[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/4″][vc_column_text]SETAC Europe 26th Anual Meeting Nantes
May 26th, 2016, Nantes (France)

SETAC Europe
Avenue de la Toison d’Or 67
B-1060 Brussels
Belgium

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]

Following the IPIE Project Meeting, the SETAC (Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry) Europe conference in Nantes followed with several contributions from the IPIE project. Research presented from work packages 4 and 5, lead by Lina Gunnarsson (Exeter University), highlighted drug target conservation of across taxa using a comparative genomic approach using different ortholog prediction methods.  About 85% of human drug targets have orthologs in teleost fish and <1% of active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) lack conserved pharmaceutical drug targets in all fish.  Lina also described the relative sensitivity of daphnia and fish to API exposure where drug targets were and were not conserved between these two ecotoxicological models. Gareth le Page (Exeter University) presented an analysis of all publically available ecotoxicity data and clinically relevant data for antibiotics.  This meta-analysis of data indicated that cyanobacteria were generally the most sensitive ecotoxicological species and in some cases they were more sensitive than recently published theoretical predicted no effect concentrations for antimicrobial resistance (PNECresistance).  Gareth is currently validating a microtitre-based assay for algal and cyanobacteria toxicity screening for a wider range of test species.  These microtitre-based assays will allow chemicals and effluents to be screened with greater throughput.  Finally, Stewart Owen and Jason Snape (AstraZeneca) presented a poster based on the output of work package 1.  This poster described a prioritisation framework, using in silico, in vitro and in vivo assays to predict API uptake, metabolism, elimination and toxicity that could be used to assess the relative risks posed by APIs at local, regional and national levels.

[/vc_column_text][vc_raw_html el_class=”back”]JTNDYSUyMGhyZWYlM0QlMjJodHRwJTNBJTJGJTJGaS1waWUub3JnJTJGbmV3cyUyRiUyMiUyMHN0eWxlJTNEJTIydGV4dC1kZWNvcmF0aW9uJTNBbm9uZSUzQmNvbG9yJTNBJTIzMzM4ZGNjJTNCdGV4dC1hbGlnbiUzQXJpZ2h0JTNCbWFyZ2luLXRvcCUzQTEwcHglM0IlMjIlM0UlM0NpJTIwY2xhc3MlM0QlMjJmYSUyMGZhLXJlcGx5JTIyJTIwYXJpYS1oaWRkZW4lM0QlMjJ0cnVlJTIyJTNFJTNDJTJGaSUzRSUyNm5ic3AlM0JCYWNrJTNDJTJGYSUzRQ==[/vc_raw_html][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_empty_space][/vc_column][/vc_row]