» Articles » PMID: 39456937

Computational Strategies for Assessing Adverse Outcome Pathways: Hepatic Steatosis As a Case Study

Overview
Journal Int J Mol Sci
Publisher MDPI
Date 2024 Oct 26
PMID 39456937
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The evolving landscape of chemical risk assessment is increasingly focused on developing tiered, mechanistically driven approaches that avoid the use of animal experiments. In this context, adverse outcome pathways have gained importance for evaluating various types of chemical-induced toxicity. Using hepatic steatosis as a case study, this review explores the use of diverse computational techniques, such as structure-activity relationship models, quantitative structure-activity relationship models, read-across methods, omics data analysis, and structure-based approaches to fill data gaps within adverse outcome pathway networks. Emphasizing the regulatory acceptance of each technique, we examine how these methodologies can be integrated to provide a comprehensive understanding of chemical toxicity. This review highlights the transformative impact of in silico techniques in toxicology, proposing guidelines for their application in evidence gathering for developing and filling data gaps in adverse outcome pathway networks. These guidelines can be applied to other cases, advancing the field of toxicological risk assessment.

References
1.
Kitchen D, Decornez H, Furr J, Bajorath J . Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: methods and applications. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2004; 3(11):935-49. DOI: 10.1038/nrd1549. View

2.
Rabilloud T, Lescuyer P . Proteomics in mechanistic toxicology: history, concepts, achievements, caveats, and potential. Proteomics. 2014; 15(5-6):1051-74. DOI: 10.1002/pmic.201400288. View

3.
Burgoon L, Angrish M, Garcia-Reyero N, Pollesch N, Zupanic A, Perkins E . Predicting the Probability that a Chemical Causes Steatosis Using Adverse Outcome Pathway Bayesian Networks (AOPBNs). Risk Anal. 2019; 40(3):512-523. PMC: 7397752. DOI: 10.1111/risa.13423. View

4.
Safe S, Han H, Goldsby J, Mohankumar K, Chapkin R . Aryl Hydrocarbon Receptor (AhR) Ligands as Selective AhR Modulators: Genomic Studies. Curr Opin Toxicol. 2019; 11-12:10-20. PMC: 6709982. DOI: 10.1016/j.cotox.2018.11.005. View

5.
van der Spoel D, Lindahl E, Hess B, Groenhof G, Mark A, Berendsen H . GROMACS: fast, flexible, and free. J Comput Chem. 2005; 26(16):1701-18. DOI: 10.1002/jcc.20291. View