David C Bellinger1, Julia A Matthews-Bellinger2, Katarzyna Kordas3. 1. Department of Neurology, Harvard Medical School, Boston Children's Hospital, 300 Longwood Avenue, Boston, MA 02112, USA; Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston Children's Hospital, 300 Longwood Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA; Department of Environmental Health, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston Children's Hospital, 300 Longwood Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA. Electronic address: david.bellinger@childrens.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Psychiatry, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Boston Psychoanalytic Society and Institute, 19 Fair Oaks Park, Needham, MA 02492, USA. Electronic address: julia.matthews@comcast.net. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Environmental Health, University at Buffalo, 270 Farber Hall, Buffalo, NY 14214, USA. Electronic address: kkordas@buffalo.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies of early-life neurotoxicant exposure have not been designed, analyzed, or interpreted in the context of a fully developmental perspective. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this paper is to describe the key principles of a developmental perspective and to use examples from the literature to illustrate the relevance of these principles to early-life neurotoxicant exposures. METHODS: Four principles are discussed: 1) the effects of early-life neurotoxicant exposure depend on a child's developmental context; 2) deficits caused by early-life exposure initiate developmental cascades that can lead to pathologies that differ from those observed initially; 3) early-life neurotoxicant exposure has intra-familial and intergenerational impacts; 4) the impacts of early-life neurotoxicant exposure influence a child's ability to respond to future insults. The first principle is supported by considerable evidence, but the other three have received much less attention. DISCUSSION: Incorporating a developmental perspective in studies of early-life neurotoxicant exposures requires prospective collection of data on a larger array of covariates than usually considered, using analytical approaches that acknowledge the transactional processes between a child and the environment and the phenomenon of developmental cascades. CONCLUSION: Consideration of early-life neurotoxicant exposure within a developmental perspective reveals that many issues remain to be explicated if we are to achieve a deep understanding of the societal health burden associated with early-life neurotoxicant exposures.
BACKGROUND: Studies of early-life neurotoxicant exposure have not been designed, analyzed, or interpreted in the context of a fully developmental perspective. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this paper is to describe the key principles of a developmental perspective and to use examples from the literature to illustrate the relevance of these principles to early-life neurotoxicant exposures. METHODS: Four principles are discussed: 1) the effects of early-life neurotoxicant exposure depend on a child's developmental context; 2) deficits caused by early-life exposure initiate developmental cascades that can lead to pathologies that differ from those observed initially; 3) early-life neurotoxicant exposure has intra-familial and intergenerational impacts; 4) the impacts of early-life neurotoxicant exposure influence a child's ability to respond to future insults. The first principle is supported by considerable evidence, but the other three have received much less attention. DISCUSSION: Incorporating a developmental perspective in studies of early-life neurotoxicant exposures requires prospective collection of data on a larger array of covariates than usually considered, using analytical approaches that acknowledge the transactional processes between a child and the environment and the phenomenon of developmental cascades. CONCLUSION: Consideration of early-life neurotoxicant exposure within a developmental perspective reveals that many issues remain to be explicated if we are to achieve a deep understanding of the societal health burden associated with early-life neurotoxicant exposures.
Authors: Joseph M Braun; Kimberly Yolton; Shaina L Stacy; Bahar Erar; George D Papandonatos; David C Bellinger; Bruce P Lanphear; Aimin Chen Journal: Neurotoxicology Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 4.294
Authors: Mireille Desrochers-Couture; Yohann Courtemanche; Nadine Forget-Dubois; Richard E Bélanger; Olivier Boucher; Pierre Ayotte; Sylvaine Cordier; Joseph L Jacobson; Sandra W Jacobson; Gina Muckle Journal: Environ Res Date: 2019-08-19 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Kavi M Rude; Matteo M Pusceddu; Ciara E Keogh; Jessica A Sladek; Gonzalo Rabasa; Elaine N Miller; Sunjay Sethi; Kimberly P Keil; Isaac N Pessah; Pamela J Lein; Mélanie G Gareau Journal: Environ Pollut Date: 2019-07-14 Impact factor: 8.071
Authors: Meeyoung O Min; Barbara A Lewis; Sonia Minnes; Kwynn M Gonzalez-Pons; June-Yung Kim; Lynn T Singer Journal: Environ Res Date: 2021-10-25 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Pan Wang; Catherine Tuvblad; Diana Younan; Meredith Franklin; Fred Lurmann; Jun Wu; Laura A Baker; Jiu-Chiuan Chen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-12-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Christine A Rygiel; Jaclyn M Goodrich; Maritsa Solano-González; Adriana Mercado-García; Howard Hu; Martha M Téllez-Rojo; Karen E Peterson; Dana C Dolinoy Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2021-06-21 Impact factor: 11.035
Authors: Anna Maria Tartaglione; Melania Maria Serafini; Andrea Raggi; Francesca Iacoponi; Elisa Zianni; Alessandro Scalfari; Luisa Minghetti; Laura Ricceri; Francesco Cubadda; Gemma Calamandrei; Barbara Viviani Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2020-04-11 Impact factor: 5.923