Literature DB >> 22925212

Developmental neurotoxicity guideline study: issues with methodology, evaluation and regulation.

Ryozo Tsuji1, Kevin M Crofton.   

Abstract

Recently social concerns have been increasing about the effects of environmental factors on children's health, especially on their nervous systems. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have published testing guidelines for developmental neurotoxicity (DNT). Approximately 110 guideline studies have been conducted to date. Importantly, information from these studies has provided data critical for regulatory decisions for a number of chemicals. However, the DNT guidelines do not always satisfy all stakeholders because of some uncertainties in their methodology, evaluation, and regulation. Methodological issues include incomplete harmonization between EPA and OECD guidelines, criticisms of the methodology for learning and memory testing, and unspecified positive control substances. Potential artifacts in morphometric neuropathological measures, criteria for observation measures, uncertainty of postnatal offspring exposure, especially in feeding studies, and extrapolation of data from rats to humans are major evaluation issues. In addition, there is some uncertainty in the use of an additional safety factor for susceptibility of infants and children. Moreover, the DNT guidelines have extensive time and cost requirements, use large numbers of animals, and there is a limited set of laboratories that can conduct the study. This paper reviews some of these issues and summarizes discussions from the symposium 'Developmental neurotoxicity testing: Scientific approaches towards the next generation to protecting the developing nervous system of children' held at the 2011 annual meeting of the Japanese Teratology Society.
© 2012 The Authors. Congenital Anomalies © 2012 Japanese Teratology Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22925212     DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-4520.2012.00374.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Congenit Anom (Kyoto)        ISSN: 0914-3505            Impact factor:   1.409


  24 in total

Review 1.  A critical review of neonicotinoid insecticides for developmental neurotoxicity.

Authors:  Larry P Sheets; Abby A Li; Daniel J Minnema; Richard H Collier; Moire R Creek; Richard C Peffer
Journal:  Crit Rev Toxicol       Date:  2015-10-29       Impact factor: 5.635

2.  Integrating Data From In Vitro New Approach Methodologies for Developmental Neurotoxicity.

Authors:  Kelly E Carstens; Amy F Carpenter; Melissa M Martin; Joshua A Harrill; Timothy J Shafer; Katie Paul Friedman
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2022-04-26       Impact factor: 4.109

3.  Potential frameworks to support evaluation of mechanistic data for developmental neurotoxicity outcomes: A symposium report.

Authors:  Laura M Carlson; Frances A Champagne; Deborah A Cory-Slechta; Laura Dishaw; Elaine Faustman; William Mundy; Deborah Segal; Christina Sobin; Carol Starkey; Michele Taylor; Susan L Makris; Andrew Kraft
Journal:  Neurotoxicol Teratol       Date:  2020-02-14       Impact factor: 3.763

4.  Comparative Analysis of Zebrafish and Planarian Model Systems for Developmental Neurotoxicity Screens Using an 87-Compound Library.

Authors:  Danielle Hagstrom; Lisa Truong; Siqi Zhang; Robert Tanguay; Eva-Maria S Collins
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2019-01-01       Impact factor: 4.849

Review 5.  Toward a Better Testing Paradigm for Developmental Neurotoxicity: OECD Efforts and Regulatory Considerations.

Authors:  Magdalini Sachana; Timothy J Shafer; Andrea Terron
Journal:  Biology (Basel)       Date:  2021-01-23

6.  International STakeholder NETwork (ISTNET): creating a developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) testing road map for regulatory purposes.

Authors:  Anna Bal-Price; Kevin M Crofton; Marcel Leist; Sandra Allen; Michael Arand; Timo Buetler; Nathalie Delrue; Rex E FitzGerald; Thomas Hartung; Tuula Heinonen; Helena Hogberg; Susanne Hougaard Bennekou; Walter Lichtensteiger; Daniela Oggier; Martin Paparella; Marta Axelstad; Aldert Piersma; Eva Rached; Benoît Schilter; Gabriele Schmuck; Luc Stoppini; Enrico Tongiorgi; Manuela Tiramani; Florianne Monnet-Tschudi; Martin F Wilks; Timo Ylikomi; Ellen Fritsche
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2015-01-25       Impact factor: 5.153

Review 7.  Toward a 3D model of human brain development for studying gene/environment interactions.

Authors:  Helena T Hogberg; Joseph Bressler; Kimberly M Christian; Georgina Harris; Georgia Makri; Cliona O'Driscoll; David Pamies; Lena Smirnova; Zhexing Wen; Thomas Hartung
Journal:  Stem Cell Res Ther       Date:  2013-12-20       Impact factor: 6.832

8.  Fingerprinting of neurotoxic compounds using a mouse embryonic stem cell dual luminescence reporter assay.

Authors:  Marilena Colaianna; Sten Ilmjärv; Hedi Peterson; Ilse Kern; Stephanie Julien; Mathurin Baquié; Giorgia Pallocca; Sieto Bosgra; Agapios Sachinidis; Jan G Hengstler; Marcel Leist; Karl-Heinz Krause
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2016-03-25       Impact factor: 5.153

Review 9.  Issues in the design, analysis, and application of rodent developmental neurotoxicology studies.

Authors:  Charles V Vorhees; Michael T Williams
Journal:  Neurotoxicol Teratol       Date:  2021-07-10       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  Dugesia japonica is the best suited of three planarian species for high-throughput toxicology screening.

Authors:  Danielle Ireland; Veronica Bochenek; Daniel Chaiken; Christina Rabeler; Sumi Onoe; Ameet Soni; Eva-Maria S Collins
Journal:  Chemosphere       Date:  2020-04-08       Impact factor: 8.943

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.