffontEuropean Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC), Belgium.
Patrick McMullenScitoVation, USA.
Richard MeehanMRC Human Genetics Unit, IGMM, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom.
Mark PembertonSystox Ltd., United Kingdom.
Stefania PerdichizziCenter for Environmental Toxicology, Agency for Prevention, Environment and Energy (Arpae), Emilia-Romagna, Italy.
Aldert H PiersmaNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), The Netherlands; IRAS Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, The Netherlands.
Ursula G SauerScientific Consultancy - Animal Welfare, Germany.
Kerstin SchmidtBioMath GmbH, Germany.
Hervé SeitzInstitut de Génétique Humain (IGH), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - National Centre of Scientific Research (CNRS), France.
Kayo SumidaSumitomo Chemical Co. Ltd., Japan.
Knut E TollefsenNorwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA), Norway.
Weida TongNational Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR), U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), USA.
Tewes TralauDepartment of Chemical and Product Safety, German Federal Institute of Risk Assessment (BfR), Germany.
Ben van RavenzwaayBASF SE, Germany.
Ralf J M WeberPhenome Centre Birmingham, School of Biosciences, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Andrew WorthEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre, European Reference Laboratory for Alternatives to Animal Testing (EURL ECVAM), Italy.
Carole YaukEnvironmental Health Science and Research Bureau, Health Canada, Canada.
Alan PooleEuropean Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC), Belgium. Electronic address: alan.poole@ecetoc.org.

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999Medical Research Council MC_PC_U127574433Medical Research Council MR/K018310/1Medical Research Council MR/M009157/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prevailing knowledge gaps in linking specific molecular changes to apical outcomes and methodological uncertainties in the generation, storage, processing, and interpretation of 'omics data limit the application of 'omics technologies in regulatory toxicology. Against this background, the European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC) convened a workshop Applying 'omics technologies in chemicals risk assessment that is reported herein. Ahead of the workshop, multi-expert teams drafted frameworks on best practices for (i) a Good-Laboratory Practice-like context for collecting, storing and curating 'omics data; (ii) the processing of 'omics data; and (iii) weight-of-evidence approaches for integrating 'omics data. The workshop participants confirmed the relevance of these Frameworks to facilitate the regulatory applicability and use of 'omics data, and the workshop discussions provided input for their further elaboration. Additionally, the key objective (iv) to establish approaches to connect 'omics perturbations to phenotypic alterations was addressed. Generally, it was considered promising to strive to link gene expression changes and pathway perturbations to the phenotype by mapping them to specific adverse outcome pathways. While further work is necessary before gene expression changes can be used to establish safe levels of substance exposure, the ECETOC workshop provided important incentives towards achieving this goal.

Indexed as

Congresses as TopicResearch ReportAnimalsEcotoxicologyEducationEuropeGenomicsHumansMetabolomicsProteomicsRisk AssessmentSpainAdverse outcome pathway (AOP)Differentially expressed genesGene expressionGood laboratory practice (GLP)MetabolomicsMode-of-action (MoA)Regulatory toxicologyTranscriptomicsWeight-of-evidence (WoE)

Identifiers

PMID28958911
PMCPMC6816021

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.