Cargando…

Scientific Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR Panel) on testing and interpretation of comparative in vitro metabolism studies

EFSA asked the Panel on Plant Protection Products and their residues to deliver a Scientific Opinion on testing and interpretation of comparative in vitro metabolism studies for both new active substances and existing ones. The main aim of comparative in vitro metabolism studies of pesticide active...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hernandez‐Jerez, Antonio F, Adriaanse, Paulien, Aldrich, Annette, Berny, Philippe, Coja, Tamara, Duquesne, Sabine, Focks, Andreas, Marinovich, Marina, Millet, Maurice, Pelkonen, Olavi, Pieper, Silvia, Tiktak, Aaldrik, Topping, Christopher J, Widenfalk, Anneli, Wilks, Martin, Wolterink, Gerrit, Gundert‐Remy, Ursula, Louisse, Jochem, Rudaz, Serge, Testai, Emanuela, Lostia, Alfonso, Dorne, Jean‐Lou, Parra Morte, Juan Manuel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8696562/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34987623
http://dx.doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6970
_version_ 1784619842647621632
author Hernandez‐Jerez, Antonio F
Adriaanse, Paulien
Aldrich, Annette
Berny, Philippe
Coja, Tamara
Duquesne, Sabine
Focks, Andreas
Marinovich, Marina
Millet, Maurice
Pelkonen, Olavi
Pieper, Silvia
Tiktak, Aaldrik
Topping, Christopher J
Widenfalk, Anneli
Wilks, Martin
Wolterink, Gerrit
Gundert‐Remy, Ursula
Louisse, Jochem
Rudaz, Serge
Testai, Emanuela
Lostia, Alfonso
Dorne, Jean‐Lou
Parra Morte, Juan Manuel
author_facet Hernandez‐Jerez, Antonio F
Adriaanse, Paulien
Aldrich, Annette
Berny, Philippe
Coja, Tamara
Duquesne, Sabine
Focks, Andreas
Marinovich, Marina
Millet, Maurice
Pelkonen, Olavi
Pieper, Silvia
Tiktak, Aaldrik
Topping, Christopher J
Widenfalk, Anneli
Wilks, Martin
Wolterink, Gerrit
Gundert‐Remy, Ursula
Louisse, Jochem
Rudaz, Serge
Testai, Emanuela
Lostia, Alfonso
Dorne, Jean‐Lou
Parra Morte, Juan Manuel
collection PubMed
description EFSA asked the Panel on Plant Protection Products and their residues to deliver a Scientific Opinion on testing and interpretation of comparative in vitro metabolism studies for both new active substances and existing ones. The main aim of comparative in vitro metabolism studies of pesticide active substances is to evaluate whether all significant metabolites formed in the human in vitro test system, as a surrogate of the in vivo situation, are also present at comparable level in animal species tested in toxicological studies and, therefore, if their potential toxicity has been appropriately covered by animal studies. The studies may also help to decide which animal model, with regard to a particular compound, is the most relevant for humans. In the experimental strategy, primary hepatocytes in suspension or culture are recommended since hepatocytes are considered the most representative in vitro system for prediction of in vivo metabolites. The experimental design of 3 × 3 × 3 (concentrations, time points, technical replicates, on pooled hepatocytes) will maximise the chance to identify unique (UHM) and disproportionate (DHM) human metabolites. When DHM and UHM are being assessed, test item‐related radioactivity recovery and metabolite profile are the most important parameters. Subsequently, structural characterisation of the assigned metabolites is performed with appropriate analytical techniques. In toxicological assessment of metabolites, the uncertainty factor approach is the first alternative to testing option, followed by new approach methodologies (QSAR, read‐across, in vitro methods), and only if these fail, in vivo animal toxicity studies may be performed. Knowledge of in vitro metabolites in human and animal hepatocytes would enable toxicological evaluation of all metabolites of concern, and, furthermore, add useful pieces of information for detection and evaluation of metabolites in different matrices (crops, livestock, environment), improve biomonitoring efforts via better toxicokinetic understanding, and ultimately, develop regulatory schemes employing physiologically based or physiology‐mimicking in silico and/or in vitro test systems to anticipate the exposure of humans to potentially hazardous substances in plant protection products.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8696562
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86965622022-01-04 Scientific Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR Panel) on testing and interpretation of comparative in vitro metabolism studies Hernandez‐Jerez, Antonio F Adriaanse, Paulien Aldrich, Annette Berny, Philippe Coja, Tamara Duquesne, Sabine Focks, Andreas Marinovich, Marina Millet, Maurice Pelkonen, Olavi Pieper, Silvia Tiktak, Aaldrik Topping, Christopher J Widenfalk, Anneli Wilks, Martin Wolterink, Gerrit Gundert‐Remy, Ursula Louisse, Jochem Rudaz, Serge Testai, Emanuela Lostia, Alfonso Dorne, Jean‐Lou Parra Morte, Juan Manuel EFSA J Scientific Opinion EFSA asked the Panel on Plant Protection Products and their residues to deliver a Scientific Opinion on testing and interpretation of comparative in vitro metabolism studies for both new active substances and existing ones. The main aim of comparative in vitro metabolism studies of pesticide active substances is to evaluate whether all significant metabolites formed in the human in vitro test system, as a surrogate of the in vivo situation, are also present at comparable level in animal species tested in toxicological studies and, therefore, if their potential toxicity has been appropriately covered by animal studies. The studies may also help to decide which animal model, with regard to a particular compound, is the most relevant for humans. In the experimental strategy, primary hepatocytes in suspension or culture are recommended since hepatocytes are considered the most representative in vitro system for prediction of in vivo metabolites. The experimental design of 3 × 3 × 3 (concentrations, time points, technical replicates, on pooled hepatocytes) will maximise the chance to identify unique (UHM) and disproportionate (DHM) human metabolites. When DHM and UHM are being assessed, test item‐related radioactivity recovery and metabolite profile are the most important parameters. Subsequently, structural characterisation of the assigned metabolites is performed with appropriate analytical techniques. In toxicological assessment of metabolites, the uncertainty factor approach is the first alternative to testing option, followed by new approach methodologies (QSAR, read‐across, in vitro methods), and only if these fail, in vivo animal toxicity studies may be performed. Knowledge of in vitro metabolites in human and animal hepatocytes would enable toxicological evaluation of all metabolites of concern, and, furthermore, add useful pieces of information for detection and evaluation of metabolites in different matrices (crops, livestock, environment), improve biomonitoring efforts via better toxicokinetic understanding, and ultimately, develop regulatory schemes employing physiologically based or physiology‐mimicking in silico and/or in vitro test systems to anticipate the exposure of humans to potentially hazardous substances in plant protection products. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-12-23 /pmc/articles/PMC8696562/ /pubmed/34987623 http://dx.doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6970 Text en © 2021 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Scientific Opinion
Hernandez‐Jerez, Antonio F
Adriaanse, Paulien
Aldrich, Annette
Berny, Philippe
Coja, Tamara
Duquesne, Sabine
Focks, Andreas
Marinovich, Marina
Millet, Maurice
Pelkonen, Olavi
Pieper, Silvia
Tiktak, Aaldrik
Topping, Christopher J
Widenfalk, Anneli
Wilks, Martin
Wolterink, Gerrit
Gundert‐Remy, Ursula
Louisse, Jochem
Rudaz, Serge
Testai, Emanuela
Lostia, Alfonso
Dorne, Jean‐Lou
Parra Morte, Juan Manuel
Scientific Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR Panel) on testing and interpretation of comparative in vitro metabolism studies
title Scientific Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR Panel) on testing and interpretation of comparative in vitro metabolism studies
title_full Scientific Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR Panel) on testing and interpretation of comparative in vitro metabolism studies
title_fullStr Scientific Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR Panel) on testing and interpretation of comparative in vitro metabolism studies
title_full_unstemmed Scientific Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR Panel) on testing and interpretation of comparative in vitro metabolism studies
title_short Scientific Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR Panel) on testing and interpretation of comparative in vitro metabolism studies
title_sort scientific opinion of the scientific panel on plant protection products and their residues (ppr panel) on testing and interpretation of comparative in vitro metabolism studies
topic Scientific Opinion
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8696562/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34987623
http://dx.doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6970
work_keys_str_mv AT scientificopinionofthescientificpanelonplantprotectionproductsandtheirresiduespprpanelontestingandinterpretationofcomparativeinvitrometabolismstudies
AT hernandezjerezantoniof scientificopinionofthescientificpanelonplantprotectionproductsandtheirresiduespprpanelontestingandinterpretationofcomparativeinvitrometabolismstudies
AT adriaansepaulien scientificopinionofthescientificpanelonplantprotectionproductsandtheirresiduespprpanelontestingandinterpretationofcomparativeinvitrometabolismstudies
AT aldrichannette scientificopinionofthescientificpanelonplantprotectionproductsandtheirresiduespprpanelontestingandinterpretationofcomparativeinvitrometabolismstudies
AT bernyphilippe scientificopinionofthescientificpanelonplantprotectionproductsandtheirresiduespprpanelontestingandinterpretationofcomparativeinvitrometabolismstudies
AT cojatamara scientificopinionofthescientificpanelonplantprotectionproductsandtheirresiduespprpanelontestingandinterpretationofcomparativeinvitrometabolismstudies
AT duquesnesabine scientificopinionofthescientificpanelonplantprotectionproductsandtheirresiduespprpanelontestingandinterpretationofcomparativeinvitrometabolismstudies
AT focksandreas scientificopinionofthescientificpanelonplantprotectionproductsandtheirresiduespprpanelontestingandinterpretationofcomparativeinvitrometabolismstudies
AT marinovichmarina scientificopinionofthescientificpanelonplantprotectionproductsandtheirresiduespprpanelontestingandinterpretationofcomparativeinvitrometabolismstudies
AT milletmaurice scientificopinionofthescientificpanelonplantprotectionproductsandtheirresiduespprpanelontestingandinterpretationofcomparativeinvitrometabolismstudies
AT pelkonenolavi scientificopinionofthescientificpanelonplantprotectionproductsandtheirresiduespprpanelontestingandinterpretationofcomparativeinvitrometabolismstudies
AT piepersilvia scientificopinionofthescientificpanelonplantprotectionproductsandtheirresiduespprpanelontestingandinterpretationofcomparativeinvitrometabolismstudies
AT tiktakaaldrik scientificopinionofthescientificpanelonplantprotectionproductsandtheirresiduespprpanelontestingandinterpretationofcomparativeinvitrometabolismstudies
AT toppingchristopherj scientificopinionofthescientificpanelonplantprotectionproductsandtheirresiduespprpanelontestingandinterpretationofcomparativeinvitrometabolismstudies
AT widenfalkanneli scientificopinionofthescientificpanelonplantprotectionproductsandtheirresiduespprpanelontestingandinterpretationofcomparativeinvitrometabolismstudies
AT wilksmartin scientificopinionofthescientificpanelonplantprotectionproductsandtheirresiduespprpanelontestingandinterpretationofcomparativeinvitrometabolismstudies
AT wolterinkgerrit scientificopinionofthescientificpanelonplantprotectionproductsandtheirresiduespprpanelontestingandinterpretationofcomparativeinvitrometabolismstudies
AT gundertremyursula scientificopinionofthescientificpanelonplantprotectionproductsandtheirresiduespprpanelontestingandinterpretationofcomparativeinvitrometabolismstudies
AT louissejochem scientificopinionofthescientificpanelonplantprotectionproductsandtheirresiduespprpanelontestingandinterpretationofcomparativeinvitrometabolismstudies
AT rudazserge scientificopinionofthescientificpanelonplantprotectionproductsandtheirresiduespprpanelontestingandinterpretationofcomparativeinvitrometabolismstudies
AT testaiemanuela scientificopinionofthescientificpanelonplantprotectionproductsandtheirresiduespprpanelontestingandinterpretationofcomparativeinvitrometabolismstudies
AT lostiaalfonso scientificopinionofthescientificpanelonplantprotectionproductsandtheirresiduespprpanelontestingandinterpretationofcomparativeinvitrometabolismstudies
AT dornejeanlou scientificopinionofthescientificpanelonplantprotectionproductsandtheirresiduespprpanelontestingandinterpretationofcomparativeinvitrometabolismstudies
AT parramortejuanmanuel scientificopinionofthescientificpanelonplantprotectionproductsandtheirresiduespprpanelontestingandinterpretationofcomparativeinvitrometabolismstudies