• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
AOP Community of Practice Symposium (February 15, 17, 22, 2022
• More effectively using scientific information in impactful decision-making?
• Developing and publishing novel AOPs or contributing to existing AOPs?
• Using AOPs to inform risk assessments, regulation, or policy setting?
• Conducting research to fills critical gaps in existing understanding of biological systems?
• Learning more about AOPs and their applications?
• Shaping the evolution of the AOP framework and AOP-KB?

WHAT: The 1st AOP Community of Practice Symposium, Sponsored by the SAAOP
WHEN: February 15, 17, and 22, 2022
                 Attend one day or all days
WHO: Open to anyone interested in AOPs and their applications
WHERE: Virtual meeting – participate from wherever you are
FORMAT: Three half day meetings (approximately 4 h per day)
•           Rotating start times to accommodate global participation
•           Recorded presentations available for at least 30 d
DAILY AGENDA: 1) Topical thought starter presentations with Q&A (approx. 60 min)
                        2) Open abstracts – presentations with Q&A (approx. 90 min)
                        3) Topical break-out discussions – all welcome to participate (approx. 60 min)


To Register: https://app.oxfordabstracts.com/events/2...ations/new
To Submit an Abstract:
*Submit abstracts by December 3, 2021

Draft Program (subject to change)
February 15, 2022
Start Time:
13:00 GMT;
Time (GMT)
13:00-14:30 Topical thought starter presentations:
Introduction to the AOP Community of Practice
14:45-15:50 Experiences from AOP Developers, Coaches, Reviewers, and/or Users
Open abstract presentations (6 x 10 min presentations)
16:00-17:00 Break-out discussions

February 17, 2022
Start Time:
11:00 GMT;
Time (GMT)
11:00-12:30 Topical thought starter presentations:
Best Practices for AOP Development and Use
12:45-13:50 Experiences from AOP Developers, Coaches, Reviewers, and/or Users
Open abstract presentations (6 x 10 min presentations)
14:00-15:00 Break-out discussions

February 22, 2022
Start Time:
7:00 GMT;
Time (GMT)
7:00-8:30 Topical thought starter presentations:
AOP Networks, and Interoperability of AOP-KB
8:45-9:50 Experiences from AOP Developers, Coaches, Reviewers, and/or Users
Open abstract presentations (6 x 10 min presentations)
10:00-11:00 Break-out discussions
Hello all - the AOP Community of Practice Symposium is about to start.

Check-out the on-line program at https://virtual.oxfordabstracts.com/#/ev...37/program
Highlights from Day 1 BOG 4:
• Broad range of perspectives: information management, academic research, regulatory science research, regulatory appllication

• Its not easy to extract data from the Wiki. There is a new version coming that intends to facilitate this. Third party tools are being developed to help with this too. E.g. http://saop.cpr.ku.dk/, http://aop-helpfinder.u-paris-sciences.fr/index.php

• Still problems with language standardization. Suggestion to have more defined vocabulary with few, well defined choices.

• Covered biological space of wiki is small. How to identify and stimulate projects in areas of need?

• AOP wiki is a great collaboration tool as evidenced by the CIAO project. Great way to have large numbers of people working on small parts that fit into a larger picture. Breaks down scientific barriers and silos.

• Need a better process for adding to existing AOPs. Would benefit from a formal process, perhaps
Highlights from Day 1, BOG 1:

Community of Practice:
Thoughts about community
  • AOP development is a big task and Community is a network to get advice and draw from experience
  • A way to implement the ICCVAM roadmap goal - communication between developers and users
  • Opportunity for developers of test methods and AOPs to understand needs of Regulatory users
  • Cross- and Interdisciplinary network of collaborators outside of other colleague networks
  • A well-connected community can drive change in ways that individuals cannot
Thoughts about practice:
  • Need to develop standardized approaches
  • Identifying needs that appear across disciplines
  • Logical synthesis of information to define causation, essentiality and quantitative relationships between measurable events
  • Synthesis and gap analysis that can inform and expedite needed lab research
  • AOPs are a means to provide regulators with quick direction and comprehensive review of specific connections between available data
Incentives / Motivation: 
  • Current science incentives are based on novelty, not review and synthesis 
  • Funded projects are necessary
  • Can fit an AOP as a milestone within a larger funded project / unmet need
  • AOP development is ideal (skill/timeframe) for postdoc projects
  • Efforts are underway to generate "stubs" or AOP hypotheses to identify AOP needs - these could become funded postdocs
  • Smaller units (e.g. a single KE) could be ideal for shorter time frames / earlier education stages
  • Wiki development does not reward work - OECD review and journal reports are a great solution
Wiki Improvements:
  • Link to AOPs from relevant Pubmed/Pubchem pages - need to reconcile ontologies?
  • Improved search - consolidated search box with advanced search term selection (Author, keyword, number)
  • Hide orphan AOPs by default to prevent users from being discouraged when first visiting the wiki by finding empty AOPs with great titles
Highlights from Day 1 BOG 3

Community of Practice and Roles it Could Play
• Aggregation of training materials on one site, to make them more accessible to folks that are new to AOPs and want to learn.
• SAAOP as a coordination point for AOP/AOPN development focused around specific topical areas
• Current symposium was a good way those new to the area to get a feel for the diversity of AOP related efforts taking place

Incentives/Motivation for AOP Development
• The satisfaction of putting together various pieces of information to assemble knowledge
• A way to help tell a story from a body of data
• Serve as a handy reference even for the developers themselves to go back and refresh on a topic
• An effective way to bring lots of information together - similar to a review, but less likely to get buried amongst all the other literature and easier to update

Obstacles/hesitation related to AOP development
• The number of fields to fill out for an AOP description seems daunting
• There feels like a lot of redundancy between various fields and pages - is there a way to make that more efficient but still maintain modularity

Other discussion
• The role of evaluation of study quality in the process of developing AOPs - no simple way to impose a set of guidelines without a lot more burden on the authors
• The uncertainties and inconsistencies section of the KER pages as an important place to identify whether study quality issues may be a factor
• In general, filling in the uncertainties and inconsistencies section can be one of the most important parts of AOP development. Identifies where additional research may be needed.

Use of AOPs
• Searching for AOPs on a topic as a first source, before moving on to a literature search. If someone has already synthesized, can point you to the relevant information very quickly and efficiently
The "new thing" that AOPs really provide, compared to other types of biological networks or pathways is the assembly of weight of evidence. This is why filling in the evidence supporting the KERS is such a critical part of developing a high quality AOP.
• The group discussed the value to testing AOPs by using novel compounds from chemical screening libraries like ToxCast that were previously shown to exhibit an activity associated with a KE
• Don't always see the predicted effects
• Noted the importance of reporting those results that don't agree with an AOP as well
• Ultimate goal is to improve the utility for application, not to "prove" the AOP
• Understanding why an AOP-based prediction didn't work provides an important means to refine and improve our understanding
• Also important to consider possible errors in the screening data - may not always mean the AOP was wrong - somethings there are different explanations
• Discussion about the best way to add discordant information to AOPs in the wiki
• Use of discussion pages, associated with each AOP page
• KEs and KERS can be edited by anyone with author rights - can add information to them, including information on inconsistencies and uncertainties

What topics of interest relative to AOPs haven't you heard so far in the CoP Symposium?
• Ways to deal with KEs that are synonyms or nearly synonyms
○ Key event components - partial solution, but variable use
○ Gardening - can help when issues are flagged, but labor intensive, and time-consuming
○ There has never been a systematic study of how good the key event components are at identifying synonymous events - that was their intent, but it has not been fully utilized for that purpose to date
• A number of the presentations talked about ascribing numerical indications of uncertainty to the KERs based on study quality, risk of bias, etc.
○ In practice, how is that actually done?
• Use of AOPs to support use of non-animal models
○ Build a case that animals aren't always the gold standard
○ In some cases, a non-animal in vitro assay etc. may be a better model for humans (or other animals of interest) than an intact animal model whose physiology is not conserved

How can AOP authors find out what AOPs are wanted/needed by regulators etc.?
• Would be nice to have a mechanism to link demand to development
• The AOP-Wiki seems like a good way to do it - apply a section to the AOP-Wiki or SAAOP
• NC3Rs could also be a repository for that
• Publish a putative AOPs - as crystallization points out into the community
• Researchers' desire to perform research that has impact is a key motivator for AOP development
• Would be really useful to researchers if they could identify a wish list of AOPs that regulators would like to see developed or improved, that would be really valuable
• Regulators may not know what they need yet, because not a ton of application examples yet
• Would be valuable to have a place where they could add ideas, in the moment as they occur
• A list of AOPs of interest would also be really helpful for students - educational programs related to AOP development could develop student projects related to developing AOPs that have been requested/are desired.
We were talking a lot about collaborations today during the meeting, and I’m not sure how you currently manage literature review projects, but I was recently introduced to an extremely helpful tool for literature reviews, especially when working with a team. Its called Rayyan, an online tool for helping sort out the mass amount of papers one can find while doing a lit review.

Basically you can save your Google scholar/Scopus/Web of Science/etc search as a .CSV file, and choose the fields you want to save (I normally will do Title, Author, Abstract and Keywords). You can then upload multiple .CSVs from different searches or engines to Rayyan, which will automatically remove duplicates. Rayyan also allows you to quickly skim papers, add tags to whether you will include or exclude them as well as why, and auto-sorts them into respective folders.

The nice part about Rayyan is the team accessibility aspect. It’s online so multiple people can work at once, and you don’t have to worry about people looking at the same papers someone already has. The main page when you login to rayyan also shows you all the collaborators, how many papers they’ve uploaded, sorted, and how much time they’ve spent doing so, so it’s really good at keeping people accountable.

Making an account is free and there are tons of tutorials. https://www.rayyan.ai/

This would have been extremely helpful while making my AOP and I will be using it moving forward. So I figured I would pass on the knowledge.
Highlights from Day 3 - Break out Group 2:
On the Future of the Community of Practice
- Would like to see a mix of more frequent communications/interactions and larger meetings/symposia - for example a monthly webinar series and meeting every other year
* The topics at the CoP Symposium were very broad - might be useful to form some "interest groups" within the CoP that are focused on particular topica areas
* Would also be useful to have an "interest group" for people that are newer to the AOP framework and are looking to learn more of the basics
* At the same time participants noted the value of seeing some of the things that are being done in other fields/disciplines as a way to draw inspiration and think about common challenges in a slightly different way, etc.
* Participants suggested a balance between more focused topics, but still being able to seem some diversity

On Communications within the CoP
* Question was raised whether the forum is a reasonable place for communications among the CoP
* Participants felt it was as good as anything
* Question raised about whether the discussion pages in the AOP-Wiki could be linked programmatically with posts to the forum
1st SAAOP AOP Community of Practice Symposium – Day 3, Breakout group 3, 22.2.22, 11.00-12.00 (CET)
Moderator: You Song (NIVA)
Rapporteur: Simon Schmid (NIVA)
Discussion points:
• Meaning of AOP community of practice
• Possible Improvements of the Wiki
• Future of the Wiki
Meaning of AOP community of practice
• Community of practice is generally be hoped to be a place where experts from different discipline can gather and discuss
• The need for more workshops/symposia of this kind has been expressed (e.g. for AOP-NW analysis)
• For younger developers, the CoP should be a place to ask for advice from experienced AOP developers and a place to share experiences, learn and discuss
• “Offline” coaching was discussed, i.e. coaching outside the OECD AOP development program  there seems to be a clear need for that  many training resources are available online, Shihori was already approached for such informal coaching through the AOP Forum
• Need for tutorial videos online
• Inexperienced AOP wiki users want to know who the experts are  Need for contacts
• AOP Forum was considered an important resource to get help from experienced users
• The AOP Review process was briefly discussed, the question of why only one reviewer was appointed and not a reviewer team in such an interdisciplinary manner arose  efforts in that direction are underway
• How to bring in the regulators? The AOP-CoP symposium is seen as an important event to start a dialogue

Possible Improvements of the Wiki
• For cross species extrapolation/taxonomic applicability domain  Why is SeqAPASS not integrated in AOP wiki  improvement if it would be linked to wiki
• AOP Networks: Issue of complexity was addressed, in particular BH considerations for whole networks are regarded to be laborious
• Increasing complexity of AOP-NW  especially when it comes to quantification
• Further Improvements: use IDs on everything (e.g. chemicals, references), cleaning of KEs (many duplicates), multiple KEs make AOP-NW even more complicated, two options for cleaning of KEs  contact gardener or KE authors directly
• Consistency in vocabulary and machine readability were also named as possible improvements
• There should be a possibility to integrate homeostatic responses into AOP-NW
• KEs: need for documenting test strategies/standardized protocols, method database linked to wiki to register protocols?
• OECD reporting template for high throughput data in progress, should make the use of HT data for KE support easier  problem: usually only 1 KE measured, not linked to the next one in AOP, so only the KE is supported not the KER
• General data quality/availability was discussed, use of existing data for qAOP development usually difficult because methodology is not transparent enough or data not available
• Building networks is in the “figuring out phase”  everyone has their own preferred approach
• Use of AOPs/AOP-NW: regulators want to use it but do not see how yet

Future of the Wiki
• Trust issue was mentioned briefly  missing references etc., reason for that could be that there is no “reward” for developers (e.g. publication)

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)