Such models are relevant for the implementation of EU
legislation on chemicals that strongly recommend or require the use of
alternative approaches to animal studies.
review was carried out by scientists involved in the Horizon 2020 COSMOS project, including members of the
JRC's EU Reference Laboratory for Alternatives to Animal testing (EURL ECVAM) .
review describes more than 50 computational models for predicting the skin
penetrating properties of chemicals. This is an important consideration in the
design and safety assessment of various products, and in particular cosmetics
and certain pharmaceuticals, which are intentionally applied to the skin.
models for skin permeability are of particular interest in the light of the
current EU legislations. For example, the REACH Regulation strongly recommends
or requires the use of alternatives to animal studies, and the Cosmetics
Regulation has completely banned the marketing of cosmetic products in the EU that
contain ingredients tested on animals after March 2013.
rate and amount of skin absorption are important pieces of information in the
design and safety assessment of chemicals and chemical-containing products.
When used in combination with suitable in vitro methods, these types of
computational models provide a means of reducing or avoiding the need for
review describes different kinds of modelling approaches, with emphasis on
models that make predictions from information on chemical structure. The
characteristics of these models are described in a systematic manner, along
with the datasets used for model building. The scientific challenges involved
are also discussed, along with recommendations for developing high quality
The review was carried out by the COSMOS team in the
broader context of providing high quality resources, such as datasets and computational models , that could be used to support the
safety assessment of cosmetics.
More on this can be found
in Tsakovska I. et al., "Quantitative
structure-skin permeability relationships",
Toxicology, 387 (2017), pp. 27-42. doi: 10.1016/j.tox.2017.06.008.