Overview of <i>In Silico</i> Tools to Evaluate Human Health Toxicity, Ecotoxicity, and Toxicokinetic Profiles in the Hazard Assessment of Chemicals Used in Cosmetics

The development of alternative methods to animal testing has gained momentum over the years, including the rapid growth of <i>in silico</i> methods, which are faster and more cost-effective. A large number of <i>computational</i> tools have been published, focusing on Read-Across, (quantitative) Structure-Activity Relationship ((Q)SAR) models, and Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models. All of these methods play a crucial role in the risk assessment for cosmetics. However, despite the continuous efforts of various working groups, these methods are not always accepted by regulatory authorities around the world due to a lack of standardization and transparency in their development and application. This study aimed to identify <i>in silico</i> tools that can predict key properties relevant to the hazard assessment of cosmetic ingredients, aiming to streamline decision-making and assist toxicologists in efficiently selecting and integrating <i>in silico</i> predictions. Eighty-four <i>in silico</i> tools were identified based on their predictive capabilities, covering physicochemical parameters, toxicological/ecotoxicological endpoints, and toxicokinetic properties using different computational methods, e.g., (Q)SARs; Read-Across. Additional criteria were also considered for QSAR models, helping toxicologists integrate them into risk assessment processes: (1) definition of the Applicability Domain (AD), (2) model performance, and (3) nearest neighbors of the target substance. Based on these criteria, the models were classified as either useful for screening or suitable for a Weight of Evidence (WoE) approach. Finally, this study highlights the growing number of computational tools available for assessing various endpoints relevant to cosmetic safety. The number of tools continues to increase, and regular reviews are necessary. A deeper understanding of these <i>in silico</i> tools will facilitate their use by toxicologists and improve their acceptance for regulatory purposes from different cosmetic authorities.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Chemical Research in Toxicology
Published
2025-09-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrestox.4c00534
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Computational Drug Discovery Methods
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.51
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Overview of In Silico Tools to Evaluate Human Health Toxicity, Ecotoxicity, and Toxicokinetic Profiles in the Hazard Assessment of Chemicals Used in Cosmetics

Leo Gros, Aurélie Baleydier, José Ginestar, Pauline Lancia et al.
3 citations
Chemical Research in Toxicology
Computational Drug Discovery Methods
4.51
article

Overview of In Silico Tools to Evaluate Human Health Toxicity, Ecotoxicity, and Toxicokinetic Profiles in the Hazard Assessment of Chemicals Used in Cosmetics

Leo Gros, Aurélie Baleydier, José Ginestar, Pauline Lancia, Elena Fioravanzo, Myriam Louazzani
article en
3 citations

Abstract

The development of alternative methods to animal testing has gained momentum over the years, including the rapid growth of <i>in silico</i> methods, which are faster and more cost-effective. A large number of <i>computational</i> tools have been published, focusing on Read-Across, (quantitative) Structure-Activity Relationship ((Q)SAR) models, and Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models. All of these methods play a crucial role in the risk assessment for cosmetics. However, despite the continuous efforts of various working groups, these methods are not always accepted by regulatory authorities around the world due to a lack of standardization and transparency in their development and application. This study aimed to identify <i>in silico</i> tools that can predict key properties relevant to the hazard assessment of cosmetic ingredients, aiming to streamline decision-making and assist toxicologists in efficiently selecting and integrating <i>in silico</i> predictions. Eighty-four <i>in silico</i> tools were identified based on their predictive capabilities, covering physicochemical parameters, toxicological/ecotoxicological endpoints, and toxicokinetic properties using different computational methods, e.g., (Q)SARs; Read-Across. Additional criteria were also considered for QSAR models, helping toxicologists integrate them into risk assessment processes: (1) definition of the Applicability Domain (AD), (2) model performance, and (3) nearest neighbors of the target substance. Based on these criteria, the models were classified as either useful for screening or suitable for a Weight of Evidence (WoE) approach. Finally, this study highlights the growing number of computational tools available for assessing various endpoints relevant to cosmetic safety. The number of tools continues to increase, and regular reviews are necessary. A deeper understanding of these <i>in silico</i> tools will facilitate their use by toxicologists and improve their acceptance for regulatory purposes from different cosmetic authorities.

Chemical Research in ToxicologyVol. 38(10)
Centre Hospitalier Sainte-Anne (FR), Molesey Hospital (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Computational Drug Discovery Methods
4.51
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.