Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Mar:129:105111.
doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2021.105111. Epub 2021 Dec 30.

Clearly weighing the evidence in read-across can improve assessments of data-poor chemicals

Glenn W Suter 2nd  1 , Lucina E Lizarraga  2
Affiliations

Clearly weighing the evidence in read-across can improve assessments of data-poor chemicals

Glenn W Suter 2nd et al. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2022 Mar.

Abstract

This paper provides a systematic weight-of-evidence method for read-across analyses of data-poor chemicals. The read-across technique extrapolates toxicity from analogous chemicals for which suitable test data are available to a target chemical. To determine that a candidate analogue is the 'best' and is sufficiently similar, the evidence for similarity of each candidate analogue to the target is weighed. We present a systematic weight of evidence method that provides transparency and imposes a consistent and rigorous inferential process. The method assembles relevant information concerning structure, physicochemical attributes, toxicokinetics, and toxicodynamics of the target and analogues. The information is then organized by evidence types and subtypes and weighted in terms of properties: relevance, strength, and reliability into weight levels, expressed as symbols. After evidence types are weighted, the bodies of evidence are weighted for collective properties: number, diversity, and coherence. Finally, the weights for the types and bodies of evidence are weighed for each analogue, and, if the overall weight of evidence is sufficient for one or more analogues, the analogue with the greatest weight is used to estimate the endpoint effect. We illustrate this WoE approach with a read-across analysis for screening the organochlorine contaminant, p,p'-dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (DDD), for noncancer oral toxicity.

Keywords: Analogy; DDD; DDT; Evidence integration; Read-across; Weight of evidence.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
The process diagram for characterizing the toxicological endpoint for a chemical by read-across, has been adapted from Patlewicz et al. (2018). The weight of evidence (WOE) approach, elaborated on the right, is adapted from US EPA (2016).
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
The hierarchy of properties and subproperties of evidence and of collective properties of bodies of evidence. The three properties of evidence and the collective properties are taken from the US EPA WoE guidelines (US EPA, 2016), but more detailed subproperties are specific to read-across.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Arzuaga X, et al., 2019. Proposed Key Characteristics of Male Reproductive Toxicants as an Approach for Organizing and Evaluating Mechanistic Evidence in Human Health Hazard Assessments. Environ Health Perspect. 127, 65001. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Blackburn K, Stuard SB, 2014. A framework to facilitate consistent characterization of read across uncertainty. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 68, 353–62. - PubMed
    1. Bridges J, et al., 2017. Framework for the quantitative weight-of-evidence analysis of ‘omics data for regulatory purposes. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 91 Suppl 1, S46–s60. - PubMed
    1. ChemIDplus, 2017. Chemidplus database. National Institutes of Health, U.S. Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD.
    1. Cormier SM, et al., 2010. Causal Characteristics for Ecoepidemiology. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal. 16, 53–73.