Literature DB >> 28628784

Identifying populations sensitive to environmental chemicals by simulating toxicokinetic variability.

Caroline L Ring1, Robert G Pearce1, R Woodrow Setzer2, Barbara A Wetmore3, John F Wambaugh4.   

Abstract

The thousands of chemicals present in the environment (USGAO, 2013) must be triaged to identify priority chemicals for human health risk research. Most chemicals have little of the toxicokinetic (TK) data that are necessary for relating exposures to tissue concentrations that are believed to be toxic. Ongoing efforts have collected limited, in vitro TK data for a few hundred chemicals. These data have been combined with biomonitoring data to estimate an approximate margin between potential hazard and exposure. The most "at risk" 95th percentile of adults have been identified from simulated populations that are generated either using standard "average" adult human parameters or very specific cohorts such as Northern Europeans. To better reflect the modern U.S. population, we developed a population simulation using physiologies based on distributions of demographic and anthropometric quantities from the most recent U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data. This allowed incorporation of inter-individual variability, including variability across relevant demographic subgroups. Variability was analyzed with a Monte Carlo approach that accounted for the correlation structure in physiological parameters. To identify portions of the U.S. population that are more at risk for specific chemicals, physiologic variability was incorporated within an open-source high-throughput (HT) TK modeling framework. We prioritized 50 chemicals based on estimates of both potential hazard and exposure. Potential hazard was estimated from in vitro HT screening assays (i.e., the Tox21 and ToxCast programs). Bioactive in vitro concentrations were extrapolated to doses that produce equivalent concentrations in body tissues using a reverse dosimetry approach in which generic TK models are parameterized with: 1) chemical-specific parameters derived from in vitro measurements and predicted from chemical structure; and 2) with physiological parameters for a virtual population. For risk-based prioritization of chemicals, predicted bioactive equivalent doses were compared to demographic-specific inferences of exposure rates that were based on NHANES urinary analyte biomonitoring data. The inclusion of NHANES-derived inter-individual variability decreased predicted bioactive equivalent doses by 12% on average for the total population when compared to previous methods. However, for some combinations of chemical and demographic groups the margin was reduced by as much as three quarters. This TK modeling framework allows targeted risk prioritization of chemicals for demographic groups of interest, including potentially sensitive life stages and subpopulations. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Environmental chemicals; High throughput; IVIVE; Risk assessment; Toxicokinetics

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28628784      PMCID: PMC6116525          DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2017.06.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Int        ISSN: 0160-4120            Impact factor:   9.621


  67 in total

1.  Evaluation of the human prediction of clearance from hepatocyte and microsome intrinsic clearance for 52 drug compounds.

Authors:  A-K Sohlenius-Sternbeck; L Afzelius; P Prusis; J Neelissen; J Hoogstraate; J Johansson; E Floby; A Bengtsson; O Gissberg; J Sternbeck; C Petersson
Journal:  Xenobiotica       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 1.908

2.  Prediction of in vivo drug clearance from in vitro data. I: impact of inter-individual variability.

Authors:  E M Howgate; K Rowland Yeo; N J Proctor; G T Tucker; A Rostami-Hodjegan
Journal:  Xenobiotica       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 1.908

3.  A statistical analysis of the internal organ weights of normal Japanese people.

Authors:  N Ogiu; Y Nakamura; I Ijiri; K Hiraiwa; T Ogiu
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 1.316

Review 4.  Genetic basis of drug metabolism.

Authors:  Margaret K Ma; Michael H Woo; Howard L McLeod
Journal:  Am J Health Syst Pharm       Date:  2002-11-01       Impact factor: 2.637

5.  Variance of Microsomal Protein and Cytochrome P450 2E1 and 3A Forms in Adult Human Liver.

Authors:  John C Lipscomb; Linda K Teuschler; Jeffrey C Swartout; Cynthia A F Striley; John E Snawder
Journal:  Toxicol Mech Methods       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.987

6.  Incorporating human interindividual biotransformation variance in health risk assessment.

Authors:  John C Lipscomb; Gregory L Kedderis
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2002-04-08       Impact factor: 7.963

7.  Consideration of dosimetry in evaluation of ToxCast™ data.

Authors:  Lesa L Aylward; Sean M Hays
Journal:  J Appl Toxicol       Date:  2011-03-05       Impact factor: 3.446

8.  Use of a physiologically based pharmacokinetic model to identify exposures consistent with human biomonitoring data for chloroform.

Authors:  Yu-Mei Tan; Kai H Liao; Rory B Conolly; Benjamin C Blount; Ann M Mason; Harvey J Clewell
Journal:  J Toxicol Environ Health A       Date:  2006-09

9.  Geometric method for measuring body surface area: a height-weight formula validated in infants, children, and adults.

Authors:  G B Haycock; G J Schwartz; D H Wisotsky
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  1978-07       Impact factor: 4.406

10.  Linking high resolution mass spectrometry data with exposure and toxicity forecasts to advance high-throughput environmental monitoring.

Authors:  Julia E Rager; Mark J Strynar; Shuang Liang; Rebecca L McMahen; Ann M Richard; Christopher M Grulke; John F Wambaugh; Kristin K Isaacs; Richard Judson; Antony J Williams; Jon R Sobus
Journal:  Environ Int       Date:  2016-01-23       Impact factor: 9.621

View more
  37 in total

Review 1.  Developing novel in vitro methods for the risk assessment of developmental and placental toxicants in the environment.

Authors:  Rebecca C Fry; Jacqueline Bangma; John Szilagyi; Julia E Rager
Journal:  Toxicol Appl Pharmacol       Date:  2019-06-22       Impact factor: 4.219

2.  Consensus Modeling of Median Chemical Intake for the U.S. Population Based on Predictions of Exposure Pathways.

Authors:  Caroline L Ring; Jon A Arnot; Deborah H Bennett; Peter P Egeghy; Peter Fantke; Lei Huang; Kristin K Isaacs; Olivier Jolliet; Katherine A Phillips; Paul S Price; Hyeong-Moo Shin; John N Westgate; R Woodrow Setzer; John F Wambaugh
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2018-12-24       Impact factor: 9.028

Review 3.  In vitro to in vivo extrapolation for high throughput prioritization and decision making.

Authors:  Shannon M Bell; Xiaoqing Chang; John F Wambaugh; David G Allen; Mike Bartels; Kim L R Brouwer; Warren M Casey; Neepa Choksi; Stephen S Ferguson; Grazyna Fraczkiewicz; Annie M Jarabek; Alice Ke; Annie Lumen; Scott G Lynn; Alicia Paini; Paul S Price; Caroline Ring; Ted W Simon; Nisha S Sipes; Catherine S Sprankle; Judy Strickland; John Troutman; Barbara A Wetmore; Nicole C Kleinstreuer
Journal:  Toxicol In Vitro       Date:  2017-12-05       Impact factor: 3.500

4.  The Next Generation Blueprint of Computational Toxicology at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Authors:  Russell S Thomas; Tina Bahadori; Timothy J Buckley; John Cowden; Chad Deisenroth; Kathie L Dionisio; Jeffrey B Frithsen; Christopher M Grulke; Maureen R Gwinn; Joshua A Harrill; Mark Higuchi; Keith A Houck; Michael F Hughes; E Sidney Hunter; Kristin K Isaacs; Richard S Judson; Thomas B Knudsen; Jason C Lambert; Monica Linnenbrink; Todd M Martin; Seth R Newton; Stephanie Padilla; Grace Patlewicz; Katie Paul-Friedman; Katherine A Phillips; Ann M Richard; Reeder Sams; Timothy J Shafer; R Woodrow Setzer; Imran Shah; Jane E Simmons; Steven O Simmons; Amar Singh; Jon R Sobus; Mark Strynar; Adam Swank; Rogelio Tornero-Valez; Elin M Ulrich; Daniel L Villeneuve; John F Wambaugh; Barbara A Wetmore; Antony J Williams
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2019-06-01       Impact factor: 4.849

5.  Evaluating In Vitro-In Vivo Extrapolation of Toxicokinetics.

Authors:  John F Wambaugh; Michael F Hughes; Caroline L Ring; Denise K MacMillan; Jermaine Ford; Timothy R Fennell; Sherry R Black; Rodney W Snyder; Nisha S Sipes; Barbara A Wetmore; Joost Westerhout; R Woodrow Setzer; Robert G Pearce; Jane Ellen Simmons; Russell S Thomas
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2018-05-01       Impact factor: 4.849

6.  Assessing Toxicokinetic Uncertainty and Variability in Risk Prioritization.

Authors:  John F Wambaugh; Barbara A Wetmore; Caroline L Ring; Chantel I Nicolas; Robert G Pearce; Gregory S Honda; Roger Dinallo; Derek Angus; Jon Gilbert; Teresa Sierra; Akshay Badrinarayanan; Bradley Snodgrass; Adam Brockman; Chris Strock; R Woodrow Setzer; Russell S Thomas
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2019-12-01       Impact factor: 4.849

7.  Methods for evaluating variability in human health dose-response characterization.

Authors:  Daniel A Axelrad; R Woodrow Setzer; Thomas F Bateson; Michael DeVito; Rebecca C Dzubow; Julie W Fitzpatrick; Alicia M Frame; Karen A Hogan; Keith Houck; Michael Stewart
Journal:  Hum Ecol Risk Assess       Date:  2019-11-06       Impact factor: 5.190

8.  Well-tempered MCMC simulations for population pharmacokinetic models.

Authors:  Frederic Y Bois; Nan-Hung Hsieh; Wang Gao; Weihsueh A Chiu; Brad Reisfeld
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2020-07-31       Impact factor: 2.745

9.  Examining NTA performance and potential using fortified and reference house dust as part of EPA's Non-Targeted Analysis Collaborative Trial (ENTACT).

Authors:  Seth R Newton; Jon R Sobus; Elin M Ulrich; Randolph R Singh; Alex Chao; James McCord; Sarah Laughlin-Toth; Mark Strynar
Journal:  Anal Bioanal Chem       Date:  2020-04-25       Impact factor: 4.142

10.  httk: R Package for High-Throughput Toxicokinetics.

Authors:  Robert G Pearce; R Woodrow Setzer; Cory L Strope; John F Wambaugh; Nisha S Sipes
Journal:  J Stat Softw       Date:  2017-07-17       Impact factor: 6.440

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.