Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

EFSA Scientific Colloquium 22 – Epigenetics and Risk Assessment: Where do we stand?

2016; European Food Safety Authority; Volume: 13; Issue: 12 Linguagem: Inglês

10.2903/sp.efsa.2016.en-1129

2397-8325

Tina Bahadori, David R. Bell, Sandra Ceccatelli, Raffaella Corvi, Christer Högstrand, Sharon Munn, Eric Nilsson, David Spurgeon, Jochen vom Brocke, Diane Wray‐Cahen, Matthew Wright, Marco Binaglia, J.L.C.M. Dorne, Nikolaos Georgiadis, Andrea Germini, George E.N. Kass, Tobin Robinson, Annamaria Rossi, Reinhilde Schoonjans, Andrea Terron, Hubert Noteborn,

Health, Environment, Cognitive Aging

EFSA Supporting PublicationsVolume 13, Issue 12 1129E Event reportOpen Access EFSA Scientific Colloquium 22 – Epigenetics and Risk Assessment: Where do we stand? European Food Safety Authority, European Food Safety AuthoritySearch for more papers by this authorTina Bahadori, Tina Bahadori Environmental Protection Agency, USASearch for more papers by this authorDavid Bell, David Bell European Chemicals AgencySearch for more papers by this authorSandra Ceccatelli, Sandra Ceccatelli Karolinska Institute, SESearch for more papers by this authorRaffaella Corvi, Raffaella Corvi Joint Research Centre, European CommissionSearch for more papers by this authorChrister Hogstrand, Christer Hogstrand University College London, UKSearch for more papers by this authorSharon Munn, Sharon Munn Joint Research Centre, European CommissionSearch for more papers by this authorEric Nilsson, Eric Nilsson Washington State University, USASearch for more papers by this authorDavid Spurgeon, David Spurgeon Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, UKSearch for more papers by this authorJochen Vom Brocke, Jochen Vom Brocke European Chemicals AgencySearch for more papers by this authorDiane Wray-Cahen, Diane Wray-Cahen Foreign Agricultural Service of United States Department of Agriculture, USASearch for more papers by this authorMatt Wright, Matt Wright Newcastle University, UKSearch for more papers by this authorMarco Binaglia, Marco Binaglia European Food Safety AuthoritySearch for more papers by this authorJean-Lou Dorne, Jean-Lou Dorne European Food Safety AuthoritySearch for more papers by this authorNikolaos Georgiadis, Nikolaos Georgiadis European Food Safety AuthoritySearch for more papers by this authorAndrea Germini, Andrea Germini European Food Safety AuthoritySearch for more papers by this authorGeorge Kass, George Kass European Food Safety AuthoritySearch for more papers by this authorTobin Robinson, Tobin Robinson European Food Safety AuthoritySearch for more papers by this authorAnnamaria Rossi, Annamaria Rossi European Food Safety AuthoritySearch for more papers by this authorReinhilde Schoonjans, Reinhilde Schoonjans European Food Safety AuthoritySearch for more papers by this authorAndrea Terron, Andrea Terron European Food Safety AuthoritySearch for more papers by this authorHubert Noteborn, Hubert Noteborn Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority, NLSearch for more papers by this author European Food Safety Authority, European Food Safety AuthoritySearch for more papers by this authorTina Bahadori, Tina Bahadori Environmental Protection Agency, USASearch for more papers by this authorDavid Bell, David Bell European Chemicals AgencySearch for more papers by this authorSandra Ceccatelli, Sandra Ceccatelli Karolinska Institute, SESearch for more papers by this authorRaffaella Corvi, Raffaella Corvi Joint Research Centre, European CommissionSearch for more papers by this authorChrister Hogstrand, Christer Hogstrand University College London, UKSearch for more papers by this authorSharon Munn, Sharon Munn Joint Research Centre, European CommissionSearch for more papers by this authorEric Nilsson, Eric Nilsson Washington State University, USASearch for more papers by this authorDavid Spurgeon, David Spurgeon Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, UKSearch for more papers by this authorJochen Vom Brocke, Jochen Vom Brocke European Chemicals AgencySearch for more papers by this authorDiane Wray-Cahen, Diane Wray-Cahen Foreign Agricultural Service of United States Department of Agriculture, USASearch for more papers by this authorMatt Wright, Matt Wright Newcastle University, UKSearch for more papers by this authorMarco Binaglia, Marco Binaglia European Food Safety AuthoritySearch for more papers by this authorJean-Lou Dorne, Jean-Lou Dorne European Food Safety AuthoritySearch for more papers by this authorNikolaos Georgiadis, Nikolaos Georgiadis European Food Safety AuthoritySearch for more papers by this authorAndrea Germini, Andrea Germini European Food Safety AuthoritySearch for more papers by this authorGeorge Kass, George Kass European Food Safety AuthoritySearch for more papers by this authorTobin Robinson, Tobin Robinson European Food Safety AuthoritySearch for more papers by this authorAnnamaria Rossi, Annamaria Rossi European Food Safety AuthoritySearch for more papers by this authorReinhilde Schoonjans, Reinhilde Schoonjans European Food Safety AuthoritySearch for more papers by this authorAndrea Terron, Andrea Terron European Food Safety AuthoritySearch for more papers by this authorHubert Noteborn, Hubert Noteborn Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority, NLSearch for more papers by this author First published: 14 December 2016 https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2016.EN-1129Citations: 1 Question number: EFSA-Q-2016-00555 Disclaimer: The views or positions expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent in legal terms the official position of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). EFSA assumes no responsibility or liability for any errors or inaccuracies that may appear. Amendment: Editorial corrections were carried out on page 1-2 (authors list), 22 (references) and 24-25 (county of origin of participants) that does not materially affect the contents or outcome of this scientific output. To avoid confusion the older version has been removed from the EFSA Journal, but is available on request, as is the version showing all the changes made. Updated: 21 December 2016; 7 April 2017 AboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat References Discussion Group 1 Edwards, S. W., Tan, Y. M., Villeneuve, D. L., Meek, M. E., & McQueen, C. A. 2016. Adverse Outcome Pathways-Organizing Toxicological Information to Improve Decision Making. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, 356: 170- 181. DOI: 10.1124/jpet.115.228239 Greally, J. M., & Jacobs, M.N. 2013. In Vitro and In Vivo Testing Methods of Epigenomic Endpoints for Evaluating Endocrine Disruptors. ALTEX-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation 30: 445- 471. DOI: 10.14573/altex.2013.4.445 Kaelin, W. G., & McKnight, S. L. 2013. Influence of Metabolism on Epigenetics and Disease. Cell, 153: 56- 69. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.03.004 Lalevee, S., & Feil, R. 2015. Long noncoding RNAs in human disease: emerging mechanisms and therapeutic strategies. Epigenomics, 7: 877- 879. DOI: 10.2217/epi.15.55 Marczylo, E.L., Jacobs, M.N., & Gant, T.W. 2016. Environmentally induced epigenetic toxicity: potential public health concern. Critical Reviews in Toxicology Jun 9: 1- 25. DOI: 10.1080/10408444.2016.1175417 Meek, M. E., Palermo, C. M., Bachman, A. N., North, C. M., & Lewis, R. J. 2014. Mode of action human relevance (species concordance) framework: Evolution of the Bradford Hill considerations and comparative analysis of weight of evidence. Journal of Applied Toxicology, 34: 595- 606. DOI: 10.1002/jat.2984 Moffat, I., Chepelev, N. L., Labib, S., Bourdon-Lacombe, J., Kuo, B., Buick, J. K., Lemieux, F., Williams, A., Halappanavar, S., Malik, A. I., Luijten, M., Aubrecht, J., Hyduke, D. R., Fornace, A. J., Swartz, C. D., Recio, L., & Yauk, C. L. 2015. Comparison of toxicogenomics and traditional approaches to inform mode of action and points of departure in human health risk assessment of benzo a pyrene in drinking water. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 45: 1- 43. DOI: 10.3109/10408444.2014.973934 Qureshi, I. A., & Mehler, M. F. 2013. Understanding Neurological Disease Mechanisms in the Era of Epigenetics. JAMA Neurology, 70: 703- 710. DOI: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2013.1443 Simon, T. W., Simons, S. S., Preston, R. J., Boobis, A. R., Cohen, S. M., Doerrer, N. G., Fenner-Crisp, P. A., McMullin, T. S., McQueen, C. A., Rowlands, J. C., & Subteam, R. D.-R 2014. The use of mode of action information in risk assessment: Quantitative key events/dose-response framework for modeling the dose-response for key events. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 44: 17- 43. DOI: 10.3109/10408444.2014.931925 Discussion Group 2 Chepelev, N. L., Meek, M. E., & Yauk, C. L. 2014. Application of benchmark dose modeling to protein expression data in the development and analysis of mode of action/adverse outcome pathways for testicular toxicity. Journal of Applied Toxicology, 34: 1115- 1121. DOI: 10.1002/jat.3071 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), 2014. Modern methodologies and tools for human hazard assessment of chemicals. EFSA Journal 2014; 12(4):3638, 87 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3638 Moffat, I., Chepelev, N. L., Labib, S., Bourdon-Lacombe, J., Kuo, B., Buick, J. K., Lemieux, F., Williams, A., Halappanavar, S., Malik, A. I., Luijten, M., Aubrecht, J., Hyduke, D. R., Fornace, A. J., Swartz, C. D., Recio, L., & Yauk, C. L. 2015. Comparison of toxicogenomics and traditional approaches to inform mode of action and points of departure in human health risk assessment of benzo a pyrene in drinking water. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 45: 1- 43. DOI: 10.3109/10408444.2014.973934 Thomas, R. S., Clewell, H. J., Allen, B. C., Wesselkamper, S. C., Wang, N. C. Y., Lambert, J. C., Hess-Wilson, J. K., Zhao, Q. J., & Andersen, M. E. 2011. Application of Transcriptional Benchmark Dose Values in Quantitative Cancer and Noncancer Risk Assessment. Toxicological Sciences, 120: 194- 205. DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfq355 Thomas, R. S., Clewell, H. J., Allen, B. C., Yang, L. L., Healy, E., & Andersen, M. E. 2012. Integrating pathway-based transcriptomic data into quantitative chemical risk assessment: A five chemical case study. Mutation Research-Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis, 746: 135- 143. DOI: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2012.01.007 Webster, A. F., Chepelev, N., Gagne, R., Kuo, B., Recio, L., Williams, A., & Yauk, C. L. 2015. Impact of Genomics Platform and Statistical Filtering on Transcriptional Benchmark Doses (BMD) and Multiple Approaches for Selection of Chemical Point of Departure (PoD). PLoS ONE, 10(8): e0136764. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136764 Discussion Group 3 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), 2008. Food Safety, Animal Health and Welfare and Environmental Impact of Animals derived from Cloning by Somatic Cell Nucleus Transfer (SCNT) and their Offspring and Products Obtained from those Animals. Chapter 3: Epigenetic and genetic aspects of SCNT. The EFSA Journal (2008) 767, 1- 49. 10.2903/j.efsa.2008.767 Feeney A, Nilsson E and Skinner MK, 2014. Epigenetics and transgenerational inheritance in domesticated farm animals. Journal of animal science and biotechnology, 2014 Oct 23; 5(1):48. doi: 10.1186/2049-1891-5-48 González-Recio O, Toro MA, Bach A. 2015. Past, present, and future of epigenetics applied to livestock breeding. Frontiers in Genetics. 6:305. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2015.00305 Goddard ME, Whitelaw E. 2014. The use of epigenetic phenomena for the improvement of sheep and cattle. Frontiers in Genetics 5:247. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2014.00247 Hilton IB, Gersbach CA. 2015. Enabling functional genomics with genome engineering. Genome Research 25(10): 1442- 55. doi: 10.1101/gr.190124.115 Ibeagha-Awemu EM, Zhao X. 2015. Epigenetic marks: regulators of livestock phenotypes and conceivable sources of missing variation in livestock improvement programs. Frontiers in Genetics 6:302. 2015. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2015.00302 Japan Food Safety Commission, 2009. Risk assessment report on foods derived from clones cattle and pigs produces by somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) and their offspring (novel foods). Chapter V epigenetics and other genetic properties for SCNET cloned animals. Available online: https://www.fsc.go.jp/english/evaluationreports/hy_detail_clone.pdf Magee DA, Spillane C, Berkowicz EW, Sikora KM, MacHugh DE. 2014. Imprinted loci in domestic livestock species as epigenomic targets for artificial selection of complex traits. Animal Genetics 45 Suppl 1: 25- 39. doi: 10.1111/age.12168 Qi LS, Larson MH, Gilbert LA, Doudna JA, Weissman JS, Arkin AP, Lim WA. 2013. Repurposing CRISPR as an RNA-guided platform for sequence-specific control of gene expression. Cell. 152(5): 1173- 83. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.02.022 Smith LC, Therrien J, Filion F, Bressan F, Meirelles FV. 2015. Epigenetic consequences of artificial reproductive technologies to the bovine imprinted genes SNRPN, H19/IGF2, and IGF2R. Frontiers in Genetics 6:58. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2015.00058 Tian XC. 2014. Genomic imprinting in farm animals. Annual Review of Animal Biosciences 2:23-40. doi: 10.1146/annurev-animal-022513-114144 US – FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine, U. S. Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, 2008. Animal Cloning: A Risk Assessment. Chapter IV: epigenetic Reprogramming: implications for Clones and their progeny. Available online: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/AnimalCloning/UCM124756.pdf Discussion Group 4 EFSA Scientific Committee, 2016. Scientific opinion on coverage of endangered species in environmental risk assessments at EFSA. EFSA Journal 2016; 14(2):4312, 124 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4312 Groh KJ, Carvalho RN, Chipman JK, Denslow ND, Halder M, Murphy CA, Roelofs D, Rolaki A, Schirmer K, Watanabe KH.2015. Development and application of the adverse outcome pathway framework for understanding and predicting chronic toxicity: I. Challenges and research needs in ecotoxicology. Chemosphere. 120: 764- 777. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.09.068 Kim HJ, Koedrith P, Seo YR, 2015. Ecotoxicogenomic approaches for understanding molecular mechanisms of environmental chemical toxicity using aquatic invertebrate, Daphnia model organism. International Journal of Molecular Sciences May 29; 16(6): 12261- 87. DOI: 10.3390/ijms160612261 Mukherjee K, Twyman RM, Vilcinskas A, 2015. Insects as models to study the epigenetic basis of disease. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 2015 Jul; 118(1-2): 69- 78. DOI: 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2015.02.009 Vandegehuchte MB, Janssen CR, 2014. Epigenetics in an ecotoxicological context. Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis 2014 Apr; 764- 765:36-45. DOI: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2013.08.008 Citing Literature Volume13, Issue12December 20161129E This article also appears in:Scientific colloquia ReferencesRelatedInformation