Intrinsic functional clustering of ventral premotor F5 in the macaque brain

© 2020 Neurophysiological and anatomical data suggest the existence of several functionally distinct regions in the lower arcuate sulcus and adjacent postarcuate convexity of the macaque monkey. Ventral premotor F5c lies on the postarcuate convexity and consists of a dorsal hand-related and ventral mouth-related field. The posterior bank of the lower arcuate contains two additional premotor F5 subfields at different anterior-posterior levels, F5a and F5p. Anterior to F5a, area 44 has been described as a dysgranular zone occupying the deepest part of the fundus of the inferior arcuate. Finally, area GrFO occupies the most rostral portion of the fundus and posterior bank of inferior arcuate and extends ventrally onto the frontal operculum. Recently, data-driven exploratory approaches using resting-state fMRI data have been suggested as a promising non-invasive method for examining the functional organization of the primate brain. Here, we examined to what extent partitioning schemes derived from data-driven clustering analysis of resting-state fMRI data correspond with the proposed organization of the fundus and posterior bank of the macaque arcuate sulcus, as suggested by invasive architectonical, connectional and functional investigations. Using a hierarchical clustering analysis, we could retrieve clusters corresponding to the dorsal and ventral portions of F5c on the postarcuate convexity, F5a and F5p at different antero-posterior locations on the posterior bank of the lower arcuate, area 44 in the fundus, as well as part of area GrFO in the most anterior portion of the fundus. Additionally, each of these clusters displayed distinct whole-brain functional connectivity, in line with previous anatomical tracer and seed-based functional connectivity investigations of F5/44 subdivisions. Overall, our data suggests that hierarchical clustering analysis of resting-state fMRI data can retrieve a fine-grained level of cortical organization that resembles detailed parcellation schemes derived from invasive functional and anatomical investigations

The use of adverse outcome pathways in the safety evaluation of food additives

Funder: ILSI EuropeAbstract: In the last decade, adverse outcome pathways have been introduced in the fields of toxicology and risk assessment of chemicals as pragmatic tools with broad application potential. While their use in the pharmaceutical and cosmetics sectors has been well documented, their application in the food area remains largely unexplored. In this respect, an expert group of the International Life Sciences Institute Europe has recently explored the use of adverse outcome pathways in the safety evaluation of food additives. A key activity was the organization of a workshop, gathering delegates from the regulatory, industrial and academic areas, to discuss the potentials and challenges related to the application of adverse outcome pathways in the safety assessment of food additives. The present paper describes the outcome of this workshop followed by a number of critical considerations and perspectives defined by the International Life Sciences Institute Europe expert group

Characterizing the coverage of critical effects relevant in the safety evaluation of food additives by AOPs

Abstract: There is considerable interest in adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) as a means of organizing biological and toxicological information to assist in data interpretation and method development. While several chemical sectors have shown considerable progress in applying this approach, this has not been the case in the food sector. In the present study, safety evaluation reports of food additives listed in Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Union were screened to qualitatively and quantitatively characterize toxicity induced in laboratory animals. The resulting database was used to identify the critical adverse effects used for risk assessment and to investigate whether food additives share common AOPs. Analysis of the database revealed that often such scrutiny of AOPs was not possible or necessary. For 69% of the food additives, the report did not document any adverse effects in studies based on which the safety evaluation was performed. For the remaining 31% of the 326 investigated food additives, critical adverse effects and related points of departure for establishing health-based guidance values could be identified. These mainly involved effects on the liver, kidney, cardiovascular system, lymphatic system, central nervous system and reproductive system. AOPs are available for many of these apical endpoints, albeit to different degrees of maturity. For other adverse outcomes pertinent to food additives, including gastrointestinal irritation and corrosion, AOPs are lacking. Efforts should focus on developing AOPs for these particular endpoints

The use of adverse outcome pathways in the safety evaluation of food additives

Funder: ILSI EuropeAbstract: In the last decade, adverse outcome pathways have been introduced in the fields of toxicology and risk assessment of chemicals as pragmatic tools with broad application potential. While their use in the pharmaceutical and cosmetics sectors has been well documented, their application in the food area remains largely unexplored. In this respect, an expert group of the International Life Sciences Institute Europe has recently explored the use of adverse outcome pathways in the safety evaluation of food additives. A key activity was the organization of a workshop, gathering delegates from the regulatory, industrial and academic areas, to discuss the potentials and challenges related to the application of adverse outcome pathways in the safety assessment of food additives. The present paper describes the outcome of this workshop followed by a number of critical considerations and perspectives defined by the International Life Sciences Institute Europe expert group

Characterizing the coverage of critical effects relevant in the safety evaluation of food additives by AOPs

Abstract: There is considerable interest in adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) as a means of organizing biological and toxicological information to assist in data interpretation and method development. While several chemical sectors have shown considerable progress in applying this approach, this has not been the case in the food sector. In the present study, safety evaluation reports of food additives listed in Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Union were screened to qualitatively and quantitatively characterize toxicity induced in laboratory animals. The resulting database was used to identify the critical adverse effects used for risk assessment and to investigate whether food additives share common AOPs. Analysis of the database revealed that often such scrutiny of AOPs was not possible or necessary. For 69% of the food additives, the report did not document any adverse effects in studies based on which the safety evaluation was performed. For the remaining 31% of the 326 investigated food additives, critical adverse effects and related points of departure for establishing health-based guidance values could be identified. These mainly involved effects on the liver, kidney, cardiovascular system, lymphatic system, central nervous system and reproductive system. AOPs are available for many of these apical endpoints, albeit to different degrees of maturity. For other adverse outcomes pertinent to food additives, including gastrointestinal irritation and corrosion, AOPs are lacking. Efforts should focus on developing AOPs for these particular endpoints

Adverse outcome pathways:opportunities, limitations and open questions

Adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) are a recent toxicological construct that connects, in a formalized, transparent and quality-controlled way, mechanistic information to apical endpoints for regulatory purposes. AOP links a molecular initiating event (MIE) to the adverse outcome (AO) via key events (KE), in a way specified by key event relationships (KER). Although this approach to formalize mechanistic toxicological information only started in 2010, over 200 AOPs have already been established. At this stage, new requirements arise, such as the need for harmonization and re-assessment, for continuous updating, as well as for alerting about pitfalls, misuses and limits of applicability. In this review, the history of the AOP concept and its most prominent strengths are discussed, including the advantages of a formalized approach, the systematic collection of weight of evidence, the linkage of mechanisms to apical end points, the examination of the plausibility of epidemiological data, the identification of critical knowledge gaps and the design of mechanistic test methods. To prepare the ground for a broadened and appropriate use of AOPs, some widespread misconceptions are explained. Moreover, potential weaknesses and shortcomings of the current AOP rule set are addressed (1) to facilitate the discussion on its further evolution and (2) to better define appropriate vs. less suitable application areas. Exemplary toxicological studies are presented to discuss the linearity assumptions of AOP, the management of event modifiers and compensatory mechanisms, and whether a separation of toxicodynamics from toxicokinetics including metabolism is possible in the framework of pathway plasticity. Suggestions on how to compromise between different needs of AOP stakeholders have been added. A clear definition of open questions and limitations is provided to encourage further progress in the field

The use of adverse outcome pathways in the safety evaluation of food additives.

In the last decade, adverse outcome pathways have been introduced in the fields of toxicology and risk assessment of chemicals as pragmatic tools with broad application potential. While their use in the pharmaceutical and cosmetics sectors has been well documented, their application in the food area remains largely unexplored. In this respect, an expert group of the International Life Sciences Institute Europe has recently explored the use of adverse outcome pathways in the safety evaluation of food additives. A key activity was the organization of a workshop, gathering delegates from the regulatory, industrial and academic areas, to discuss the potentials and challenges related to the application of adverse outcome pathways in the safety assessment of food additives. The present paper describes the outcome of this workshop followed by a number of critical considerations and perspectives defined by the International Life Sciences Institute Europe expert group

Characterizing the coverage of critical effects relevant in the safety evaluation of food additives by AOPs.

There is considerable interest in adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) as a means of organizing biological and toxicological information to assist in data interpretation and method development. While several chemical sectors have shown considerable progress in applying this approach, this has not been the case in the food sector. In the present study, safety evaluation reports of food additives listed in Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Union were screened to qualitatively and quantitatively characterize toxicity induced in laboratory animals. The resulting database was used to identify the critical adverse effects used for risk assessment and to investigate whether food additives share common AOPs. Analysis of the database revealed that often such scrutiny of AOPs was not possible or necessary. For 69% of the food additives, the report did not document any adverse effects in studies based on which the safety evaluation was performed. For the remaining 31% of the 326 investigated food additives, critical adverse effects and related points of departure for establishing health-based guidance values could be identified. These mainly involved effects on the liver, kidney, cardiovascular system, lymphatic system, central nervous system and reproductive system. AOPs are available for many of these apical endpoints, albeit to different degrees of maturity. For other adverse outcomes pertinent to food additives, including gastrointestinal irritation and corrosion, AOPs are lacking. Efforts should focus on developing AOPs for these particular endpoints