51st Annual Meeting & ToxExpo - Society of Toxicology

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Society of Toxicology 2012 Continuing Education CE • Computational Safety Analysis for Regulatory Decision-Making and Research at FDA. Luis G. Valerio, Jr., US FDA, Silver Spring, MD. • Computational Approaches: Linking Chemical Exposures and Human Disease. Dale E. Johnson, Emiliem, Inc., Emeryville, CA and University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA. • Predictive Toxicology Platforms: Tools for the Trade? Eugene Ahlborn, Givaudan Flavors, Cincinnati, OH. Regulatory Science: Bridging the Gap between Discovery and Product Availability Overview and Application of the WHO/IPCS Harmonized Guidance for Immunotoxicity Risk Assessment for Chemicals AM06 CE Basic Chairperson(s): Andrew A. Rooney, NIEHS, Research Triangle Park, NC, and Henk Van Loveren, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, Netherlands. Sponsor: Immunotoxicology Specialty Section Endorsed by: Regulatory and Safety Evaluation Specialty Section Risk Assessment Specialty Section The WHO/IPCS harmonized guidance document is the first compressive guidance document for risk assessment in toxicology. Immunotoxicity risk assessment of chemicals is an evaluation of the potential for unintended effects of chemical exposure on the immune system. These effects manifest as four principal types of immunotoxicity, which are categorized as immuno-suppression and -stimulation, autoimmunity, and sensitization. We will provide an overview of the methods used to detect and characterize immunotoxicity and the potential consequences of unintended immunomodulation. It is well established that xenobiotic-related immunosuppression can lead to reduced resistance to infections and certain neoplastic diseases. Exposure to xenobiotics has been shown to be associated with development or worsening of autoimmune disease. It has been established that xenobiotics can elicit hypersensitivity responses directly as an allergen, or they can enhance the induction or severity of allergic sensitization to pollen or dust mites. The determination of risk associated with immunostimulation may be more difficult, but unexpected stimulation should not be disregarded as it may result in nonspecific inflammation or the skewing of normally protective immune responses to favor induction or exacerbation of autoimmunity and hypersensitivity. The fundamental concepts of risk assessment as they apply to the evaluation of immunotoxicity as well as the application of the guidance will be highlighted. We will begin by reviewing case studies that include data that focuses on different areas of immunotoxicity—suppression, sensitization, and autoimmunity. The studies will demonstrate application of the guidance, particularly the development of weight of evidence conclusions from the available data. Finally, we will illustrate that risk assessment for a given chemical should consider the full range of immune effects for that chemical, and data should be evaluated separately for evidence of suppression, stimulation, autoimmunity, and sensitization. • Overview of the WHO/IPCS Harmonized Guidance for Immunotoxicity Risk Assessment for Chemicals. Henk Van Loveren, National Institute of Public Health (RIVM), Bilthoven, Netherlands. • Immunotoxicity Risk Assessment. Andrew A. Rooney, NIEHS, Research Triangle Park, NC. • Assessment of Immunosuppression, Immunostimulation, and Autoimmunity. Robert W. Luebke, US EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC. • Assessment of Sensitization and Allergic Response. Peter Griem, Symrise AG, Holzminden, Germany. • Case Study 1: Lead. Michael I. Luster, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV. • Case Study 2: Halogenated Platinum Salts. Peter Griem, Symrise AG, Holzminden, Germany. • Case Study 3: Mercury. Andrew A. Rooney, NIEHS, Research Triangle Park, NC. Stem Cells in Toxicology AM07 CE Basic Chairperson(s): Michael P. Waalkes, NIEHS, Research Triangle Park, NC, and Erik J. Tokar, NIEHS, Research Triangle Park, NC. Sponsor: Stem Cells Specialty Section Endorsed by: Biotechnology Specialty Section Carcinogenesis Specialty Section Reproductive and Developmental Toxicology Specialty Section Stem cells are revolutionizing toxicological research and remain an area with tremendous potential. Recently, research on stem cells has generated tremendous public and professional interest. However, some areas of toxicological research have lagged behind in the integration of stem cells as a concept in toxicant-induced disease etiology. We will describe the utility and suitability of the assorted types of stem cell models (e.g., embryonic, fetal, progenitor, induced pluripotent, and immortalized stem cell lines) for various research purposes, including disease modeling, drug discovery and toxicity testing in order to describe the potential applications of stem cells in toxicological research. Thematic Session 56 SOT’s 51 st Annual Meeting
51 st Annual Meeting and ToxExpo Continuing Education This important overview of stem cells will highlight their nomenclature, properties, and roles in the genesis of various diseases. • Stem Cells in Toxicology. Erik J. Tokar, NIEHS, Research Triangle Park, NC. • The Concepts and Methods for Stem Cells. Ying Xia, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH. • Stem Cells in Carcinogenesis. Michael P. Waalkes, NIEHS, Research Triangle Park, NC, and Erik J. Tokar, NIEHS, Research Triangle Park, NC. • Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine. R. Clark Lantz, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. • Stem Cells in Safety Testing. Kyle L. Kolaja, Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., Nutley, NJ. Regulatory Science: Bridging the Gap between Discovery and Product Availability Concepts of Green Chemistry and Its Role in the Identification and Design of Safer Chemicals and Products PM08 CE Basic Chairperson(s): Pamela J. Spencer, Dow Chemical Company, Midland, MI, and John Warner, Warner Babcock Institute for Green Chemistry, Wilmington, MA. Endorsed by: Molecular Biology Specialty Section Hazard identification, dose-response characterization, and exposure potential are the underpinning of product safety assessments. These basic principles help regulatory agencies, manufacturers, and formulators determine the conditions for safe use of chemicals, raw materials, and products for a given application to reduce adverse impacts to human health and the environment. Today, as a part of the growing interest in green chemistry, the pendulum is shifting. The large number of companies engaging in sustainability initiatives, coupled with increased consumer demand for greener products, is driving a new process where impacts of chemical products and processes are included as design criteria. Reducing intrinsic chemical hazards up front is a strategy used in developing safer alternatives to existing chemicals. Thus green chemistry is raising the bar for chemical safety assessments. Our panel of experts will begin with a background of green chemistry, its basic principles, and why it is useful, and highlight key certification programs/tools used to identify safer alternatives, including their methods and criteria with specific emphasis on the Green Screen for Safer Chemicals alternatives assessment tool. There are unique opportunities for toxicologists to assist molecular designers in reducing the intrinsic hazards of their molecules by providing insight into toxicological mechanisms and data that support the application of green chemistry principles in the design of new chemicals and products. To underscore the importance of this issue, we will illustrate how principles of green chemistry are applied in a consumer products and a chemical company. The caveats and challenges will be addressed by using case studies. The exploration of this topical area will provide an understanding of green chemistry, awareness of the tools and programs immediately available and how to access and use them, and an appreciation for some of the practical challenges associated with implementing principles of green chemistry into product development and assessments of safer alternatives. • Introduction. Pamela J. Spencer, Dow Chemical Company, Midland, MI. • Introduction to the Concepts of Green Chemistry and Its Role in the Design of Safer Chemicals and Products. John Warner, Warner Babcock Institute for Green Chemistry, Wilmington, MA. • Using Comparative Hazard Assessments: Green Screen for Safer Chemicals. Lauren Heine, Lauren Heine Group LLC, Juneau, AK. • Strategies and Methods for Incorporating Green Chemistry into the Design of Chemicals and Products. Thomas G. Osimitz, Science Strategies, LLC, Charlottesville, VA. • Application of the Principles of Green Chemistry in a Chemical Company: Overview and Case Studies. J. Craig Rowlands, Dow Chemical Company, Midland, MI. • Application of the Principles of Green Chemistry in a Consumers Products Company: Overview and Case Studies. Donald Versteeg, Procter & Gamble Company, Cincinnati, OH. Innate Immunity and Its Relevance to Toxicology PM09 CE Basic Chairperson(s): Wendy J. Freebern, Bristol-Myers Squibb, North Brunswick, NJ, and Jacintha M. Shenton, MedImmune, Inc., Cambridge, United Kingdom. Sponsor: Immunotoxicology Specialty Section The innate immune system is the host’s first line of defense against infection. Thus, knowing the what, why, how, and when of innate immune function assessment in toxicology evaluations is important. This course will introduce the components of the innate immune system and its role in host defense, discuss clinical observations resulting from inhibition or stimulation of innate immune function in nonclinical species, provide case examples where understanding intentional or inadvertent effects on innate immune function has had utility in toxicity testing, and explain the what and how of innate immune measurements and the gaps in capabilities thereof. Innate immunity assessments to be discussed include bacterial killing assays and an array of macrophage, neutrophil, and natural killer cell CE up-to-date information at www.toxicology.org 57 CE Target Area
Page 1 and 2:
SOT | Program Preliminary Program S
Page 3 and 4:
Preliminary Program Contents Prelim
Page 5 and 6:
Preliminary Program Overview Sectio
Page 7 and 8: Monday, March 12 8:00 AM-9:00 AM PL
Page 9 and 10: 9:00 AM-12:30 PM Poster Sessions
Page 11 and 12: Clinical Toxicology from Bedside to
Page 13 and 14: San Francisco, California SOT San F
Page 15 and 16: 51 st Annual Meeting and ToxExpo Ge
Page 33 and 34: (Required: Please check the appropr
Page 35 and 36: Registration Form SOT 51 st Annual
Page 37 and 38: Scientific Posters SNACK BAR 016 11
Page 39 and 40: 51 st Annual Meeting and ToxExpo Ca
Page 41 and 42: Congratulations! Society of Toxicol
Page 43 and 44: San Francisco, California Special E
Page 49 and 50: Congratulations on the Increased Im
Page 53 and 54: Council and Annual Meeting Organizi
Page 55 and 56: 51 st Annual Meeting and ToxExpo Co
Page 57: 51 st Annual Meeting and ToxExpo Co
Page 61 and 62: 51 st Annual Meeting and ToxExpo Co
Page 63 and 64: Notes up-to-date information at www
Page 65 and 66: 51 st Annual Meeting and ToxExpo Th
Page 69 and 70: Notes up-to-date information at www
Page 71 and 72: San Francisco, California The Thema
Page 87 and 88: San Francisco SOT 2012 Submit Your
Page 109 and 110:
51 st Annual Meeting and ToxExpo Th
Page 111 and 112:
San Francisco, California The Thema
Page 113 and 114:
51 st Annual Meeting and ToxExpo Th
Page 115 and 116:
SOT If your company is interested i
Page 117 and 118:
It all adds up to an uncommonly ric
Page 119 and 120:
up-to-date information at www.toxic
Page 121 and 122:
San Francisco, California Exhibitor
Page 123 and 124:
Notes up-to-date information at www
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
52 nd Annual Meeting & ToxExpo 52 n
Page 131 and 132:
Appreciates the Generous 51st Annua
show all

51st Annual Meeting & ToxExpo - Society of Toxicology

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?