Hypothesis-driven weight-of-evidence analysis for the endocrine disruption potential of benzene.

Exposure to benzene has many sources, from gasoline refueling to tobacco combustion. Although the toxicology of benzene is well studied, the potential for environmental exposure and a heightened interest in identifying substances that may cause toxicity by interacting with the endocrine systems of humans and wildlife resulted in benzene being placed on the second list of chemicals for possible screening under the USEPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. Therefore, we conducted a thorough, systematic literature search and used a weight-of-evidence methodology to test hypotheses regarding the potential for benzene to act via estrogen, androgen, thyroid, and steroidogenic pathways. The methodology included an assessment of data quality and a semi-quantitative weighting of endocrine-responsive endpoints measured in various types of studies according to their relevance for evaluating each hypothesis. This maximized use of all relevant and reliable literature on benzene and enabled a transparent comparison of evidence supporting and opposing each hypothesized mode of action. While benzene affected reproductive organ weights and histopathology in a few studies, there was no consistent pattern of effects suggestive of an estrogen, androgen, thyroid or steroidogenic mode of action. Based on data from multiple animal species, benzene appears to lack endocrine activity by these pathways.

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

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.

Characterization of ecological risks from environmental releases of decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5).

Decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5) is used in personal care products and industrial applications. The authors summarize the risks to the environment from D5 based on multiple lines of evidence and conclude that it presents negligible risk. Laboratory and field studies show that D5 is not toxic to aquatic organisms or benthic invertebrates up to its solubility limit in water or porewater or its sorptive capacity in sediment. Comparison of lipid-normalized internal concentrations with measured concentrations in benthos indicates that field-collected organisms do not achieve toxic levels of D5 in their tissues, suggesting negligible risk. Exposure to D5 resulted in a slight reduction of root biomass in barley at test concentrations 2 orders of magnitude greater than measured D5 levels in biosolids-amended soils and more than twice as high as the maximum calculated sorptive capacity of the soil. No effects were observed in soil invertebrates exposed to similar concentrations, indicating that D5 poses a de minimis risk to the terrestrial environment. High rates of metabolism and elimination of D5 compared with uptake rates from food results in biodilution in the food web rather than biomagnification, culminating in de minimis risk to higher trophic level organisms via the food chain. A fugacity approach substantiates all conclusions that were made on a concentration basis.

Relevance weighting of tier 1 endocrine screening endpoints by rank order.

Weight of evidence (WoE) approaches are recommended for interpreting various toxicological data, but few systematic and transparent procedures exist. A hypothesis-based WoE framework was recently published focusing on the U.S. EPA's Tier 1 Endocrine Screening Battery (ESB) as an example. The framework recommends weighting each experimental endpoint according to its relevance for deciding eight hypotheses addressed by the ESB. Here we present detailed rationale for weighting the ESB endpoints according to three rank ordered categories and an interpretive process for using the rankings to reach WoE determinations. Rank 1 was assigned to in vivo endpoints that characterize the fundamental physiological actions for androgen, estrogen, and thyroid activities. Rank 1 endpoints are specific and sensitive for the hypothesis, interpretable without ancillary data, and rarely confounded by artifacts or nonspecific activity. Rank 2 endpoints are specific and interpretable for the hypothesis but less informative than Rank 1, often due to oversensitivity, inclusion of narrowly context-dependent components of the hormonal system (e.g., in vitro endpoints), or confounding by nonspecific activity. Rank 3 endpoints are relevant for the hypothesis but only corroborative of Ranks 1 and 2 endpoints. Rank 3 includes many apical in vivo endpoints that can be affected by systemic toxicity and nonhormonal activity. Although these relevance weight rankings (WREL ) necessarily involve professional judgment, their a priori derivation enhances transparency and renders WoE determinations amenable to methodological scrutiny according to basic scientific premises, characteristics that cannot be assured by processes in which the rationale for decisions is provided post hoc.

Lessons learned, challenges, and opportunities: the U.S. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program.

In 1996, the U.S. Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act and amended the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requiring the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implement a screening program to investigate the potential of pesticide chemicals and drinking water contaminants to adversely affect endocrine pathways. Consequently, the EPA launched the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) to develop and validate estrogen, androgen, and thyroid (EAT) pathway screening assays and to produce standardized and harmonized test guidelines for regulatory application. In 2009, the EPA issued the first set of test orders for EDSP screening and a total of 50 pesticide actives and 2 inert ingredients have been evaluated using the battery of EDSP Tier 1 screening assays (i.e., five in vitro assays and six in vivo assays). To provide a framework for retrospective analysis of the data generated and to collect the insight of multiple stakeholders involved in the testing, more than 240 scientists from government, industry, academia, and non-profit organizations recently participated in a workshop titled "Lessons Learned, Challenges, and Opportunities: The U.S. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program." The workshop focused on the science and experience to date and was organized into three focal sessions: (a) Performance of the EDSP Tier 1 Screening Assays for Estrogen, Androgen, and Thyroid Pathways; (b) Practical Applications of Tier 1 Data; and (c) Indications and Opportunities for Future Endocrine Testing. A number of key learnings and recommendations related to future EDSP evaluations emanated from the collective sessions.

Information Quality in Regulatory Decision Making: Peer Review versus Good Laboratory Practice.

BACKGROUND: There is an ongoing discussion on the provenance of toxicity testing data regarding how best to ensure its validity and credibility. A central argument is whether journal peer-review procedures are superior to Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) standards employed for compliance with regulatory mandates. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the rationale for regulatory decision making based on peer-review procedures versus GLP standards. METHOD: We examined pertinent published literature regarding how scientific data quality and validity are evaluated for peer review, GLP compliance, and development of regulations. DISCUSSION: Some contend that peer review is a coherent, consistent evaluative procedure providing quality control for experimental data generation, analysis, and reporting sufficient to reliably establish relative merit, whereas GLP is seen as merely a tracking process designed to thwart investigator corruption. This view is not supported by published analyses pointing to subjectivity and variability in peer-review processes. Although GLP is not designed to establish relative merit, it is an internationally accepted quality assurance, quality control method for documenting experimental conduct and data. CONCLUSIONS: Neither process is completely sufficient for establishing relative scientific soundness. However, changes occurring both in peer-review processes and in regulatory guidance resulting in clearer, more transparent communication of scientific information point to an emerging convergence in ensuring information quality. The solution to determining relative merit lies in developing a well-documented, generally accepted weight-of-evidence scheme to evaluate both peer-reviewed and GLP information used in regulatory decision making where both merit and specific relevance inform the process.

Hypothesis-driven weight of evidence framework for evaluating data within the US EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program.

"Weight of Evidence" (WoE) approaches are often used to critically examine, prioritize, and integrate results from different types of studies to reach general conclusions. For assessing hormonally active agents, WoE evaluations are necessary to assess screening assays that identify potential interactions with components of the endocrine system, long-term reproductive and developmental toxicity tests that define adverse effects, mode of action studies aimed at identifying toxicological pathways underlying adverse effects, and toxicity, exposure and pharmacokinetic data to characterize potential risks. We describe a hypothesis-driven WoE approach for hormonally active agents and illustrate the approach by constructing hypotheses for testing the premise that a substance interacts as an agonist or antagonist with components of estrogen, androgen, or thyroid pathways or with components of the aromatase or steroidogenic enzyme systems for evaluating data within the US EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. Published recommendations are used to evaluate data validity for testing each hypothesis and quantitative weightings are proposed to reflect two data parameters. Relevance weightings should be derived for each endpoint to reflect the degree to which it probes each specific hypothesis. Response weightings should be derived based on assay results from the test substance compared to the range of responses produced in the assay by the appropriate prototype hormone and positive and negative controls. Overall WoE scores should be derived based on response and relevance weightings and a WoE narrative developed to clearly describe the final determinations.

Evaluation of EPA's Tier 1 Endocrine Screening Battery and recommendations for improving the interpretation of screening results.

EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) was implemented in 2009-2010 with the issuance of test orders requiring manufacturers and registrants of 58 pesticide active ingredients and nine pesticide inert/high production volume chemicals to evaluate the potential of these chemicals to interact with the estrogen, androgen and thyroid hormone systems. The required endocrine screening will be conducted over the next 2-3years. Based on estimates of the impacted sectors, costs are at least $750,000-$1,000,000 per substance if all of the Tier 1 assays must be conducted. The screening will entail evaluation of responses in EPA's Tier 1 Endocrine Screening Battery (EDSP ESB), consisting of 11 distinct in vitro and in vivo assays. We reviewed the details of each test method and describe the critical factors integral to the design and conduct of the EDSP ESB assays as well as the limitations related to specificity and sensitivity. We discuss challenges to evaluating each assay, identify significant shortcomings, and make recommendations to enhance interpretation of results. Factors that affect the length of time necessary to complete the EDSP ESB for any particular substance are presented, and based on the overall analysis, we recommend a sequence for running the EDSP ESB assays. It is imperative that a structured, systematic weight of evidence framework is promptly developed, subjected to peer review and adopted. This will help to ensure an objective analysis of the results of the required EDSP screening, consistent integration of results across the EDSP ESB assays, and consistent decision making as to whether subsequent testing for adverse effects is needed. Based upon the limitations of the current EPA EDSP ESB, we concur with the Agency's Scientific Advisory Panel's recommendation that after the initial set of substances has been screened, the EDSP ESB should pause so that the results can be fully analyzed to determine the value of the existing assays. After this analysis, assays that are unnecessarily redundant or that lack endocrine specificity should be eliminated and if necessary, replaced by new or revised screens that are more mechanistically specific, rapid, reliable, and cost effective.

Acute and chronic toxicity testing of bisphenol A with aquatic invertebrates and plants.

Bisphenol A (BPA, 4,4'-isopropylidine diphenol) is a commercially important chemical used primarily as an intermediate in the production of polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins. Extensive effect data are currently available, including long-term studies with BPA on fish, amphibians, crustaceans, and mollusks. The aim of this study was to perform additional tests with a number of aquatic invertebrates and an aquatic plant. These studies include acute tests with the midge (Chironomus tentans) and the snail (Marisa cornuarietis), and chronic studies with rotifers (Brachionus calyciflorus), amphipods (Hyalella azteca), and plants (Lemna gibba). The effect data on different aquatic invertebrate and plant species presented in this paper correspond well with the effect and no-effect concentrations (NOECs) available from invertebrate studies in the published literature and are within the range found for other aquatic species tested with BPA.