Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40547594›Full record

ArticleComputational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2024

Development of chemical categories for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and the proof-of-concept approach to the identification of potential candidates for tiered toxicological testing and human health assessment.

G Patlewicz, R S Judson, A J Williams, T Butler, S Barone, K E Carstens, J Cowden, J L Dawson, S J Degitz, K Fay and 9 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Computational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

19 authors.

G PatlewiczCenter for Computational Toxicology & Exposure (CCTE), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC 27709, USA.
R S JudsonCenter for Computational Toxicology & Exposure (CCTE), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC 27709, USA.
A J WilliamsCenter for Computational Toxicology & Exposure (CCTE), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC 27709, USA.
T ButlerOffice of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OSCPP), US Environmental Protection Agency, DC, USA.
S BaroneOffice of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OSCPP), US Environmental Protection Agency, DC, USA.
K E CarstensCenter for Computational Toxicology & Exposure (CCTE), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC 27709, USA.
J CowdenCenter for Computational Toxicology & Exposure (CCTE), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC 27709, USA.
J L DawsonOffice of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OSCPP), US Environmental Protection Agency, DC, USA.
S J DegitzCenter for Computational Toxicology & Exposure (CCTE), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC 27709, USA.
K FayOffice of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OSCPP), US Environmental Protection Agency, DC, USA.
T R HenryOffice of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OSCPP), US Environmental Protection Agency, DC, USA.
A LowitOffice of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OSCPP), US Environmental Protection Agency, DC, USA.
S PadillaCenter for Computational Toxicology & Exposure (CCTE), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC 27709, USA.
K Paul FriedmanCenter for Computational Toxicology & Exposure (CCTE), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC 27709, USA.
M B PhillipsOffice of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OSCPP), US Environmental Protection Agency, DC, USA.
D TurkOffice of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OSCPP), US Environmental Protection Agency, DC, USA.
J F WambaughCenter for Computational Toxicology & Exposure (CCTE), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC 27709, USA.
B A WetmoreCenter for Computational Toxicology & Exposure (CCTE), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC 27709, USA.
R S ThomasCenter for Computational Toxicology & Exposure (CCTE), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC 27709, USA.

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a class of manufactured chemicals that are in widespread use and many present concerns for persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity. Whilst a handful of PFAS have been characterized for their hazard profiles, the vast majority have not been extensively studied. Herein, a chemical category approach was developed and applied to PFAS that could be readily characterized by a chemical structure. The PFAS definition as described in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 8(a)(7) rule was applied to the Distributed Structure-Searchable Toxicity (DSSTox) database to retrieve an initial list of 13,054 PFAS. Plausible degradation products from the 563 PFAS on the non-confidential TSCA Inventory were simulated using the Catalogic expert system, and the unique predicted PFAS degradants (2484) that conformed to the same PFAS definition were added to the list resulting in a set of 15,538 PFAS. Each PFAS was then assigned into a primary category using Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) structure-based classifications. The primary categories were subdivided into secondary categories based on a chain length threshold (>=7 vs < 7). Secondary categories were subcategorized using chemical fingerprints to achieve a balance between total number of structural categories vs. level of structural similarity within a category based on the Jaccard index. A set of 128 terminal structural categories were derived from which a subset of representative candidates could be proposed for potential data collection, considering the sparsity of relevant toxicity data within each category, presence on environmental monitoring lists, and the ability to identify plausible manufacturers/importers. Refinements to the approach taking into consideration ways in which the categories could be updated by mechanistic data and physicochemical property information are also described. This categorization approach may be used to form the basis of identifying candidates for data collection with related applications in QSAR development, read-across and hazard assessment.

Indexed as

Chemical categoriesData collectionNew Approach Methods (NAMs)Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)Read-acrossToxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

Identifiers

PMID40547594
PMCPMC12181936

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.