Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Elsevier
Résumé : International audience
Predictive toxicology aims at developing methodologies to relate the results obtained from in vitro experiments to in vivo exposure. In the case of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), a substantial amount of knowledge on effects and modes of action has been recently obtained from in vitro studies of gene expression. In the current study, we built a physiologically based toxicokinetic (PBTK) model to relate in vivo and in vitro gene expression in case of exposure to benzo(a)pyrene (BaP), a referent PAH. This model was calibrated with two toxicokinetic datasets obtained on rats exposed either through intratracheal instillation or through intravenous administration and on an in vitro degradation study. A good agreement was obtained between the model's predictions and the concentrations measured in target organs, such as liver and lungs. Our model was able to relate correctly the gene expression for two genes targeted by PAHs, measured in vitro on primary human macrophages and in vivo in rat macrophages after exposure to BaP. Combining in vitro studies and PBTK modeling is promising for PAH risk assessment, especially for mixtures which are more efficiently studied in vitro than in vivo.
Toxicology Letters

hal-00873317
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00873317
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00873317/document
DOI : 10.1016/j.toxlet.2010.11.017
PUBMED : 21134426

Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD John Libbey Eurotext
Résumé : International audience
Environmental health risk assessment is commonly used in France for risk management purposes. The Methodology section of the "Société française de santé environnement" (French Society for Environmental Health) seeks to improve the utility and implementation of risk assessment in France. An initial operational objective is to make a list of short-, intermediate- and long-term improvements. This inventory is based in part on the experience and expertise of society members in this area and in part on their analysis of "Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment" (National Research Council 2009). In this paper, the Society recommends modifications in the indications for and use of risk assessments, during each of the four stages of the process: hazard identification and dose-response assessment, exposure assessment, risk characterization, and results interpretation. Some may be implemented now, while others need consensus building or research because of gaps in knowledge. Environmental health risk assessment must be understood as a decision tool for risk management in situations of uncertainly. Thus, appropriate linkage is required between decision making and assessment, and between the methods and the expected results.
L'évaluation des risques sanitaires est fréquemment utilisée en France dans les processus de décision en santé environnementale. La section " Méthodologie d'évaluation des risques sanitaires " de la Société française de santé environnement (SFSE) s'est donnée pour objectif de proposer des éléments de réflexion et des outils méthodologiques en vue d'améliorer l'utilité et les pratiques de l'évaluation des risques sanitaires. Un premier objectif opérationnel est l'inventaire des améliorations possibles à court, moyen et long termes à apporter à la démarche et à son utilisation. Ce travail s'est fondé, d'une part, sur la pratique et l'expertise des membres de la section, et, d'autre part, sur une lecture critique du rapport " Science and Decisions : Advancing Risk Assessment " publié en 2009 par le National Research Council et portant également sur les évolutions de la démarche. Dans cet article, la section restitue les conclusions de cet inventaire critique et propose un certain nombre d'améliorations en termes d'indications et d'utilisations de l'évaluation des risques sanitaires pour chacune des quatre étapes : identification des dangers et relation dose-réponse ; évaluation de l'exposition ; caractérisation des risques ; et interprétation des résultats. Certaines recommandations peuvent être mises en oeuvre immédiatement ; d'autres, en préalable à leur mise en oeuvre, nécessitent un consensus ou encore de la recherche car les connaissances manquent. En conclusion, la section insiste sur le fait que l'évaluation des risques sanitaires doit être comprise comme une aide à la décision en situation d'incertitude ; l'articulation entre le contexte décisionnel et l'évaluation, sa méthodologie et les résultats attendus est donc primordiale.
ISSN: 1635-0421

ineris-00963325
https://hal-ineris.archives-ouvertes.fr/ineris-00963325
DOI : 10.1684/ers.2011.0435
INERIS : EN-2012-016

Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD John Libbey Eurotext
Résumé : International audience
Chemical risk assessment is a tool used in decision-making processes concerning situations of scientific uncertainty. Approaches to risk assessment in occupational and environmental health share the same objective of risk prevention. Nevertheless, the methods for both differ depending on whether the goal is to enforce regulations or conduct expert assessments and studies. These differences are stronger in occupational health, for which regulations require risk assessments at the work station, to classify and prioritize exposure situations to implement occupational risk prevention strategies. Risk assessment thus has somewhat different meanings in occupational and environmental health. This article attempts to clarify the different terms used in the different contexts and to describe the similarities and differences of the two approaches.
ISSN: 1635-0421

hal-00936256
https://hal-univ-rennes1.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00936256
DOI : 10.1684/ers.2013.0646

Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD John Libbey Eurotext
Résumé : International audience
French toxicological reference values (VTR) and French occupational exposure limit values (VLEP) are indicators that are widely used in risk assessment for, respectively, human and occupational health. Neither value can replace the other. However, the information obtained for one can be very useful for the other. We propose to clarify the fundamental differences and similarities between these two values. To achieve this, we review first their history and then the methods used to derive them; we conclude by proposing some improvements to harmonize them. A case study of formaldehyde illustrates our analysis.
ISSN: 1635-0421

hal-00936267
https://hal-univ-rennes1.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00936267
DOI : 10.1684/ers.2013.0647

Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Landes Bioscience
Résumé : International audience
In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.
Autophagy

hal-00735751
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00735751
PUBMED : 22966490