» Articles » PMID: 26863606

Toward Good Read-Across Practice (GRAP) Guidance

Abstract

Grouping of substances and utilizing read-across of data within those groups represents an important data gap filling technique for chemical safety assessments. Categories/analogue groups are typically developed based on structural similarity and, increasingly often, also on mechanistic (biological) similarity. While read-across can play a key role in complying with legislations such as the European REACH regulation, the lack of consensus regarding the extent and type of evidence necessary to support it often hampers its successful application and acceptance by regulatory authorities. Despite a potentially broad user community, expertise is still concentrated across a handful of organizations and individuals. In order to facilitate the effective use of read-across, this document aims to summarize the state-of-the-art, summarizes insights learned from reviewing ECHA published decisions as far as the relative successes/pitfalls surrounding read-across under REACH and compile the relevant activities and guidance documents. Special emphasis is given to the available existing tools and approaches, an analysis of ECHA's published final decisions associated with all levels of compliance checks and testing proposals, the consideration and expression of uncertainty, the use of biological support data and the impact of the ECHA Read-Across Assessment Framework (RAAF) published in 2015.

Citing Articles

Development of hybrid models by the integration of the read-across hypothesis with the QSAR framework for the assessment of developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART) tested according to OECD TG 414.

Pandey S, Roy K Toxicol Rep. 2024; 13:101822.

PMID: 39649380 PMC: 11621937. DOI: 10.1016/j.toxrep.2024.101822.


Assessment of pulmonary fibrosis using weighted gene co-expression network analysis.

Drake C, Zobl W, Escher S Front Toxicol. 2024; 6:1465704.

PMID: 39512679 PMC: 11540828. DOI: 10.3389/ftox.2024.1465704.


Incorporating new approach methods (NAMs) data in dose-response assessments: The future is now!.

Lu E, Rusyn I, Chiu W J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2024; 28(1):28-62.

PMID: 39390665 PMC: 11614695. DOI: 10.1080/10937404.2024.2412571.


Integration of QSAR and NAM in the Read-Across Process for an Effective and Relevant Toxicological Assessment.

Rovida C, Muscarella M, Locatelli M Methods Mol Biol. 2024; 2834:89-111.

PMID: 39312161 DOI: 10.1007/978-1-0716-4003-6_4.


A Systematic Analysis of Read-Across Adaptations in Testing Proposal Evaluations by the European Chemicals Agency.

Roe H, Tsai H, Ball N, Wright F, Chiu W, Rusyn I bioRxiv. 2024; .

PMID: 39257792 PMC: 11384022. DOI: 10.1101/2024.08.29.610278.


References
1.
Gebel T, Foth H, Damm G, Freyberger A, Kramer P, Lilienblum W . Manufactured nanomaterials: categorization and approaches to hazard assessment. Arch Toxicol. 2014; 88(12):2191-211. DOI: 10.1007/s00204-014-1383-7. View

2.
Cronin M, Jaworska J, Walker J, Comber M, Watts C, Worth A . Use of QSARs in international decision-making frameworks to predict health effects of chemical substances. Environ Health Perspect. 2003; 111(10):1391-401. PMC: 1241622. DOI: 10.1289/ehp.5760. View

3.
Rovida C, Longo F, Rabbit R . How are reproductive toxicity and developmental toxicity addressed in REACH dossiers?. ALTEX. 2011; 28(4):273-94. DOI: 10.14573/altex.2011.4.273. View

4.
Kirchmair J, Goller A, Lang D, Kunze J, Testa B, Wilson I . Predicting drug metabolism: experiment and/or computation?. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2015; 14(6):387-404. DOI: 10.1038/nrd4581. View

5.
Schultz T, Amcoff P, Berggren E, Gautier F, Klaric M, Knight D . A strategy for structuring and reporting a read-across prediction of toxicity. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2015; 72(3):586-601. DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.05.016. View