A template wizard for the cocreation of machine-readable data-reporting to harmonize the evaluation of (nano)materials

Michael J. Burgum, Shareen H. Doak, Nina Jeliazkova, Eleonora Longhin, Naouale El Yamani, Elise Rundén-Pran, Elisa Moschini, Tommaso Serchi, Ivana Vinković Vrček, Mihaela Roxana Cimpan, Ivan Rios-Mondragon, Emil Cimpan, Chiara L. Battistelli, Cecilia Bossa, Rositsa Tsekovska, Damjana Drobne, Sara Novak, Neža Repar, Ammar Ammar, Penny Nymark, Veronica Di Battista, Anita Sosnowska, Tomasz Puzyn, Nikolay Kochev, Luchesar Iliev, Vedrin Jeliazkov, Katie Reilly, Iseult Lynch, Martine Bakker, Camila Delpivo, Araceli Sánchez Jiménez, Ana Sofia Fonseca, Nicolas Manier, María Luisa Fernandez-Cruz, Shahzad Rashid, Egon Willighagen, Margarita D Apostolova, Maria Dusinska

Published: 2024-05-15 DOI: 10.1038/s41596-024-00993-1

Genome-wide quantification of transcription factor binding at single-DNA-molecule resolution using methyl-transferase footprinting

Generation of CRISPR–Cas9-mediated genetic knockout human intestinal tissue–derived enteroid lines by lentivirus transduction and single-cell cloning

A puromycin-dependent activity-based sensing probe for histochemical staining of hydrogen peroxide in cells and animal tissues

References

Guiding principles for measurements and reporting for nanomaterials: physical chemical parameters. ENV/JM/MONO(2019)13 vol. 91 OECD http://one.oecd.org/document/env/jm/mono(2019)13/en/pdf (2019).
Physical–chemical parameters: measurements and methods relevant for the regulation of nanomaterials. ENV/JM/MONO(2016)2 vol. 63 OECD http://one.oecd.org/document/ENV/JM/MONO(2016)63/en/pdf (2016).
Hofseth, L. J. Getting rigorous with scientific rigor. Carcinogenesis 39, 21–25 (2018).
Prager, E. M. et al. Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing. Brain Behav. 9, e01141 (2019).
Musen, M. A. et al. Modeling community standards for metadata as templates makes data FAIR. Sci. Data 9, 696 http://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01815-3 (2022).
Hernandez-Boussard, T., Bozkurt, S., Ioannidis, J. P. A. & Shah, N. H. MINIMAR (MINimum Information for Medical AI Reporting): developing reporting standards for artificial intelligence in health care. J. Am. Med. Inf. Assoc. 27, 2011–2015 (2020).
Papadiamantis, A. G. et al. Metadata stewardship in nanosafety research: community-driven organisation of metadata schemas to support fair nanoscience data. Nanomaterials 10, 1–49 (2020).
Percie du Sert, N. et al. Reporting animal research: explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0. PLoS Biol. 18, e3000411 (2020).
Moller, P. et al. Minimum Information for Reporting on the Comet Assay (MIRCA): recommendations for describing comet assay procedures and results. Nat. Protoc. 15, 3817–3826 (2020).
Faria, M. et al. Minimum information reporting in bio-nano experimental literature. Nat. Nanotechnol. 13, 777–785 (2018).
Chetwynd, A. J., Wheeler, K. E. & Lynch, I. Best practice in reporting corona studies: Minimum information about Nanomaterial Biocorona Experiments (MINBE). Nano Today 28, 100758 (2019).
Erickson, B. E. Nanomaterial characterization. Chem. Eng. N. Arch. 86, 25–26 (2008).
Drobne, D. Adding toxicological context to nanotoxicity study reporting using the NanoTox metadata list. Small 17, 2005622 (2021).
Elberskirch, L. et al. Digital research data: from analysis of existing standards to a scientific foundation for a modular metadata schema in nanosafety. Part. Fibre Toxicol. 19, 1 (2022).
Ramaswamy, V. & Ozcan, K. What is co-creation? An interactional creation framework and its implications for value creation. J. Bus. Res. 84, 196–205 (2018).
Grönroos, C. & Voima, P. Critical service logic: making sense of value creation and co-creation. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 41, 133–150 (2013).
Sansone, S.-A. et al. Toward interoperable bioscience data. Nat. Genet. 44, 121–126 (2012).
Sansone, S.-A., Rocca-Serra, P., Gonzalez-Beltran, Alejandra Johnson, D. & ISA community. ISA model and serialization specifications 1.0. Zenodo http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.163640 (2016).
Thomas, D. G. et al. ISA–TAB–Nano: a specification for sharing nanomaterial research data in spreadsheet-based format. BMC Biotechnol. 13, 2 (2013).
Kochev, N. et al. Your spreadsheets can be FAIR: a tool and FAIRification workflow for the eNanoMapper database. Nanomaterials 10, 1908 (2020).
Jeliazkova, N. et al. Towards FAIR nanosafety data. Nat. Nanotechnol. 16, 644–654 (2021).
Totaro, S., Crutzen, H. & Riego-Sintes, J. Data logging templates for the environmental, health and safety assessment of nanomaterials. European Commission http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC103178 (2017).
Gottardo, S. et al. GRACIOUS data logging templates for the environmental, health and safety assessment of nanomaterials. European Commission http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC117733 (2019).
Tanoli, Z. et al. Minimal information for chemosensitivity assays (MICHA): a next-generation pipeline to enable the FAIRification of drug screening experiments. Brief. Bioinform. 23, bbab350 (2022).
Heller, S. R., McNaught, A., Pletnev, I., Stein, S. & Tchekhovskoi, D. InChI, the IUPAC international chemical identifier. J. Cheminform. 7, 23 (2015).
Scheffler, M. et al. FAIR data enabling new horizons for materials research. Nature 604, 635–642 (2022).
Wilkinson, M. D. et al. The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data 3, 160018 (2016).
Jeliazkova, N., Kochev, N. & Tancheva, G. in Data Integrity and Data Governance http://doi.org/10.5992/intechopen.1000857 (2023).
van Rijn, J. et al. European Registry of Materials: global, unique identifiers for (undisclosed) nanomaterials. J. Cheminform. 14, 57 (2022).
Lynch, I. et al. Can an InChI for nano address the need for a simplified representation of complex nanomaterials across experimental and nanoinformatics studies? Nanomaterials 10, 2493 (2020).
Ammar, A., Evelo, C. & Willighagen, E. FAIR assessment of nanosafety data reusability with community standards. Prepr. ChemRxiv http://doi.org/10.26434/chemrxiv-2022-l8vk8-v2 (2022).
Berrios, D. C., Beheshti, A. & Costes, S. V. FAIRness and usability for open-access omics data systems. Annu. Symp. Proc. AMIA Symp. 2018, 232–241 (2018).
Rasmussen, K., Rauscher, H., Kearns, P., González, M. & Riego Sintes, J. Developing OECD test guidelines for regulatory testing of nanomaterials to ensure mutual acceptance of test data. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 104, 74–83 (2019).
Xiarchos, I., Morozinis, A. K., Kavouras, P. & Charitidis, C. A. Nanocharacterization, materials modeling, and research integrity as enablers of sound risk assessment: designing responsible nanotechnology. Small 16, 2001590 (2020).
Steinhäuser, K. G. & Sayre, P. G. Reliability of methods and data for regulatory assessment of nanomaterial risks. NanoImpact 7, 66–74 (2017).
Hendren, C. O., Lowry, G. V., Unrine, J. M. & Wiesner, M. R. A functional assay-based strategy for nanomaterial risk forecasting. Sci. Total Environ. 536, 1029–1037 (2015).
Gao, X. & Lowry, G. V. Progress towards standardized and validated characterizations for measuring physicochemical properties of manufactured nanomaterials relevant to nano health and safety risks. NanoImpact 9, 14–30 (2018).
Geitner, N. K. et al. Harmonizing across environmental nanomaterial testing media for increased comparability of nanomaterial datasets. Environ. Sci. Nano 7, 13–36 (2020).
Modena, M. M., Rühle, B., Burg, T. P. & Wuttke, S. Nanoparticle characterization: what to measure? Adv. Mater. 31, 1901556 (2019).
Rasmussen, K. et al. Physico-chemical properties of manufactured nanomaterials - Characterisation and relevant methods. An outlook based on the OECD testing programme. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 92, 8–28 (2018).
Jeliazkova, N. Data entry template for material composition—part of eNanoMapper Template Wizard. Zenodo http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7751340 (2023).
Preliminary review of OECD test guidelines for their applicability to manufactured nanomaterials. ENV/JM/MONO(2009)21 OECD http://one.oecd.org/document/ENV/JM/MONO(2009)21/en/pdf (2009).
Guidance on sample preparation and dosimetry for the safety testing of manufactured nanomaterials. ENV/JM/MONO(2012)40 OECD http://one.oecd.org/document/ENV/JM/MONO(2012)40/en/pdf (2012).
Report of the OECD expert meeting on the physical chemical properties of manufactured nanomaterials and test guidelines. ENV/JM/MONO(2014)15 vol. 41 OECD http://one.oecd.org/document/ENV/JM/MONO(2014)15/en/pdf (2014).
Ag Seleci, D. et al. Determining nanoform similarity via assessment of surface reactivity by abiotic and in vitro assays. NanoImpact 26, 100390 (2022).
Koltermann-Jülly, J. et al. Abiotic dissolution rates of 24 (nano)forms of 6 substances compared to macrophage-assisted dissolution and in vivo pulmonary clearance: grouping by biodissolution and transformation. NanoImpact 12, 29–41 (2018).
Keller, J. G. et al. Predicting dissolution and transformation of inhaled nanoparticles in the lung using abiotic flow cells: the case of barium sulfate. Sci. Rep. 10, 458 (2020).
Keller, J. G. et al. Variation in dissolution behavior among different nanoforms and its implication for grouping approaches in inhalation toxicity. NanoImpact 23, 100341 (2021).
Li, Y., Fujita, M. & Boraschi, D. Endotoxin contamination in nanomaterials leads to the misinterpretation of immunosafety results. Front. Immunol. 8, 472 (2017).
Longhin, E., Moschini, E., El Yamani, N. & Sanchez, M. Consolidated pre-validated guidance document on the determination of ENMs endotoxins content. Deliverable 4.4. RiskGONE http://riskgone.wp.nilu.no/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2022/02/RiskGONE-D4.4.pdf (2021).
Longhin, E. M., El Yamani, N., Rundén-Pran, E. & Dusinska, M. The alamar blue assay in the context of safety testing of nanomaterials. Front. Toxicol. 4, 981701 (2022).
O’Brien, J., Wilson, I., Orton, T. & Pognan, F. Investigation of the alamar blue (resazurin) fluorescent dye for the assessment of mammalian cell cytotoxicity. Eur. J. Biochem. 267, 5421–5426 (2000).
Guidance Document on Good In Vitro Method Practices (GIVIMP). OECD http://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304796-en (2018).
Ponti, J. et al. Interlaboratory comparison study of the colony forming efficiency assay for assessing cytotoxicity of nanomaterials. Jt. Res. Cent. http://doi.org/10.2788/406937 (2014).
Rundén-Pran, E. et al. The colony forming efficiency assay for toxicity testing of nanomaterials—modifications for higher throughput. Front. Toxicol. 4, 983316 (2022).
Cowie, H. et al. Suitability of human and mammalian cells of different origin for the assessment of genotoxicity of metal and polymeric engineered nanoparticles. Nanotoxicology 9, 57–65 (2015).
Vodenkova, S. et al. An optimized comet-based in vitro DNA repair assay to assess base and nucleotide excision repair activity. Nat. Protoc. 15, 3844–3878 (2020).
Guidance on the safety assessment of nanomaterials in cosmetics. Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety http://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-10/sccs_o_233_0.pdf (2020).
More, S. et al. Guidance on risk assessment of nanomaterials to be applied in the food and feed chain: human and animal health. EFSA J. 19, e06768 (2021).
More, S. et al. Guidance on technical requirements for regulated food and feed product applications to establish the presence of small particles including nanoparticles. EFSA J. 19, e06769 (2021).
El Yamani, N. et al. The miniaturized enzyme-modified comet assay for genotoxicity testing of nanomaterials. Front. Toxicol. 4, 986318 (2022).
Magdolenova, Z., Lorenzo, Y., Collins, A. & Dusinska, M. Can standard genotoxicity tests be applied to nanoparticles? J. Toxicol. Environ. Heal. Part A 75, 800–806 (2012).
Rajapakse, K., Drobne, D., Kastelec, D. & Marinsek-Logar, R. Experimental evidence of false-positive Comet test results due to TiO 2 particle—assay interactions. Nanotoxicology 7, 1043–1051 (2013).
Bossa, C. et al. FAIRification of nanosafety data to improve applicability of (Q)SAR approaches: a case study on in vitro comet assay genotoxicity data. Comput. Toxicol. 20, 100190 (2021).
El Yamani, N. et al. Hazard identification of nanomaterials: in silico unraveling of descriptors for cytotoxicity and genotoxicity. Nano Today 46, 101581 (2022).
Collins, A. et al. Measuring DNA modifications with the comet assay: a compendium of protocols. Nat. Protoc. 18, 929–989 (2023).
El Yamani, N. et al. In vitro genotoxicity testing of four reference metal nanomaterials, titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, cerium oxide and silver: towards reliable hazard assessment. Mutagenesis 32, 117–126 (2017).
El Yamani, N. et al. Lack of mutagenicity of TiO2 nanoparticles in vitro despite cellular and nuclear uptake. Mutat. Res. Toxicol. Environ. Mutagen. 882, 503545 (2022).
Template for mammalian erythrocyte micronucleus test. FDA http://www.fda.gov/food/ingredients-additives-gras-packaging-guidance-documents-regulatory-information/template-mammalian-erythrocyte-micronucleus-test (2004).
Llewellyn, S. V. et al. Assessing the transferability and reproducibility of 3D in vitro liver models from primary human multi-cellular microtissues to cell-line based HepG2 spheroids. Toxicol. Vitr. 85, 105473 (2022).
Test no. 487: in vitro mammalian cell micronucleus test. OECD http://doi.org/10.1787/9789264264861-en (2016).
Study report and preliminary guidance on the adaptation of the in vitro micronucleus assay (OECD TG 487) for testing of manufactured nanomaterials ENV/CBC/MONO(2022)15. series on testing and assessment vol. 359. OECD http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/testing/series-testing-assessment-publications-number.htm.
Test no. 476: in vitro mammalian cell gene mutation tests using the Hprt and xprt genes. OECD http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/test-no-476-in-vitro-mammalian-cell-gene-mutation-tests-using-the-hprt-and-xprt-genes_9789264264809-en, http://doi.org/10.1787/20745788 (2016).
Doak, S. H. et al. Mechanistic influences for mutation induction curves after exposure to DNA-reactive carcinogens. Cancer Res. 67, 3904–3911 (2007).
Johnson, G. E. et al. Non-linear dose–response of DNA-reactive genotoxins: recommendations for data analysis. Mutat. Res. Toxicol. Environ. Mutagen. 678, 95–100 (2009).
Guadagnini, R. et al. Toxicity screenings of nanomaterials: challenges due to interference with assay processes and components of classic in vitro tests. Nanotoxicology 9, 13–24 (2015).
Kroll, A., Pillukat, M. H., Hahn, D. & Schnekenburger, J. Interference of engineered nanoparticles with in vitro toxicity assays. Arch. Toxicol. 86, 1123–1136 (2012).
Collins, A. R. et al. High-throughput toxicity screening and intracellular detection of nanomaterials. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Nanomed. Nanobiotechnol. http://doi.org/10.1002/wnan.1413 (2017).
Ostermann, M. et al. Label-free impedance flow cytometry for nanotoxicity screening. Sci. Rep. 10, 142 (2020).
Jemec, A., Mesarič, T., Sopotnik, M., Sepčić, K. & Drobne, D. in Nanomaterial Characterization 253–268 (John Wiley & Sons, 2016).
Taylor, C. F. et al. Promoting coherent minimum reporting guidelines for biological and biomedical investigations: the MIBBI project. Nat. Biotechnol. 26, 889–896 (2008).
Sakurai, K., Kurtz, A., Stacey, G., Sheldon, M. & Fujibuchi, W. First proposal of minimum information about a cellular assay for regenerative medicine. Stem Cells Transl. Med. 5, 1345–1361 (2016).
Karatzas, P. et al. Development of deep learning models for predicting the effects of exposure to engineered nanomaterials on Daphnia magna. Small 16, 2001080 (2020).
Test no. 202: Daphnia sp. acute immobilisation test. OECD http://doi.org/10.1787/9789264069947-en (2004).
Test no. 211: Daphnia magna Reproduction Test. OECD http://doi.org/10.1787/9789264185203-en (2012).
Fernández-Cruz, M. L. et al. Quality evaluation of human and environmental toxicity studies performed with nanomaterials—the GUIDEnano approach. Environ. Sci. Nano http://doi.org/10.1039/C7EN00716G (2018).
Klimisch, H. J., Andreae, M. & Tillmann, U. A systematic approach for evaluating the quality of experimental toxicological and ecotoxicological data. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 25, 1–5 (1997).
Exposure Scenario Library. IOM http://guidenano.iom-world.co.uk/.
Rashid, S. et al. GRACIOUS release and exposure templates. Zenodo http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4665253 (2021).
Sanchez Jimenez, A. et al. Harmonization of release and exposure data collection for nanomaterials. Prep.
Perez-Riverol, Y. et al. The PRIDE database resources in 2022: a hub for mass spectrometry-based proteomics evidences. Nucleic Acids Res. 50, D543–D552 (2022).
Additives, E. P. on F. et al. Safety assessment of titanium dioxide (E171) as a food additive. EFSA J. 19, e06585 (2021).
Canada, H. State of the science of titanium dioxide (TiO2) as a food additive. LJMU http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2022/sc-hc/H164-341-2022-eng.pdf (2022).
Corcho, O., Eriksson, M. & Kurowski, K. EOSC interoperability framework: report from the EOSC Executive Board Working Groups FAIR and Architecture. http://doi.org/10.2777/620649 (2021).
The New European Interoperability Framework. European Commission http://ec.europa.eu/isa2/eif_en/.
Basei, G., Rauscher, H., Jeliazkova, N. & Hristozov, D. A methodology for the automatic evaluation of data quality and completeness of nanomaterials for risk assessment purposes. Nanotoxicology 16, 195–216 (2022).
Ellis, L. A. et al. Multigenerational exposures of Daphnia magna to pristine and aged silver nanoparticles: epigenetic changes and phenotypical ageing related effects. Small 16, 2000301 (2020).
Ellis, L.-J. A. et al. Multigenerational exposure to Nano-TiO2 induces ageing as a stress response mitigated by environmental interactions. Adv. NanoBiomed Res. 1, 2000083 (2021).
Pem, B. et al. Biocompatibility assessment of up-and down-converting nanoparticles: implications of interferences with in vitro assays. Methods Appl. Fluoresc. 7, 014001 (2018).
Vinković Vrček, I. et al. Does surface coating of metallic nanoparticles modulate their interference with in vitro assays? RSC Adv. 5, 70787–70807 (2015).

A template wizard for the cocreation of machine-readable data-reporting to harmonize the evaluation of (nano)materials

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Data 1

推荐阅读