Literature DB >> 17572063

A retrospective analysis of the two-generation study: what is the added value of the second generation?

Gemma Janer1, Betty C Hakkert, Wout Slob, Theo Vermeire, Aldert H Piersma.   

Abstract

Increasing pressure is exerted by some stakeholders to reduce the two-generation study to a one-generation study, a measure that would considerably reduce the number of animals and other costs involved in these lengthy studies. The present study retrospectively evaluates 176 multi-generation studies to assess potential differences between the first and the second generation, both in terms of the types of effects observed and in terms of the effective doses. All substances classified as reproductive toxicants by the Directive 92/32/EEC or considered as toxic to fertility by the California EPA for which we found a multi-generation study were included (n=58 studies). The second generation in the two-generation studies considered affected neither the overall NOAEL nor the critical effect. Therefore, it had no impact on the ensuing risk assessment, nor on classification and labeling. However, several substances did show an increased sensitivity of the F(1) adults in comparison to the P(0). These results support the proposal of replacing the current two-generation study by a one-generation study with a more extensive assessment of parameters at F(1) adulthood.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17572063     DOI: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2007.04.068

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Reprod Toxicol        ISSN: 0890-6238            Impact factor:   3.143


  7 in total

1.  Chemical regulators have overreached.

Authors:  Thomas Hartung; Costanza Rovida
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2009-08-27       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Tetrabromobisphenol A: tissue distribution in fish, and seasonal variation in water and sediment of Lake Chaohu, China.

Authors:  Suwen Yang; Shengrui Wang; Hongliang Liu; Zhenguang Yan
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2012-07-24       Impact factor: 4.223

3.  Validation of a two-generational reproduction test in Daphnia magna: An interlaboratory exercise.

Authors:  Carlos Barata; Bruno Campos; Claudia Rivetti; Gerald A LeBlanc; Stephanie Eytcheson; Stephanie McKnight; Marysia Tobor-Kaplon; Selinda de Vries Buitenweg; Suhyon Choi; Jinhee Choi; Elena I Sarapultseva; Marie-Agnès Coutellec; Maïra Coke; Pascal Pandard; Arnaud Chaumot; Hervé Quéau; Nicolas Delorme; Olivier Geffard; Fernando Martínez-Jerónimo; Haruna Watanabe; Norihisa Tatarazako; Isabel Lopes; João L T Pestana; Amadeu M V M Soares; Cecilia Manuela Pereira; Karel De Schamphelaere
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2016-11-29       Impact factor: 7.963

4.  Uncertainties in biological responses that influence hazard and risk approaches to the regulation of endocrine active substances.

Authors:  Joanne L Parrott; Poul Bjerregaard; Kristin E Brugger; L Earl Gray; Taisen Iguchi; Sarah M Kadlec; Lennart Weltje; James R Wheeler
Journal:  Integr Environ Assess Manag       Date:  2017-01-18       Impact factor: 2.992

5.  Analysis of public oral toxicity data from REACH registrations 2008-2014.

Authors:  Thomas Luechtefeld; Alexandra Maertens; Daniel P Russo; Costanza Rovida; Hao Zhu; Thomas Hartung
Journal:  ALTEX       Date:  2016-02-11       Impact factor: 6.043

6.  3S - Systematic, systemic, and systems biology and toxicology.

Authors:  Lena Smirnova; Nicole Kleinstreuer; Raffaella Corvi; Andre Levchenko; Suzanne C Fitzpatrick; Thomas Hartung
Journal:  ALTEX       Date:  2018       Impact factor: 6.043

7.  Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH) is but the first step-how far will it take us? Six further steps to improve the European chemicals legislation.

Authors:  Christina Rudén; Sven Ove Hansson
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 9.031

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.