Distinguishing between endocrine disruption and non-specific effects on endocrine systems.

The endocrine system is responsible for growth, development, maintaining homeostasis and for the control of many physiological processes. Due to the integral nature of its signaling pathways, it can be difficult to distinguish endocrine-mediated adverse effects from transient fluctuations, adaptive/compensatory responses, or adverse effects on the endocrine system that are caused by mechanisms outside the endocrine system. This is particularly true in toxicological studies that require generation of effects through the use of Maximum Tolerated Doses (or Concentrations). Endocrine-mediated adverse effects are those that occur as a consequence of the interaction of a chemical with a specific molecular component of the endocrine system, for example, a hormone receptor. Non-endocrine-mediated adverse effects on the endocrine system are those that occur by other mechanisms. For example, systemic toxicity, which perturbs homeostasis and affects the general well-being of an organism, can affect endocrine signaling. Some organs/tissues can be affected by both endocrine and non-endocrine signals, which must be distinguished. This paper examines in vitro and in vivo endocrine endpoints that can be altered by non-endocrine processes. It recommends an evaluation of these issues in the assessment of effects for the determination of endocrine disrupting properties of chemicals. This underscores the importance of using a formal weight of evidence (WoE) process to evaluate potential endocrine activity.

Improving weight of evidence approaches to chemical evaluations.

Federal and other regulatory agencies often use or claim to use a weight of evidence (WoE) approach in chemical evaluation. Their approaches to the use of WoE, however, differ significantly, rely heavily on subjective professional judgment, and merit improvement. We review uses of WoE approaches in key articles in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and find significant variations. We find that a hypothesis-based WoE approach, developed by Lorenz Rhomberg et al., can provide a stronger scientific basis for chemical assessment while improving transparency and preserving the appropriate scope of professional judgment. Their approach, while still evolving, relies on the explicit specification of the hypothesized basis for using the information at hand to infer the ability of an agent to cause human health impacts or, more broadly, affect other endpoints of concern. We describe and endorse such a hypothesis-based WoE approach to chemical evaluation.