A toxicologically based weight-of-evidence methodology for the relative ranking of chemicals of endocrine disruption potential

QSAR/QSPR models based on quantum chemistry for risk assessment of pesticides according to current European legislation

In Europe, agencies and official organizations involved in the pesticide control such as the EFSA, ECHA, JRC and ECETOC or even the OECD are pointing out that the software tools based on quantitative structure relationship models, i.e. QSAR and QSPR, have a huge potential to improve the pesticide risk assessment process. In this sense, these non-animal test methods can promote the competitiveness of agriculture in this region: the consumer safety is increased with them due to the possibility of perform an overall better risk assessment of the degradation products and metabolites from pesticides. However, the use of theses computational-based (in silico) tools must be much more systematised and harmonised, improving their validation and including case studies to test them. To open databases, incorporating critical data in an orderly manner for building the models, becomes also necessary. Moreover, quantum chemistry through the Density Functional Theory should be promoted as tool for calculation of quantum descriptors, especially for the study of similar compounds with the same carbon skeleton but differing substitution patterns, e.g. isomers.

Endocrine Disruptors: A Critical Review of In Vitro and In Vivo Testing Strategies for Assessing Their Toxic Hazard to Humans

Currently, there is much concern that a wide range of both synthetic and naturally occurring environmental chemicals can act as endocrine disruptors (EDs), and can adversely affect humans and wildlife. Many in vivo and in vitro tests have been proposed for screening EDs, and several regulatory agencies, including the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), have recommended tier-testing schemes. Unfortunately, most of the proposed toxicity tests have substantial problems, including non-specificity and lack of reproducibility. There is also uncertainty concerning their relevance for generating useful hazard data for risk assessment purposes, in view of the diversity of the possible ED mechanisms of action (for example, receptor binding, steroidogenesis and modulation of the homeostatic processes which regulate endogenous responses to hormones). Moreover, most of the suggested test methods have yet to be validated according to internationally accepted criteria, although the OECD and the US EPA have defined tests for validation, and an interlaboratory “prevalidation” exercise has been initiated by the OECD. All this is compounded by the lack of information regarding human exposure levels to EDs, and a lack of direct evidence for a causal link between exposure and the development of adverse human health effects. In addition, the regulatory testing of EDs has important negative implications for animal welfare, as some of the proposed in vivo tests require large group sizes of animals and stressful procedures. From a detailed analysis of the available published literature, it is concluded that it is impossible to assess the relative values of currently available in vitro and in vivo toxicity tests for EDs, or to recommend any test or test battery. Any plans for the widespread testing of EDs are therefore premature and might be unnecessary, at least for detecting possible human effects. Several recommendations are made for rectifying this unsatisfactory situation, including the postponement of screening programmes pending: a) more information on human exposure; b) further details of the mechanisms of action of EDs; and c) the development of improved tests, followed by their proper scientific validation.

Adaptive responses to low doses of radiation or chemicals: their cellular and molecular mechanisms

This article reviews the current knowledge on the mechanisms of adaptive response to low doses of ionizing radiation or chemical exposure. A better knowledge of these mechanisms is needed to improve our understanding of health risks at low levels of environmental or occupational exposure and their involvement in cancer or non-cancer diseases. This response is orchestrated through a multifaceted cellular program involving the concerted action of diverse stress response pathways. These evolutionary highly conserved defense mechanisms determine the cellular response to chemical and physical aggression. They include DNA damage repair (p53, ATM, PARP pathways), antioxidant response (Nrf2 pathway), immune/inflammatory response (NF-κB pathway), cell survival/death pathway (apoptosis), endoplasmic response to stress (UPR response), and other cytoprotective processes including autophagy, cell cycle regulation, and the unfolded protein response. The coordinated action of these processes induced by low-dose radiation or chemicals produces biological effects that are currently estimated with the linear non-threshold model. These effects are controversial. They are difficult to detect because of their low magnitude, the scarcity of events in humans, and the difficulty of corroborating associations over the long term. Improving our understanding of these biological consequences should help humans and their environment by enabling better risk estimates, the revision of radiation protection standards, and possible therapeutic advances.

Inclusion of emerging organic contaminants in groundwater monitoring plans

Groundwater is essential for human life and its protection is a goal for the European policies. All the anthropogenic activities could impact on water quality. •Conventional pollutants and more than 700 emerging pollutants, resulting from point and diffuse source contamination, threat the aquatic ecosystem.•Policy-makers and scientists will have to cooperate to create an initial groundwater emerging pollutant priority list, to answer at consumer demands for safety and to the lack of conceptual models for emerging pollutants in groundwater.•Among the emerging contaminants and pollutants this paper focuses on organic wastewater contaminants (OWCs) mainly released into the environment by domestic households, industry, hospitals and agriculture. This paper starts from the current regulatory framework and from the literature overview to explain how the missing conceptual model for OWCs could be developed.•A full understanding of the mechanisms leading to the contamination and the evidence of the contamination must be the foundation of the conceptual model. In this paper carbamazepine, galaxolide and sulfamethozale, between the OWCs, are proposed as "environmental tracers" to identify sources and pathways ofcontamination/pollution.

Endocrine disruption: fact or urban legend?

Endocrine disruptors (EDs) are substances that cause adverse health effects via endocrine-mediated mechanisms in an intact organism or its progeny or (sub) populations. Purported EDCs in personal care products include 4-MBC (UV filter) or parabens that showed oestrogenic activity in screening tests, although regulatory toxicity studies showed no adverse effects on reproductive endpoints. Hormonal potency is the key issue of the safety of EDCs. Oestrogen-based drugs, e.g. the contraceptive pill or the synthetic oestrogen DES, possess potencies up to 7 orders of magnitude higher than those of PCP ingredients; yet, in utero exposure to these drugs did not adversely affect fertility or sexual organ development of offspring unless exposed to extreme doses. Additive effects of EDs are unlikely due to the multitude of mechanisms how substances may produce a hormone-like activity; even after uptake of different substances with a similar mode of action, the possibility of additive effects is reduced by different absorption, metabolism and kinetics. This is supported by a number of studies on mixtures of chemical EDCs. Overall, despite of 20 years of research a human health risk from exposure to low concentrations of exogenous chemical substances with weak hormone-like activities remains an unproven and unlikely hypothesis.

Hypothesis-driven weight of evidence framework for evaluating data within the US EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program

"Weight of Evidence" (WoE) approaches are often used to critically examine, prioritize, and integrate results from different types of studies to reach general conclusions. For assessing hormonally active agents, WoE evaluations are necessary to assess screening assays that identify potential interactions with components of the endocrine system, long-term reproductive and developmental toxicity tests that define adverse effects, mode of action studies aimed at identifying toxicological pathways underlying adverse effects, and toxicity, exposure and pharmacokinetic data to characterize potential risks. We describe a hypothesis-driven WoE approach for hormonally active agents and illustrate the approach by constructing hypotheses for testing the premise that a substance interacts as an agonist or antagonist with components of estrogen, androgen, or thyroid pathways or with components of the aromatase or steroidogenic enzyme systems for evaluating data within the US EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. Published recommendations are used to evaluate data validity for testing each hypothesis and quantitative weightings are proposed to reflect two data parameters. Relevance weightings should be derived for each endpoint to reflect the degree to which it probes each specific hypothesis. Response weightings should be derived based on assay results from the test substance compared to the range of responses produced in the assay by the appropriate prototype hormone and positive and negative controls. Overall WoE scores should be derived based on response and relevance weightings and a WoE narrative developed to clearly describe the final determinations.

Pharmaceuticals, personal care products and endocrine-disrupting chemicals in U.S. surface and finished drinking waters: a proposed ranking system

This study developed a comprehensive ranking system, for the first time as per authors' knowledge, for prioritizing the monitoring of pharmaceuticals and personal care products and endocrine-disrupting chemicals (together termed as EOCs, hereafter; a total of 100 EOCs considered) in U.S. stream water/source water and finished drinking water (termed as "EOCRank," hereafter). The EOCRank system was developed using a total of 4 criteria: (1) occurrence, (2) treatment in drinking water treatment plants, (3) ecological effects, and (4) health effects and characterized using 7 attributes: prevalence, frequency of detection, removal, bioaccumulation, ecotoxicity (for fish, daphnid, and algae aquatic indicator species), pregnancy effects, and health effects. The health effects attribute was characterized using 7 sub-attributes: carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, impairment of fertility, central nervous system acting, endocrine effects, immunotoxicity, and developmental effects. Rank scores of EOCs were calculated as summations of multiplications of importance weights and utility functions of multiple criteria and were arranged to highlight EOCs needing immediate attention. Two different ranking lists of EOCs were developed for U.S. finished drinking water and stream water/source water and observed to differ with each other, indicating the effect of water type on ranking of EOCs. A ranking list of priority EOCs, developed using a particular criterion, was observed to differ with that, developed using multiple criteria. Health effects and treatment criteria were observed to be important criteria influencing overall data gap rank scores and need further data collection. The generalized nature of the system could be customized for specific geographical locations (occurrence information and importance weights of different components). The developed database of the EOCRank system is available on: http://www.egr.msu.edu/~xagorara/research.html).

Comparing in vivo, in vitro and in silico methods and integrated strategies for chemical assessment: problems and prospects

The RAINBOW workshop addressed the background for the integration of in vivo, in vitro and computer-based (in silico) methods, to facilitate the study of the toxic properties of chemicals. On the basis of these discussions, we prepared the present paper, outlining the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of each approach, both alone and integrated into a single testing strategy. The current scheme for evaluation of chemicals needs to be reshaped, in the face of the much larger numbers of chemicals which need to be examined and the availability of a diversified set of tools.

Weight of evidence: a review of concept and methods

"Weight of evidence" (WOE) is a common term in the published scientific and policy-making literature, most often seen in the context of risk assessment (RA). Its definition, however, is unclear. A systematic review of the scientific literature was undertaken to characterize the concept. For the years 1994 through 2004, PubMed was searched for publications in which "weight of evidence" appeared in the abstract and/or title. Of the 276 papers that met these criteria, 92 were selected for review: 71 papers published in 2003 and 2004 (WOE appeared in abstract/title) and 21 from 1994 through 2002 (WOE appeared in title). WOE has three characteristic uses in this literature: (1) metaphorical, where WOE refers to a collection of studies or to an unspecified methodological approach; (2) methodological, where WOE points to established interpretative methodologies (e.g., systematic narrative review, meta-analysis, causal criteria, and/or quality criteria for toxicological studies) or where WOE means that "all" rather than some subset of the evidence is examined, or rarely, where WOE points to methods using quantitative weights for evidence; and (3) theoretical, where WOE serves as a label for a conceptual framework. Several problems are identified: the frequent lack of definition of the term "weight of evidence," multiple uses of the term and a lack of consensus about its meaning, and the many different kinds of weights, both qualitative and quantitative, which can be used in RA. A practical recommendation emerges: the WOE concept and its associated methods should be fully described when used. A research agenda should examine the advantages of quantitative versus qualitative weighting schemes, how best to improve existing methods, and how best to combine those methods (e.g., epidemiology's causal criteria with toxicology's quality criteria).

The weight of scientific evidence in policy and law

The term "weight of evidence" (WOE) appears in regulatory rules and decisions. However, there has been little discussion about the meaning, variations of use, and epistemic significance of WOE for setting health and safety standards. This article gives an overview of the role of WOE in regulatory science, discusses alternative views about the methodology underlying the concept, and places WOE in the context of the Supreme Court's decision in Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc (1993). I argue that whereas the WOE approach to evaluating scientific evidence is gaining favor among regulators, its applications in judicial processes may be in conflict with some interpretations of how the Daubert criteria for judging reliable evidence should be applied.

The adrenal cortex and steroidogenesis as cellular and molecular targets for toxicity: critical omissions from regulatory endocrine disrupter screening strategies for human health?

Current testing strategies to assess the endocrine disrupting properties of chemicals have omitted examination of the adrenal gland and do not adequately cover the process of steroidogenesis. Steroidogenesis is critical for adrenocortical function as well as that of the testes and ovaries, and presents multiple molecular targets for toxicity, ranging from general effects on all steroidogenic tissues (e.g. via StAR protein or CYP11A1 cholesterol side-chain cleavage) through to specific targets affecting only adrenocortical function (e.g. CYP11beta/18 and glucocorticoid synthesis). Numerous chemicals of environmental relevance are now being shown to affect adrenocortical function both in vivo in aquatic species and in vitro in human cell lines, and given the vital role of the adrenal gland to human health and development, there is a strong case for including dedicated assessment techniques in screening batteries for endocrine-disrupting chemicals, not least to assist in general data interpretation (e.g. whether adrenal hypertrophy is due to stress or to a more sinister adrenocortical insufficiency). Cell lines such as H295R (derived from a human adrenocortical adenocarcinoma) currently exist that will allow assessment of cortisol production and most of the major enzymes and functional proteins in the steroidogenic pathway (e.g. StAR; CYP11A1/scc; CYP11beta/18; CYP17; CYP19; CYP21; 3beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase). Adequate assessment of adrenocortical function, as with any component of the integrated endocrine system, probably also will require the development of specific in vivo methodology to include effects on hypothalamo-pituitary function. Finally, although there is currently no direct evidence that environmental exposure to endocrine-disrupting (oestrogenic) chemicals has actually caused adverse human health effects, lessons have been learned on their potential from the diethylstilboestrol case. Similar evidence exists from aminoglutethimide and etomidate on the lethal impact of unpredicted chemically induced adrenal insufficiency in sensitive human subgroups, and it would seem prudent to incorporate relevant tests for adrenal function and steroidogenesis into current regulatory validation programmes.

Effect of different sampling designs on outcome of endocrine disruptor studies

In this article, we demonstrate how sampling strategy can influence the outcome of endocrine disruptor studies. In a study of the weak xenoestrogen bisphenol A (BPA), possible treatment-related effects on ventral prostate (VP) fresh weight were found in rat offspring at 6 months of age when only one or two male pups were randomly selected from each litter. In subsequent BPA and di-n-butyl phthalate studies, large intralitter variability of this specific end point was apparent when the VP weights from entire litter complements were examined. We modeled the effects of sampling 1, 2, or 3 pups from each litter using the full-litter complement data. When one pup was randomly selected, a substantial percentage of incorrect conclusions about the presence or absence of treatment effects occurred. These statistical modeling analyses raise significant concern about the selection of one pup per litter for highly variable end points.

Threshold of toxicological concern for chemical substances present in the diet: a practical tool for assessing the need for toxicity testing

The de minimis concept acknowledges a human exposure threshold value for chemicals below which there is no significant risk to human health. It is the underlying principle for the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation on substances used in food-contact articles. Further to this, the principle of Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) has been developed and is now used by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in their evaluations. Establishing an accepted TTC would benefit consumers, industry and regulators, since it would preclude extensive toxicity evaluations when human intakes are below such threshold, and direct considerable time and cost resources towards testing substances with the highest potential risk to human health. It was questioned, however, whether specific endpoints that may potentially give rise to low-dose effects would be covered by such threshold. In this review, the possibility of defining a TTC for chemical substances present in the diet was examined for general toxicity endpoints (including carcinogenicity), as well as for specific endpoints, namely neurotoxicity and developmental neurotoxicity, immunotoxicity and developmental toxicity. For each of these endpoints, a database of specific no-observed-effect levels (NOELs) was compiled by screening oral toxicity studies. The substances recorded in each specific database were selected on the basis of their demonstrated adverse effects. For the neurotoxicity and developmental neurotoxicity databases, it was intended to cover all classes of compounds reported to have either a demonstrated neurotoxic or developmentally neurotoxic effect, or at least, on a biochemical or pharmacological basis were considered to have a potential for displaying such effects. For the immunotoxicity endpoint, it was ensured that only immunotoxicants were included in the database by selecting most of the substances from the Luster et al. database, provided that they satisfied the criteria for immunotoxicity defined by Luster. For the developmental toxicity database, substances were selected from the Munro et al. database that contained the lowest NOELs retrieved from the literature for more than 600 compounds. After screening these, substances showing any effect which could point to developmental toxicity as broadly defined by the US were recorded in the database. Additionally, endocrine toxicity and allergenicity were addressed as two separate cases, using different approaches and methodology. The distributions of NOELs for the neurotoxicity, developmental neurotoxicity and developmental toxicity endpoints were compared with the distribution of NOELs for non-specific carcinogenic endpoints. As the immunotoxicity database was too limited to draw such a distribution of immune NOELs, the immunotoxicity endpoint was evaluated by comparing immune NOELs (or LOELs-lowest-observed-effect levels-when NOELs were not available) with non-immune NOELs (or LOELs), in order to compare the sensitivity of this endpoint with non-specific endpoints. A different methodology was adopted for the evaluation of the endocrine toxicity endpoint since data currently available do not permit the establishment of a clear causal link between endocrine active chemicals and adverse effects in humans. Therefore, this endpoint was analysed by estimating the human exposure to oestrogenic environmental chemicals and evaluating their potential impact on human health, based on their contribution to the overall exposure, and their estrogenic potency relative to endogenous hormones. The allergenicity endpoint was not analysed as such. It was addressed in a separate section because this issue is not relevant to the overall population but rather to subsets of susceptible individuals, and allergic risks are usually controlled by other means (i.e. labelling) than the Threshold of Toxicological Concern approach. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)