Literature DB >> 27976826

Challenges in assigning endocrine-specific modes of action: Recommendations for researchers and regulators.

Ellen M Mihaich1, Christoph Schäfers2, David A Dreier3, Markus Hecker4, Lisa Ortego5, Yukio Kawashima6, Zhi-Chao Dang7, Keith Solomon8.   

Abstract

As regulatory programs evaluate substances for their endocrine-disrupting properties, careful study design and data interpretation are needed to distinguish between responses that are truly endocrine specific and those that are not. This is particularly important in regulatory environments where criteria are under development to identify endocrine-disrupting properties to enable hazard-based regulation. Irrespective of these processes, most jurisdictions use the World Health Organization/International Programme on Chemical Safety definition of an endocrine disruptor, requiring that a substance is demonstrated to cause a change in endocrine function that consequently leads to an adverse effect in an intact organism. Such a definition is broad, and at its most cautious might capture many general mechanisms that would not specifically denote an endocrine disruptor. In addition, endocrine responses may be adaptive in nature, designed to maintain homeostasis rather than induce an irreversible adverse effect. The likelihood of indirect effects is increased in (eco)toxicological studies that require the use of maximum tolerated concentrations or doses, which must produce some adverse effect. The misidentification of indirect effects as truly endocrine mediated has serious consequences for prompting animal- and resource-intensive testing and regulatory consequences. To minimize the risk for misidentification, an objective and transparent weight-of-evidence procedure based on biological plausibility, essentiality, and empirical evidence of key events in an adverse outcome pathway is recommended to describe the modes of action that may be involved in toxic responses in nontarget organisms. Confounding factors such as systemic toxicity, general stress, and infection can add complexity to such an evaluation and should be considered in the weight of evidence. A recommended set of questions is proffered to help guide researchers and regulators in discerning endocrine and nonendocrine responses. Although many examples provided in this study are based on ecotoxicology, the majority of the concepts and processes are applicable to both environmental and human health assessments. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2017;13:280-292.
© 2016 SETAC. © 2016 SETAC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adverse outcome pathway; Endocrine disruptor; Mode of action; Weight of evidence

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 27976826     DOI: 10.1002/ieam.1883

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Integr Environ Assess Manag        ISSN: 1551-3777            Impact factor:   2.992


  6 in total

Review 1.  A critical review of the environmental occurrence and potential effects in aquatic vertebrates of the potent androgen receptor agonist 17β-trenbolone.

Authors:  Gerald T Ankley; Katherine K Coady; Melanie Gross; Henrik Holbech; Steven L Levine; Gerd Maack; Mike Williams
Journal:  Environ Toxicol Chem       Date:  2018-07-05       Impact factor: 3.742

2.  Linking Mitochondrial Dysfunction to Organismal and Population Health in the Context of Environmental Pollutants: Progress and Considerations for Mitochondrial Adverse Outcome Pathways.

Authors:  David A Dreier; Danielle F Mello; Joel N Meyer; Christopher J Martyniuk
Journal:  Environ Toxicol Chem       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 3.742

3.  Current limitations and recommendations to improve testing for the environmental assessment of endocrine active substances.

Authors:  Katherine K Coady; Ronald C Biever; Nancy D Denslow; Melanie Gross; Patrick D Guiney; Henrik Holbech; Natalie K Karouna-Renier; Ioanna Katsiadaki; Hank Krueger; Steven L Levine; Gerd Maack; Mike Williams; Jeffrey C Wolf; Gerald T Ankley
Journal:  Integr Environ Assess Manag       Date:  2017-01-18       Impact factor: 2.992

4.  Recommended approaches to the scientific evaluation of ecotoxicological hazards and risks of endocrine-active substances.

Authors:  Peter Matthiessen; Gerald T Ankley; Ronald C Biever; Poul Bjerregaard; Christopher Borgert; Kristin Brugger; Amy Blankinship; Janice Chambers; Katherine K Coady; Lisa Constantine; Zhichao Dang; Nancy D Denslow; David A Dreier; Steve Dungey; L Earl Gray; Melanie Gross; Patrick D Guiney; Markus Hecker; Henrik Holbech; Taisen Iguchi; Sarah Kadlec; Natalie K Karouna-Renier; Ioanna Katsiadaki; Yukio Kawashima; Werner Kloas; Henry Krueger; Anu Kumar; Laurent Lagadic; Annegaaike Leopold; Steven L Levine; Gerd Maack; Sue Marty; James Meador; Ellen Mihaich; Jenny Odum; Lisa Ortego; Joanne Parrott; Daniel Pickford; Mike Roberts; Christoph Schaefers; Tamar Schwarz; Keith Solomon; Tim Verslycke; Lennart Weltje; James R Wheeler; Mike Williams; Jeffrey C Wolf; Kunihiko Yamazaki
Journal:  Integr Environ Assess Manag       Date:  2017-01-27       Impact factor: 2.992

5.  Endocrine Disruptors Induced Distinct Expression of Thyroid and Estrogen Receptors in Rat versus Mouse Primary Cerebellar Cell Cultures.

Authors:  Gergely Jocsak; Eniko Ioja; David Sandor Kiss; Istvan Toth; Zoltan Barany; Tibor Bartha; Laszlo V Frenyo; Attila Zsarnovszky
Journal:  Brain Sci       Date:  2019-12-05

6.  Potential Health Risk of Endocrine Disruptors in Construction Sector and Plastics Industry: A New Paradigm in Occupational Health.

Authors:  Aleksandra Fucic; Karen S Galea; Radu Corneliu Duca; Mounia El Yamani; Nadine Frery; Lode Godderis; Thórhallur Ingi Halldorsson; Ivo Iavicoli; Sophie Ndaw; Edna Ribeiro; Susana Viegas; Hanns Moshammer
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2018-06-11       Impact factor: 3.390

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.