Office of Research and Development National Center for Computational Toxicology Keith Houck, PhD ISRPT 2009 Endocrine Workshop 9-10 Sept 2009 What Can.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Perspectives from EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program
Advertisements

Office of Research and Development National Center for Computational Toxicology Imran Predicting Biological Response at a Systems.
Dosimetry in Risk Assessment and a bit More Mel Andersen McKim Conference QSAR and Aquatic Toxicology & Risk Assessment June 27-29, 2006.
Office of Research and Development Computational Toxicology and High-Throughput Risk Assessment Richard Judson U.S. EPA, National Center for Computational.
Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program: Ralph L. Cooper Endocrinology Branch Reproductive Toxicology Division NHEERL, U.S. EPA Male and Female Pubertal.
Evaluating Existing in vitro Endocrine Data Jeff Pregenzer, Director of Endocrine Studies, CeeTox.
UNEP Advisory Group Meeting Geneva, Switzerland December 12, 2014
Office of Research and Development National Center for Computational Toxicology Richard Judson Computational Toxicology UNC, November.
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.
June 2010 LANDSIEDEL 1 Chemical Industries Role in Tomorrows Toxicity Testing Robert Landsiedel, Susanne Kolle, Tzutzuy Ramirez, Hennicke Kamp and Ben.
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.
Computational Toxicology: New Approaches to Improve Environmental Health Protection Presentation to the 4 th International Academic Conference on Environmental.
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
1 Development & Evaluation of Ecotoxicity Predictive Tools EPA Development Team Regional Stakeholder Meetings January 11-22, 2010.
EDSP Validation Gary E.Timm Senior Technical Advisor Office of Science Coordination and Policy U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Synthetic Biology at Saint Mary’s College 1. Previous experience 2. Application in courses a. Vidya – Genetics lab course b. Valerie – Special Topics in.
Office of Research and Development National Center for Computational Toxicology April 6, 2010 Exposure-Based Chemical Prioritization Workshop: Exploring.
Office of Research and Development National Center for Computational Toxicology August 25, 2011 Tox21 & ToxCast Chemical Landscapes: Laying the Foundation.
The Tox21 Program Christopher P. Austin, M.D. Director, NIH Chemical Genomics Center The Future of Chemical Toxicity Testing in the U.S.: Creating a Roadmap.
WILLIAM JORDAN DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY US EPA Regulation of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals.
Bioinformatics Ayesha M. Khan Spring Phylogenetic software PHYLIP l 2.
Criteria for Screens— Review of the EDSTAC Recommendations Presentation to the EDMVS July 23, 2002.
EPA/Office of Water’s Strategy for Contaminants of Emerging Concern Octavia Conerly Health and Ecological Criteria Division Office of Water U.S. Environmental.
The Role of Research in the Business of the Environmental Protection Agency Steven Bradbury, Director Environmental Fate & Effects Division Office of Pesticide.
Tox21: Transforming Environmental Health Protection Raymond Tice, Ph.D. Chief, Biomolecular Screening Branch LINCS Consortium Kick-Off.
The Need for Organ Site Specific Cancer Research John T Isaacs Chemical Therapeutic Program Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins.
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
Chapter 13. The Impact of Genomics on Antimicrobial Drug Discovery and Toxicology CBBL - Young-sik Sohn-
Office of Pesticide Programs 21st Century Screening Assessment of Pesticides – A Regulatory View Vicki Dellarco, Ph.D. Senior Science Advisor Office of.
RISK e Learning Computational Toxicology: New Approaches for the 21st Century May 28, 2009 Session 1: Computational Toxicology: An Introduction to Key.
High Throughput Genotoxicity Profiling of the US EPA ToxCast TM Chemical Library S Little 1, AW Knight 2, L Birrell 2, G Akerman 3, N McCarroll 3, D Dix.
1 Innovative Science To Improve Public Health EDKB: Endocrine Disruptors Knowledge Base at the FDA Huixiao Hong, Ph.D. Center for Bioinformatics Division.
Session I – Session I – Strengths and Weaknesses of the EDSP Screening Assays Moderator: Angelina J. Duggan Exponent Health Group September 9, 2009.
Luděk Bláha, PřF MU, RECETOX BIOMARKERS AND TOXICITY MECHANISMS 01 - INTRODUCTION.
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.
Kevin M. Crofton, PhD US Environmental Protection Agency McKim Conference Duluth MN September 17, 2008 Thyroid Mediated CNS Dysfunction How to use what.
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.
The US Tox21 Collaboration: Advances Made and Lessons Learned
2 n McKim Workshop on Reducing Data Redundancy in Cancer Assessment | 8 – 10 May 2012 | Baltimore, MD Highlighting the Need for AOPs in Streamlining Hazard.
Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master text styles –Second level Third level –Fourth level »Fifth level Office of Research and Development.
Effort 1 – Voluntary Genomics Data Submission (VGDS) FDA Guidance to Industry: Pharmacogenomics data submission (Draft 2003, final publication 2005) –Invite.
Regulatory Processes for Pesticides Mark Hartman Antimicrobials Division (AD) Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances United States Environmental.
Bioinformatics MEDC601 Lecture by Brad Windle Ph# Office: Massey Cancer Center, Goodwin Labs Room 319 Web site for lecture:
Introduction to Session II: Incorporating Existing Data into the EDSP Erik R. Janus Director, Human Health Policy CropLife America.
Chief Scientific Officer, CellzDirect, Inc.
Regulatory Chemical Risk Assessment From Superfund to Contaminants of Emerging Concern Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going? Patrick Gwinn November.
Human Health Risk Assessment: EPA’s Current Challenges and the Future Stan Barone Jr., PhD., National Center for Environmental Assessment Office of Research.
Office of Research and Development National Center for Computational Toxicology Amy Wang National Center for Computational Toxicology The views expressed.
How drugs Act :General principles Lecture 2
A High Throughput Zebrafish Embryo Gene Expression System for Screening Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals G. Callard A. Novillo, S. Sawyer Biology.
The Future of Chemical Toxicity Testing in the U.S.
EDSP Implementation: Concerns for the Pesticide Industry ISRTP 2009 Endocrine Workshop: The Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program: What Can Screening Results.
Neurotoxic Hazards – Context Specific vs non-specific Pesticides designed to be neurotoxic All the rest Acute vs persistent Reversible ‘pharmacological’
Natural and environmental estrogens
신기술 접목에 의한 신약개발의 발전전망과 전략 LGCI 생명과학 기술원. Confidential LGCI Life Science R&D 새 시대 – Post Genomic Era Genome count ‘The genomes of various species including.
Small Molecules that Enhance the Pharmacological Effects of Oligonucleotides Melissa Porter 1, Bing Yang 1, Canhong Cao 1, Xin Ming 1, Emily Hull-Ryde.
(Quantitative) Structure- Activity Relationships (Q)SAR.
Who is NCCT? National Center for Computational Toxicology – part of EPA’s Office of Research and Development Research driven by EPA’s Chemical Safety for.
The CompTox Chemistry Dashboard: an informational data hub at the
Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing: An Industry Update
Susan Makris U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development
OAK CREEK Toxicology & Risk Assessment Consulting
HTS and Mixtures: Lessons Learned
RSESS March 18, 2008 Robert Osterberg
Presentation transcript:

Office of Research and Development National Center for Computational Toxicology Keith Houck, PhD ISRPT 2009 Endocrine Workshop 9-10 Sept 2009 What Can ToxCast Tell Us About Endocrine Disruption? This work was reviewed by EPA and approved for presentation but does not necessarily reflect official Agency policy. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation by EPA for use.

Office of Research and Development National Center for Computational Toxicology 1 What Can ToxCast Tell Us About Endocrine Disruption? Probably not much but our focus is chemical prioritization for targeted testing

Office of Research and Development National Center for Computational Toxicology 22 Too Many ChemicalsToo High a Cost Cancer DevTox NeuroTox ReproTox ImmunoTox PulmonaryTox Millions $ Our Challenge: 11,000 90,000 …and not enough data. Judson, et al EHP 117(5): (2009)

Office of Research and Development National Center for Computational Toxicology 3 ToxCast TM Background  Research program of EPA’s National Center for Computational Toxicology  Addresses chemical screening and prioritization needs for pesticidal inerts, anti-microbials, CCLs, HPVs and MPVs  Comprehensive use of HTS technologies to generate biological fingerprints and predictive signatures  Coordinated with NTP and NHGRI/NCGC via Tox21  Committed to stakeholder involvement and public release of data  Communities of Practice- Chemical Prioritization; Exposure  NCCT website-  ACToR- Aggregated Computational Toxicology Resource 

Office of Research and Development National Center for Computational Toxicology 4 MOA Classes with > 3 chemicals Acetylcholine esterase inhibitors conazole fungicides Sodium channel modulators pyrethroid ester insecticides organothiophosphate acaricides dinitroaniline herbicides pyridine herbicides thiocarbamate herbicides imidazolinone herbicides organophosphate insecticides phenyl organothiophosphate insecticides aliphatic organothiophosphate insecticides amide herbicides aromatic fungicides chloroacetanilide herbicides chlorotriazine herbicides growth inhibitors organophosphate acaricides oxime carbamate insecticides phenylurea herbicides pyrethroid ester acaricides strobilurin fungicides unclassified acaricides unclassified herbicides Misc 309 unique structures Replicates for QC 8 metabolites 291 total pesticide actives 273 registered pesticide actives 22 pesticide inerts 33 antimicrobials 54 Tier 1 EDSP 23 IUR 13 HPV 73 OW PCCL 11 CCL1 10 CCL2 25 CCL3 ToxCast_320 Phase I Chemicals

Office of Research and Development National Center for Computational Toxicology 5 EDSP Chemicals in ToxCast 320 Select Other Chemicals in ToxCast 320

Office of Research and Development National Center for Computational Toxicology 6 Types of Endocrine Assays Tested In ToxCast –Radioligand Receptor Binding (NRs) Single conc at 25  M followed by 7-point concentration response for actives –Multiplexed Reporter Gene Assay (Attagene) Trans: GAL4-Ligand Binding Domain NR Assays Cis: NR Response Element Assays 5-point concentration-response up to 100  M (unless limited by cytotoxicity) –Nuclear Receptor Coactivator Recruitment (NRs) Single conc at 25  M followed by 7-point concentration response for actives –CYP Enzyme Activity Assays Single conc at 10  M followed by 7-point concentration response for actives –NR Target Gene Assays (in primary human hepatocytes) 5-point concentration-response up to 40  M

Office of Research and Development National Center for Computational Toxicology 7 Endocrine Related Assays

Office of Research and Development National Center for Computational Toxicology 8 Other Endocrine Related Assays

Office of Research and Development National Center for Computational Toxicology 9 Other Endocrine Related Assays

Office of Research and Development National Center for Computational Toxicology 10 Example NR Binding Assay Actives hER  hAR hTR 

Office of Research and Development National Center for Computational Toxicology 11 Overview of Assay Results Generally found expected actives for ER  and AR binding assays Little activity for Thyroid Receptor Some species and/or assay sensitivity differences seen, e.g. low sensitivity of rat AR binding assay Not always agreement between binding and cellular reporter assays Many CYP inhibitors including those from expected chemical classes, i.e. conazoles and organophosphates Potency mostly in the micromolar to tens of micromolar range; few nanomolar actives

Office of Research and Development National Center for Computational Toxicology 12 Tox21 Tripartite Collaboration: EPA/NTP/NCGC Quantitative HTS Assays at NCGC Accepting Nominations for Assays from All Sources Chemical Libraries Being Screened: –EPA Library of 1462 Substances Contains Toxcast 309 Contains many NR reference compounds, e.g. pharmacological tools and drugs Many different environmental chemicals, e.g. bisphenols, phthalates, PFAAs –1408 substances in NTP library also screened –Expanding to 10,000 this year including all human pharmaceuticals

Office of Research and Development National Center for Computational Toxicology 13 Tox21 Assays Nuclear Receptor Cellular Reporter Gene Assays –GAL4-Ligand Binding Domain System--principally ligand detection –Receptors screened in agonist and antagonist modes –11-15 concentrations (highest 92  M) antagonist mode data interpretation confounded by cytotoxicity –Receptors screened: Human –ERa, AR, TRa, VDR, MR, RXRa, PPARa, PPARb, PPARg, PXR, (AhR) Rat –PXR

Office of Research and Development National Center for Computational Toxicology 14 Tox21 Results EPA Library Actives: Agonists

Office of Research and Development National Center for Computational Toxicology 15 Tox21 EDSP Chemicals Agonist (All)

Office of Research and Development National Center for Computational Toxicology 16 Tox21 EPA Library Antagonist Actives

Office of Research and Development National Center for Computational Toxicology 17 Partial Agonist Examples: ER 

Office of Research and Development National Center for Computational Toxicology 18 Importance of Biotransformation ER  radioligand binding assay ER  cellular (HEK293) transactivation assay

Office of Research and Development National Center for Computational Toxicology 19 Cellular Assays Biochemical Assays Toxicology Endpoints Physical chemical properties Data Normalization In vivo/In vitro Correlation Genomic Signatures In silico Predictions

Office of Research and Development National Center for Computational Toxicology 20 ToxRefDB website:

Office of Research and Development National Center for Computational Toxicology 21 Reproductive and Endocrine Organ Toxicity Endpoints from ToxRefDB

Office of Research and Development National Center for Computational Toxicology 22 Using the Data for Prioritization In vitro assays (ToxCast) In vivo endpoints (ToxRefDB) Chemical properties (descriptors) Pathways (endocrine)

Office of Research and Development National Center for Computational Toxicology 23 Using the Data for Prioritization Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid Symclosene Linuron FenitrothionBisphenol A

Office of Research and Development National Center for Computational Toxicology 24 Summary of Preliminary Findings Suite of assays useful in prioritization –endocrine-active chemicals score higher across assays –Individual assays may not be sufficient on their own Moderate concordance across different assay types for same target –Differences in biotransformation between assays –Assay-specific false positives/false negatives –Error –Differences in biology we don’t understand Sensitivity range of different assay types presents a challenge to interpret biological significance

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:  NCCT/ORD/USEPA  Matt Martin  David Dix  Richard Judson  David Reif  Ann Richards  Robert Kavlock  NCGC/NIH  Menghang Xia  Ruili Huang  Chris Austin