You are here:
Integrating Omic Technologies into Aquatic Ecological Risk Assessment and Environmental Monitoring: Hurdles, Achievements and Future Outlook
Citation:
VAN AGGELEN, G., G. T. ANKLEY, W. BALDWIN, D. BEARDEN, W. H. BENSON, J. CHIPMAN, T. W. COLLETTE, J. CRAFT, N. DENSLOW, M. EMBRY, F. FALCIANI, S. GEORGE, C. HELBING, P. HOEKSTRA, T. IGUCHI, Y. KAGAMI, I. KATSIADAKI, P. KILLE, L. LUI, P. LORD, T. McINTYRE, A. O'NEILL, H. OSACHOFF, E. PERKINS, E. SANTOS, R. SKIRROW, J. SNAPE, C. TYLER, D. VERSTEEG, M. VIANT, D. VOLZ, T. WILLIAMS, AND L. YU. Integrating Omic Technologies into Aquatic Ecological Risk Assessment and Environmental Monitoring: Hurdles, Achievements and Future Outlook. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), Research Triangle Park, NC, 118(1):1-5, (2010).
Impact/Purpose:
This manuscript presents findings from an international consortium on fish toxicogenomics sponsored by the UK Natural Environment Research Council. It reviews issues involved in moving omics technologies into ecological risk assessment and environmental monitoring.
Description:
Background: In this commentary we present the findings from an international consortium on fish toxicogenomics sponsored by the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) with a remit of moving omic technologies into chemical risk assessment and environmental monitoring. Objectives: The consortium of scientists from government agencies, academia and industry addressed three topics; progress in ecotoxicogenomics; regulatory perspectives on ‘roadblocks’ for practical implementation of toxicogenomics into risk assessment; and dealing with variability in datasets. Discussion: Key points were: (1) That examples of successful application of omic technologies have been identified. (2) That there remain critical studies to relate molecular changes to ecological adverse outcome. (3) Recommendations were made for the management of technical and biological variation. (4) The need for enhanced interdisciplinary training and communication. (5) The need for considerable investment into the generation and curation of appropriate reference omic data. Conclusions: The participants concluded that, while there are ‘hurdles’ to pass on the road to regulatory acceptance, omics technologies are already useful for elucidating modes of action of toxicants and can contribute to the risk assessment process as part of a ‘weight of evidence’ approach. The remit of this consortium was to assess current developments towards the incorporation of omic technologies into environmental risk assessment and environmental monitoring, particularly in relation to aquatic ecotoxicogenomics. Participants recognized that omic tools and associated endpoints are already significantly altering our understanding of how individual chemicals and mixtures affect organisms and could ultimately influence risk assessment and management of chemicals discharged into aquatic systems. While the participants recognized that a significant amount of basic research and validation needs to be done before omic endpoints are incorporated as complementary data for routine assessments of environmental risk, it was generally agreed that there are no “road blocks” for omics technology per se, but perhaps “hurdles” along the road of discovery, acceptance, and implementation of omic endpoints. Given the context of the consortium workshop and deliberations, the following quote is noteworthy: “the successful incorporation of toxicogenomics into regulatory frameworks may someday be regarded as the most important intellectual and practical contribution from this generation of ecotoxicologists” (Ankley et al. 2006).