An adverse outcome pathway (AOP) is a conceptual framework that organizes existing knowledge concerning biologically plausible, and empirically supported, links between molecular-level perturbation of a biological system and an adverse outcome at a level of biological organization of regulatory relevance. Systematic organization of information into AOP frameworks has potential to improve regulatory decision-making through greater integration and more meaningful use of mechanistic data. However, for the scientific community to collectively develop a useful AOP knowledgebase that encompasses toxicological contexts of concern to human health and ecological risk assessment, it is critical that AOPs be developed in accordance with a consistent set of core principles. Based on the experiences and scientific discourse among a group of AOP practitioners, we propose a set of five fundamental principles that guide AOP development: (1) AOPs are not chemical specific; (2) AOPs are modular and composed of reusable components—notably key events (KEs) and key event relationships (KERs); (3) an individual AOP, composed of a single sequence of KEs and KERs, is a pragmatic unit of AOP development and evaluation; (4) networks composed of multiple AOPs that share common KEs and KERs are likely to be the functional unit of prediction for most real-world scenarios; and (5) AOPs are living documents that will evolve over time as new knowledge is generated. The goal of the present article was to introduce some strategies for AOP development and detail the rationale behind these 5 key principles. Consideration of these principles addresses many of the current uncertainties regarding the AOP framework and its application and is intended to foster greater consistency in AOP development.

Organization of existing and emerging toxicological knowledge into adverse outcome pathway (AOP) descriptions can facilitate greater application of mechanistic data, including those derived through high-throughput in vitro, high content omics and imaging, and biomarker approaches, in risk-based decision making. The previously ad hoc process of AOP development is being formalized through development of internationally harmonized guidance and principles. The goal of this article was to outline the information content desired for formal AOP description and some rules of thumb and best practices intended to facilitate reuse and connectivity of elements of an AOP description in a knowledgebase and network context. For example, key events (KEs) are measurements of change in biological state that are indicative of progression of a perturbation toward a specified adverse outcome. Best practices for KE description suggest that each KE should be defined as an independent measurement made at a particular level of biological organization. The concept of “functional equivalence” can help guide both decisions about how many KEs to include in an AOP and the specificity with which they are defined. Likewise, in describing both KEs and evidence that supports a causal linkage or statistical association between them (ie, a key event relationship; KER), best practice is to build from and contribute to existing KE or KER descriptions in the AOP knowledgebase rather than creating redundant descriptions. The best practices proposed address many of the challenges and uncertainties related to AOP development and help promote a consistent and reliable, yet flexible approach.

The numbers of potential neurotoxicants in the environment are raising and pose a great risk for humans and the environment. Currently neurotoxicity assessment is mostly performed to predict and prevent harm to human populations. Despite all the efforts invested in the last years in developing novel in vitro or in silico test systems, in vivo tests with rodents are still the only accepted test for neurotoxicity risk assessment in Europe. Despite an increasing number of reports of species showing altered behaviour, neurotoxicity assessment for species in the environment is not required and therefore mostly not performed. Considering the increasing numbers of environmental contaminants with potential neurotoxic potential, eco-neurotoxicity should be also considered in risk assessment. In order to do so novel test systems are needed that can cope with species differences within ecosystems. In the field, online-biomonitoring systems using behavioural information could be used to detect neurotoxic effects and effect-directed analyses could be applied to identify the neurotoxicants causing the effect. Additionally, toxic pressure calculations in combination with mixture modelling could use environmental chemical monitoring data to predict adverse effects and prioritize pollutants for laboratory testing. Cheminformatics based on computational toxicological data from in vitro and in vivo studies could help to identify potential neurotoxicants. An array of in vitro assays covering different modes of action could be applied to screen compounds for neurotoxicity. The selection of in vitro assays could be guided by AOPs relevant for eco-neurotoxicity. In order to be able to perform risk assessment for eco-neurotoxicity, methods need to focus on the most sensitive species in an ecosystem. A test battery using species from different trophic levels might be the best approach. To implement eco-neurotoxicity assessment into European risk assessment, cheminformatics and in vitro screening tests could be used as first approach to identify eco-neurotoxic pollutants. In a second step, a small species test battery could be applied to assess the risks of ecosystems.

Drought inhibits cell division and expansion in the maize leaf growth zone by reducing antioxidant levels and increases photosynthetic capacity to allow for enh