Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32450889›Full record

ReviewParticle and fibre toxicology2020

Adverse outcome pathways as a tool for the design of testing strategies to support the safety assessment of emerging advanced materials at the nanoscale.

Sabina Halappanavar, Sybille van den Brule, Penny Nymark, Laurent Gaté, Carole Seidel, Sarah Valentino, Vadim Zhernovkov, Pernille Høgh Danielsen, Andrea De Vizcaya, Henrik Wolff and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Particle and fibre toxicology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 90 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
90citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
12.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

90 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 254 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

30 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

15 authors at 8 institutions in 9 countries.

Sabina HalappanavarEnvironmental Health Science and Research Bureau, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. sabina.halappanavar@canada.ca.
Sybille van den BruleLouvain centre for Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Penny NymarkInstitute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Laurent GatéInstitut National de Recherche et de Sécurité, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France.
Carole SeidelInstitut National de Recherche et de Sécurité, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France.
Sarah ValentinoInstitut National de Recherche et de Sécurité, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France.
Vadim ZhernovkovSystems Biology Ireland, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland.
Pernille Høgh DanielsenNational Research Centre for the Working Environment, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.
Andrea De VizcayaDepartamento de Toxicologia, CINVESTAV-IPN, Ciudad de México, Mexico.
Henrik WolffFinnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland.
Tobias StögerResearch Center for Environmental Health (GmbH), Neuherberg, Germany.
Andrey BoyadzievEnvironmental Health Science and Research Bureau, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Sarah Søs PoulsenNational Research Centre for the Working Environment, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.
Jorid Birkelund SørliNational Research Centre for the Working Environment, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.
Ulla VogelNational Research Centre for the Working Environment, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark. ubv@nrcwe.dk.
National Research Centre for the Working Environment · DKHealth Canada · CAInstitut National de Recherche et de Sécurité · FRFinnish Institute of Occupational Health · FIGerman Center for Lung Research · DEKarolinska Institutet · SEUCLouvain · BEUniversity College Dublin · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Toxicity testing and regulation of advanced materials at the nanoscale, i.e. nanosafety, is challenged by the growing number of nanomaterials and their property variants requiring assessment for potential human health impacts. The existing animal-reliant toxicity testing tools are onerous in terms of time and resources and are less and less in line with the international effort to reduce animal experiments. Thus, there is a need for faster, cheaper, sensitive and effective animal alternatives that are supported by mechanistic evidence. More importantly, there is an urgency for developing alternative testing strategies that help justify the strategic prioritization of testing or targeting the most apparent adverse outcomes, selection of specific endpoints and assays and identifying nanomaterials of high concern. The Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) framework is a systematic process that uses the available mechanistic information concerning a toxicological response and describes causal or mechanistic linkages between a molecular initiating event, a series of intermediate key events and the adverse outcome. The AOP framework provides pragmatic insights to promote the development of alternative testing strategies. This review will detail a brief overview of the AOP framework and its application to nanotoxicology, tools for developing AOPs and the role of toxicogenomics, and summarize various AOPs of relevance to inhalation toxicity of nanomaterials that are currently under various stages of development. The review also presents a network of AOPs derived from connecting all AOPs, which shows that several adverse outcomes induced by nanomaterials originate from a molecular initiating event that describes the interaction of nanomaterials with lung cells and involve similar intermediate key events. Finally, using the example of an established AOP for lung fibrosis, the review will discuss various in vitro tests available for assessing lung fibrosis and how the information can be used to support a tiered testing strategy for lung fibrosis. The AOPs and AOP network enable deeper understanding of mechanisms involved in inhalation toxicity of nanomaterials and provide a strategy for the development of alternative test methods for hazard and risk assessment of nanomaterials.

Indexed as

Adverse Outcome PathwaysAnimal Testing AlternativesResearch DesignAnimalsHumansNanostructuresToxicity TestsAcute inhalation toxicityAdverse outcome pathway networksAtherosclerotic plaque formationLung cancerLung emphysemaLung fibrosisNanosafetyNanotoxicologyNovel alternative methodsOccupational hazardsToxicogenomics

Identifiers

PMID32450889
PMCPMC7249325
OpenAlexW3032195143

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.