A Two-Tiered-Testing Decision Tree for Assays in the USEPA-EDSP Screening Battery: Using 15 years of experience to improve screening and testing for endocrine.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Health and Safety Executive Ecotoxicology Annex II and III data requirements Mark Clook Chemicals Regulation Directorate Health and Safety Executive UK.
Advertisements

Perspectives from EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program
Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation Laura L. Hungerford, DVM, MPH, PhD Senior Advisor, Science and Policy, ONADE Professor, University of Maryland School.
Integrating the gender aspects in research and promoting the participation of women in Life Sciences, Genomics and Biotechnology for Health.
ENDOCRINE DISRUPTION DOES THIS POSE SPECIAL DIFFICULTIES WHEN ASSESSING RISK? Sue Barlow Independent Consultant in Toxicology.
25. Scientific and Technological Support on in vivo assays for the Agency's Endocrine Disrupter Screening and Testing program. LE Gray, J Ostby, J Furr,
Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program: Ralph L. Cooper Endocrinology Branch Reproductive Toxicology Division NHEERL, U.S. EPA Male and Female Pubertal.
Reviewers Presentation on US Environmental Protection Agency " White Paper on Species/Stock/Strain on Endocrine Disruptor Assays" Reviewed by but not in.
Evaluating Existing in vitro Endocrine Data Jeff Pregenzer, Director of Endocrine Studies, CeeTox.
UNEP Advisory Group Meeting Geneva, Switzerland December 12, 2014
Richard A. Becker, Ph.D., D.A.B.T American Chemistry Council Arlington, Virginia Comments on “Dose Setting” EDMVS Meeting July 23-24, 2002.
1 Post-UNEP/WHO EDC State of the Science 2012 report Personal reflections by Åke Bergman, coordinator of the above mentioned report, IPCP vice chair and.
Session III: Assessing Cumulative Effects of Endocrine Active Substances 9:15 - 9:30 Introduction” Rick Becker (Session Chair and Panel Moderator) 9:30.
Priority-setting for the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program: Pesticide Active Ingredients Penelope A. Fenner-Crisp Office of Pesticide Programs U.S.
National Pesticide Program A New Toxicology Testing Paradigm: Meeting Common Needs Steven Bradbury, Director Environmental Fate and Effects Division Office.
Endocrine Screening – Phase 1 TSCA 8(e) and FIFRA 6(a)(2) Requirements A. Michael Kaplan, Ph.D. December 13, 2010 A. Michael Kaplan & Associates, LLC
ISRTP 2009 Endocrine Workshop | 9-10 September 2009 | Washington, DC.
Comments Regarding Nipples/Areolae Retention Endpoint Barbara Neal, DABT BBL Sciences.
John C. O’Connor DuPont Haskell Laboratory for Health and Environmental Sciences The 15-Day Intact Adult Male Assay As An Alternative Tier I Screening.
RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute The International Society of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology (ISRTP)
EDSP Validation Gary E.Timm Senior Technical Advisor Office of Science Coordination and Policy U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
NSF/ANSI STANDARD 61 FRAMEWORK FOR RISK ASSESSMENTS For use by Toxicology Sub-committee only Please do not copy or distribute.
International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board Accounting Estimates, Including Fair Value Accounting Estimates, and Related Disclosures ISA Implementation.
Animal Feed GRAS Notifications Geoffrey K. Wong, M.S. Division of Animal Feeds Center for Veterinary Medicine Pet Food Institute Pet Food Institute October.
June 16-19, USEPA Cancer Guidelines: Mode of Carcinogenic Action 1 ICABR – Impacts of the Bioeconomy on Agricultural Sustainability, the Environment.
State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals – 2012 UNEP and WHO published in February, 2013 From ”Global Assement of EDCs” published 2002 to.
Assessing the Impact of Body Weight on Male and Female Pubertal Development EPA Special Study Tammy Stoker, PhD. Gamete and Early Embryo Biology Branch.
Criteria for Screens— Review of the EDSTAC Recommendations Presentation to the EDMVS July 23, 2002.
Guidance for Industry M4S: The CTD-Safety
What Information Fulfills EDSP Screening Requirements?
Food Advisory Committee Meeting December 16 and 17, 2014 Questions to the Committee Suzanne C. Fitzpatrick, PhD, DABT Senior Advisory for Toxicology Center.
Quill Law Group LLC1 EDSP Implementation Business and Legal Considerations Terry F. Quill Quill Law Group LLC 1667 K St, NW Washington, DC
Quill Law Group LLC1 EDSP Compliance EDSP Phase 2 Policies and Procedures Terry F. Quill Quill Law Group LLC 1667 K St, NW Washington, DC
The Intact Male Assay As An Alternative Tier I Screening Assay For Detecting Endocrine-Active Compounds John C. O’Connor DuPont Haskell Laboratory for.
Status of the U.S. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) Status of the U.S. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) September
Endocrine Disruption Faith M. Oi University of Florida Entomology and Nematology Dept. Gainesville, FL 32611
EDSP’s Approach to Test Protocol Validation Office of Science Coordination and Policy U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Quill Law Group LLC1 Endocrine Disruption and Personal Care Products --- Legislative Developments Terry F. Quill Quill Law Group LLC 1667 K St, NW Washington,
Quill Law Group LLC1 EDSP Compliance Timing, Procedural and Legal Issues Terry F. Quill Quill Law Group LLC 1667 K St, NW Washington, DC
Slide 1 of 24 EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) Use of Exposure Data in Priority Setting Bill Wooge Office of Science Coordination and.
Endocrine disrupters. Endocrine disruption Endocrine disrupters (ED) or endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDC) are exogenous chemical agents that interfere.
1 Tier 1 EDSP: Other Scientifically Relevant Information Barbara Neal Exponent December 13, 2010.
ELLEN MIHAICH, PH.D., DABT ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY RESOURCES ISRTP WORKSHOP DECEMBER 13, 2010 EDSP Test Guidelines and Guideline Modifications 1.
Wildlife Screens What Do They Tell Us? Dr. Pat Guiney Manager Global Safety, Regulatory & Environmental Assessment S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. Racine, WI.
Which information identifies a chemical as endocrine disrupting? Poul Bjerregaard Institute of Biology University of Southern Denmark Odense and Danish.
MAIN TOXICITY TESTING. TESTING STRATEGIES A number of different types of data are used in order to establish the safety of chemical substances for use.
0 Focusing on the Adverse Outcomes of ER-mediated Pathways Rodney Johnson ORD/MED McKim Conference September 16-18, 2008.
International Society of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 2009 Endocrine Workshop The Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program: What Can Screening Results.
Communications and the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program ISRTP Workshop December 13, 2010.
MECHANISTIC MODEL OF STEROIDOGENESIS IN FISH OVARIES TO PREDICT BIOCHEMICAL RESPONSE TO ENDOCRINE ACTIVE CHEMICALS Michael S. Breen, 1 Miyuki Breen, 2.
Quill Law Group LLC1 EDSP Implementation Business and Legal Considerations Terry F. Quill Quill Law Group LLC 1667 K St, NW Washington, DC
1 Exceptional Events Rulemaking Proposal General Overview March 1, 2006 US EPA.
EDSP: T IER 1 T ESTING I NFORMATION C OLLECTION ISRTP 2010 Endocrine Workshop EDSP Compliance December 13, 2010 Susan Ferenc, DVM, Ph.D.
Christopher J. Borgert, PhD Weight of Evidence Determinations for EPA’s EDSP ISRTP Workshop, December 13 Lister Hill Auditorium, Bethesda, MD.
Introduction to Session II: Incorporating Existing Data into the EDSP Erik R. Janus Director, Human Health Policy CropLife America.
EDSP Implementation: Concerns for the Pesticide Industry ISRTP 2009 Endocrine Workshop: The Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program: What Can Screening Results.
Androgens -Role in males similar to the of estrogens in females - development of male sexual characteristics - stimulating protein synthesis, growth of.
Abstract A step-wise or ‘tiered’ approach has been used as a rational procedure to conduct environmental risk assessments in many disciplines. The Technical.
Cumulative Risk Assessment: A Critical Step Forward in Human Health Protection Deborah A. Cory-Slechta Department of Environmental Medicine University.
Rigor and Transparency in Research
Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing: An Industry Update
Endocrine Disruption August 1996: Statutory.
BIOASSAY OF OESTROGENS
Susan Makris U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development
Which information identifies a chemical as endocrine disrupting?
BIOASSAY OF OESTROGENS
Comments on Using Existing Data for the Endocrine Screening Testing Lorenz Rhomberg, PhD Principal Gradient ISRTP 2009 Endocrine Workshop.
Mammalian Tier I EDSP Screening Assays: What do they tell us?
Presentation transcript:

A Two-Tiered-Testing Decision Tree for Assays in the USEPA-EDSP Screening Battery: Using 15 years of experience to improve screening and testing for endocrine active chemicals L. Earl Gray Jr. and Gerald Ankley This presentation does not necessarily reflect USEPA policy, but rather represents the authors’ current view on the state of the science

EDCs – from 1991 to 1996 – Wingspread and Our Stolen Future

1996 – FQPA and SDWA mandates endocrine screening Food Quality Protection Act PUBLIC LAW 104–170—AUG. 3, STAT Public Law 104–170 An Act To amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and for other purposes.

Page 1532 ESTROGENIC SUBSTANCES SCREENING PROGRAM.— ‘ 1) DEVELOPMENT.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this section, the Administrator shall in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services develop a screening program, using appropriate validated test systems and other scientifically relevant information, to determine whether certain substances may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen, or such other endocrine effect as the Administrator may designate…” ‘‘2) IMPLEMENTATION.—Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this section, after obtaining public comment and review of the screening program described in paragraph (1)by the scientific advisory panel established under section 25(d) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act or the science advisory board ….” “SUBSTANCES.—In carrying out the screening program described in paragraph (1), the Administrator— (A) shall provide for the testing of all pesticide chemicals; and ‘‘(B) may provide for the testing of any other substance that may have an effect that is cumulative to an effect of a pesticide chemical if the Administrator determines that a substantial population may be exposed to such substance.

COLLECTION OF INFORMATION.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall issue an order to a registrant of a substance for which testing is required under this subsection, or to a person who manufactures or imports a substance for which testing is required under this subsection, to conduct testing in accordance with the screening program described in paragraph (1), and submit information obtained from the testing to the Administrator, within a reasonable time period that the Administrator determines is sufficient for the generation of the information…” ‘‘(B) PROCEDURES.—To the extent practicable the Administrator shall minimize duplicative testing of the same substance for the same endocrine effect, develop, as appropriate, procedures for fair and equitable sharing of test costs, and develop, as necessary, procedures for handling of confidential business information….” FAILURE OF REGISTRANTS TO SUBMIT INFORMATION.— ‘‘(i) SUSPENSION.—If a registrant of a substance referred to in paragraph (3)(A) fails to comply with an order under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, the Administrator shall issue a notice of intent to suspend the sale or distribution of the substance by the registrant….”

Tier 1 Screening Battery Design - EPA “The EDSP Tier 1 battery was designed to work as a whole with all of the screening assays. The basis for selecting an assay to include in the battery involved two principal aspects: 1. The capacity of an assay to detect estrogen- and androgen- mediated effects by various modes of action including receptor binding (agonist and antagonist) and transcriptional activation, steroidogenesis, and hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal (HPG) feedback…… 2. In addition, rodent and amphibian in vivo assays were selected for the proposed battery based on their capacity to detect direct and indirect effects on thyroid function (hypothalamic-pituitary-thyroidal, HPT, feedback). Thus, the robustness of the proposed battery is based on the strengths of each individual assay and their complementary nature within the battery to detect effects on the E, A or T hormonal systems. “

Purpose of the Screening Battery To Detect EAT activity Not to define dose response or adversity Hence the screening battery does not to include sensitive in utero or other life stages All adverse effects of EAT The most sensitive effects of EAT T1S needs to include assays with endpoints that are sensitive enough to detect all pesticides and toxic substances that display EAT activity Does the battery as a whole fail to detect and chemicals with EAT activity - Not that I am aware of

Purpose of the testing Not to Detect EAT activity, but rather To define dose response and adversity Hence T2 Testing does need to include All sensitive life stages The most sensitive effects of EAT T2T protocols need to include endpoints that are sensitive enough to be protective for all the adverse effects of pesticides and toxic substances but they do not need to detect all adverse effects produced by disruption of EAT pathways Do T2T guideline protocols contain the most sensitive effects of EAT? – Not for some modes action

In vitro assays to detect E and A activity Estrogen receptor (ER) binding – rat uterine cytosol Estrogen receptor - (hERα) transcriptional activation - agonist mode Androgen receptor (AR) binding – rat prostate cytosol Steroidogenesis – Human cell line (H295R) Aromatase – Human recombinant microsomes In vivo to detect EAT activity Uterotrophic (rat) Hershberger (rat) Pubertal female (rat) Pubertal male (rat) Amphibian metamorphosis (frog) Fish short-term reproduction The Tier 1 battery’s suite of in vitro and in vivo screening assays includes the following: Replace with recombinant protein assays Androgen receptor transcriptional activation assays Estrogen receptor - (hERα) transcriptional activation - antagonist mode Add assays Structure T1S as a Logic Based Decision Tree Strategy using knowledge gained over the last 15 years on the performance of these assays

Tier 1.5 – after T1S but prior to T2 Testing Objectives of T1.5 – additional in vitro or short-term in vivo assays To confirm equivocal T1S results or to explore potential EAT effects in more detail before initiating extensive T2 Testing For example: An unknown chemical produces estrogenic effects in ER binding and ERTA assays Uterotrophic assay with sc dosing Fish assay But, the chemical does not display estrogenicity in the pubertal female assay Run the chemical in T1.5 in the uterotrophic assay with oral dosing – if negative, are you really going to T2T with dietary exposure????

Implementation of T1S orders and screening – Phase 1 has begun recommendations for Execution of assays

Overt Toxicity is Incompatible with Endocrine Screening !!!! Data exceeding the MTD in the guidelines should be excluded - rejected from the analysis – False Positives Endocrine Disrupted???????

Laws SC, Stoker TE, Ferrell JM, Hotchkiss MG, Cooper RL. Effects of altered food intake during pubertal development in male and female wistar rats. Toxicol Sci Nov;100(1):

Female Pubertal Assay. Reduced weight gain results in reproductive and other organ weight reductions

Female Pubertal Assay. Reduced weight gain results in reduced adrenal weight and reductions in serum thyroid hormones, leptin and glucose levels

Male Pubertal Assay. Reduced weight gain up to 20% results in reduced reproductive organ weights without effect on Preputial Separation or serum T

Male Pubertal Assay. Reduced weight gain results in organ weight reductions

Male Pubertal Assay. Reduced weight gain results in reduced adrenal weight and reductions in serum thyroid hormones, leptin and glucose levels

Strategy for Interpretation of T1S battery results Delete all results from any further consideration conducted at doses that exceed the MTD and caused overt toxicity Consider “Key” endpoints expected to be affected by either E, A or T disruption as a cluster for consistency across endpoints with a common Mode Of Action (MOA) However, it is critical to recognize that different responses for SARMS, SERMS, routes of exposure, species differences in sensitivity and the lack of ADME can result in all the “key” endpoints for a MOA may not respond as expected. Don’t ignore other adverse effects – adrenal weight, gonadal histology, etc

How EDSTAC (1998) envisioned interpretation of the results of T1S battery and WoE determinations

A Logic Based Decision Tree Strategy for execution of the EDSP screening assays We proposed the use of two in vivo assays as “Gatekeepers” If the “Gatekeepers” were negative for EAT then chemical is placed in the “HOLD” box and the other in vivo and in vitro assays would not need to be executed. If the “Gatekeepers” displayed any positive effects for EAT then specific assays would be executed on a case-by-case basis depending upon the effects seen in the “Gatekeeper” assays Ankley GT, Gray LE. Environ Toxicol Chem Apr;32(5): Cross –species conservation of endocrine pathways: a critical analysis ot tier 1 fish and rat screening assays with 12 model chemicals.

Tier 1 Assay PathwayChemicalUterotrophicHershberger Pubertal Female Pubertal Male Fathead Minnow ER Agonist 17α- Ethynylestradiol +++ Methoxychlor ++ –/+ + Bisphenol A −/+−+ AR AgonistMethyltestosterone β-Trenbolone ++ AR AntagonistFlutamide +++ Vinclozolin +++ p,p′-DDE –- +++ Steroidogenesis Inhibitor Ketoconazole +++ Fadrozole ++ Fenarimol −+ Prochloraz + ++ Detection of Model EDCs by EDSP Tier 1 Assays All pluses are not equal

Summary: ER Agonists EE2 and MXC positive in Uterotrophic (increased uterine weight), female pubertal (advanced vaginal opening) and fish (male VTG induction) assays BPA negative/low activity in rat assays with oral dosing (female pubertal, Uterotrophic assays), but strong estrogenic positive in Uterotrophic assay (sc route) and fish test (male VTG induction) –Consistent with substantial first-pass (hepatic) BPA metabolism with oral but not sc or inhalation (fish) routes Responses reflective of HPG functional conservation, but highlight importance of route of exposure (and metabolism) considerations in extrapolation

Summary: AR Agonists TB and MT positive for androgenic activity in Hershberger assay (increased AR-responsive organ weights) and fish (production of male SSCs in females) test; MT also positive in male pubertal assay (advanced puberty [TB not tested]) MT also positive for estrogenicity in Uterotrophic and fish assays (increased uterine weight; VTG induction) –Consistent with established conversion of MT to M-E2 by aromatase (CYP19) in rats and fish Cross species conservation of HPG function effectively reflects “paradoxical” (multi-modal) nature of MT

Summary: AR Antagonists FLU, VIN, DDE all produced responses consistent with AR antagonism in two rat assays and the fish test –Hershberger: decreased weight of AR-responsive tissues in animals co-treated with TP –Male pubertal: increased time to preputial separation –Fish: Abnormal ovarian histology (atresia) and decreased expression of SSCs in males (VIN) FLU and VIN both require metabolism to active AR antagonists (OH-FLU, M3), indicating conserved routes of metabolism in mammals and fish Endpoints quite specific for AR antagonism, interpretation clear Endpoints apical. Could result from many endocrine and non endocrine modes of action. Interpretation not always clear

Summary: Steroid Synthesis Inhibitors KTC positive in both pubertal assays (increased preputial separation time in males; increases in adrenal weight in females) and in the fish test (compensatory increases in GSI of both sexes and proliferation of Leydig cells in males) FAD, FEN and PRO all positive in fish test (depressed female VTG, E2); results inconsistent in rat Tier 1 assays –FAD delays vaginal opening in female pubertal assay –PRO inhibits AR-sensitive tissue weights in male pubertal assay –FEN, no effect in female pubertal assay, but this pathway is disrupted in multigenerational studies causing adverse low dose effects Lack of sensitivity of rat Tier 1 assays to some steroidogenesis inhibitors addressed by fish test and H295R assay (which flags KTC, FAD, FEN and PRO all as positives)

Summary: Phthalates -PEs PEs positive in male pubertal assay –Increased preputial separation age in males; decreased SAGs and testis weight PEs – generally negative for EAT activity in –AR and ER binding, ARTA and ERTA, H295R and AROM –Pubertal Female assay –Fish assay –Frog assay –HTS assays Lack of sensitivity of all Tier 1 assays to PEs excepts the pubertal male rat assay was the logic for including it in T1S by EDSTAC and as a “Gatekeeper” in our Logic- based Decision tree for T1S assays

Fathead minnow Primary assay for SIS, E, A Pubertal male - Primary assay for T, A anti-A Tier 1 Screening Gatekeeper Assays FH and PM Negative + Responses in Gatekeepers Vitellogenin Altered T, KT or E2 E2, Vitellogenin Pubertal Female or Oral Uterotrophic H295R Aromatase Male Traits ER binding ERTA Altered T4, T3, TSH, thyroid histology Frog Assay Altered T, PPS, Sex Accessory Glands or LH H295R Aromatase Hershberger Assay and AR Binding ARTA Triggered T1S Assays

Why in vitro assays cannot be “Gatekeepers: In vitro assays in T1S Cannot account for ADME Missing Pathways of EAT action. There are no in vitro assays in T1S for thyroid disruptors, disruptors of hypothalamic pituitary function, and chemical classes like the phthalates that do not interact with nuclear receptors or directly inhibit hormone synthesis In vitro assay data cannot be integrated at this time to predict the in vivo endocrine effects In vitro assay data cannot be integrated with other modes of toxicity to predict in vivo toxicity HTS assays are even more limited Have not been validated following methods used by EDSP and OECD Cannot currently meet the EDSP in vitro assay performance standards for sensitivity and reproducibility Lack assays for steroidogenesis, in addition to thyroid, HPG and phthalates

Using Endocrine Toxicity Profiles for specific MOAs to Enhance Tier 2 Testing. using examples of chemicals with estrogenic activity

Enhancing Testing on a case-by-case basis using the information from the screening battery It is evident from the literature that none of the current regulatory multigenerational or one-generation test guidelines include the most sensitive endpoints by chemicals that disrupt estrogen and androgen signaling pathways These endpoints could be added to standard test guideline studies on a case-by-case basis depending upon the endocrine MOA identified in the T1 Screening Battery. For example chemicals that act as ER agonists in vivo via a relevant route of exposure should include an assessment of the mammary gland of the male rat. Chemicals that display AR agonist activity need to carefully examine the female offspring for retained male sex accessory tissues Studies of chemicals that produce low incidences of reproductive malformations need to increase the sample size examined for these lesions to have sufficient statistical power. Studies of chemicals with antithyroid activity need to add assessments of serum T4, T3 and TSH and thyroid gland weight and histology

NMDRC and Linear No Threshold Dose Response Impact on EDC screening and testing Impact for EDC screening – NONE Do the EDC screening assays fail to detect E or A activity? NO Impact for multigenerational testing Estimation of shape of the dose response curve in the low dose region could be enhanced by using more dose groups For example, keep total N litters in a study as is, increase number of dose groups from 3 to 6 with half as many litters per dose group Examining more than one animal per litter enhances endpoint sensitivity by increasing the statistical power to detect low dose categorical effects like malformations and histopathological lesions (Blystone et al., 2010; Hotchkiss et al., 2008).

Summary Develop a Logic-based decision tree strategy for T12S assays Enhance tier 2 testing using results from T1S based upon effects in T1S Knowledge of the field and understanding of published literature on EDCs is essential to accomplish the above goals

Outline of presentation EDCs – from 1991 to 1996 – Wingspread and Our Stolen Future 1996 – FQPA and SDWA mandates endocrine screening – EDSTAC (the assays, debates over modes of action included) The final battery – EAT in vivo and in vitro The next – 15 years and a significant increase in the database on effects of EDCs in EDSP assays and assay validation Implementation on the first round of chemicals Cautions on interpretation of Tier 1 Screening data and recommendations for data interpretation of the data. Recommendations of structuring Tier 1 screening assays on a decision-logic-tree basis with two in vivo assays as the “Gatekeepers” Description of the value of Tier 1.5 before going to Tier 2 testing. Using the information from Tier 1 Screening to tailor/enhance Tier 2 testing by adding additional endpoints sensitive to specific modes of endocrine action What are the endpoints sensitive to disruption that are not specifically included in tier 2 testing? What is the shape of the dose response curve for EDCs in the low dose range for these sensitive endpoints - where dose it matter: In tier 1 or Tier 2?