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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |