Mode of action analysis for fluxapyroxad-induced rat liver tumour formation: evidence for activation of the constitutive androstane receptor and assessment of human relevance.

The fungicide fluxapyroxad (BAS 700 F) has been shown to significantly increase the incidence of liver tumours in male Wistar rats at dietary levels of 1500 and 3000 ppm and in female rats at a dietary level of 3000 ppm via a non-genotoxic mechanism. In order to elucidate the mode of action (MOA) for fluxapyroxad-induced rat liver tumour formation a series of in vivo and in vitro investigative studies were undertaken. The treatment of male and female Wistar rats with diets containing 0 (control), 50, 250, 1500 and 3000 ppm fluxapyroxad for 1, 3, 7 and 14 days resulted in a dose-dependent increases in relative weight at 1500 and 3000 ppm from day 3 onwards in both sexes, with an increase in relative liver weight being also observed in male rats given 250 ppm fluxapyroxad for 14 days. Examination of liver sections revealed a centrilobular hepatocyte hypertrophy in some fluxapyroxad treated male and female rats. Hepatocyte replicative DNA synthesis (RDS) was significantly increased in male rats given 1500 and 3000 ppm fluxapyroxad for 3 and 7 days and in female rats given 50-3000 ppm fluxapyroxad for 7 days and 250-3000 ppm fluxapyroxad for 3 and 14 days; the maximal increases in RDS in both sexes being observed after 7 days treatment. The treatment of male and female Wistar rats with 250-3000 ppm fluxapyroxad for 14 days resulted in significant increases in hepatic microsomal total cytochrome P450 (CYP) content and CYP2B subfamily-dependent enzyme activities. Male Wistar rat hepatocytes were treated with control medium and medium containing 1-100 µM fluxapyroxad or 500 µM sodium phenobarbital (NaPB) for 4 days. Treatment with fluxapyroxad and NaPB increased CYP2B and CYP3A enzyme activities and mRNA levels but had little effect on markers of CYP1A and CYP4A subfamily enzymes and of the peroxisomal fatty acid ß-oxidation cycle. Hepatocyte RDS was significantly increased by treatment with fluxapyroxad, NaPB and 25 ng/ml epidermal growth factor (EGF). The treatment of hepatocytes from two male human donors with 1-100 µM fluxapyroxad or 500 µM NaPB for 4 days resulted in some increases in CYP2B and CYP3A enzyme activities and CYP mRNA levels but had no effect on hepatocyte RDS, whereas treatment with EGF resulted in significant increase in RDS in both human hepatocyte preparations. Hepatocytes from male Sprague-Dawley wild type (WT) and constitutive androstane receptor (CAR) knockout (CAR KO) rats were treated with control medium and medium containing 1-16 µM fluxapyroxad or 500 µM NaPB for 4 days. While both fluxapyroxad and NaPB increased CYP2B enzyme activities and mRNA levels in WT hepatocytes, only minor effects were observed in CAR KO rat hepatocytes. Treatment with both fluxapyroxad and NaPB only increased RDS in WT and not in CAR KO rat hepatocytes, whereas treatment with EGF increased RDS in both WT and CAR KO rat hepatocytes. In conclusion, a series of in vivo and in vitro investigative studies have demonstrated that fluxapyroxad is a CAR activator in rat liver, with similar properties to the prototypical CAR activator phenobarbital. A robust MOA for fluxapyroxad-induced rat liver tumour formation has been established. Based on the lack of effect of fluxapyroxad on RDS in human hepatocytes, it is considered that the MOA for fluxapyroxad-induced liver tumour formation is qualitatively not plausible for humans.

A new approach methodology using kinetically-derived maximum dose levels in risk assessment - A case study with afidopyropen.

We present a case study for afidopyropen (AF; insecticide) to characterize chronic dietary human health risk using a Risk 21-based approach. Our objective is to use a well-tested pesticidal active ingredient (AF) to show how a new approach methodology (NAM), using the kinetically-derived maximum dose (KMD) and with far less animal testing, can reliably identify a health-protective point of departure (PoD) for chronic dietary human health risk assessments (HHRA). Chronic dietary HHRA involves evaluation of both hazard and exposure information to characterize risk. Although both are important, emphasis has been placed on a checklist of required toxicological studies for hazard characterization, with human exposure information only considered after evaluation of hazard data. Most required studies are not used to define the human endpoint for HHRA. The information presented demonstrates a NAM that uses the KMD determined by saturation of a metabolic pathway, which can be used as an alternative POD. In these cases, the full toxicological database may not need to be generated. Demonstration that the compound is not genotoxic and that the KMD is protective of adverse effects in 90-day oral rat and reproductive/developmental studies is sufficient to support the use of the KMD as an alternative POD.

ECETOC Florence workshop on risk assessment of endocrine substances, including the potency concept.

The European regulation on plant protection products (1107/2009) and the Biocidal Products Regulation (EC Regulation 528/2012) only support the marketing and use of chemicals if they do not cause endocrine disruption in humans or wildlife species. Also, substances with endocrine properties are subject to authorization under the European regulation on the registration, evaluation, authorization and restriction of chemicals (REACH; 1907/2006). Therefore, the regulatory consequences of identifying a substance as an endocrine disrupting chemical are severe. In contrast to that, basic scientific criteria, necessary to define endocrine disrupting properties, are not described in any of these legislative documents. Thus, the European Center for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC) established a task force to provide scientific criteria for the identification and assessment of chemicals with endocrine disrupting properties that may be used within the context of these three legislative texts (ECETOC, 2009a). In 2009, ECETOC introduced a scientific framework as a possible concept for identifying endocrine disrupting properties within a regulatory context (ECETOC, 2009b; Bars et al., 2011a,b). The proposed scientific criteria integrated, in a weight of evidence approach, information from regulatory (eco)toxicity studies and mechanistic/screening studies by combining evidence for adverse effects detected in apical whole-organism studies with an understanding of the mode of action (MoA) of endocrine toxicity. However, since not all chemicals with endocrine disrupting properties are of equal hazard, an adequate concept should also be able to differentiate between chemicals with endocrine properties of low concern from those of higher concern (for regulatory purposes). For this purpose, the task force refined this part of their concept. Following an investigation of the key factors at a second workshop of invited regulatory, academic and industry scientists, the guidance was advanced further. For human health assessments it is based on the relevance to humans of the endocrine mechanism of toxicity, the specificity of the endocrine effects with respect to other toxic effects, the potency of the chemical to induce endocrine toxicity and consideration of exposure levels.

Risk assessment of endocrine active chemicals: identifying chemicals of regulatory concern.

The European regulation on plant protection products (1107/2009) (EC, 2009a), the revisions to the biocides Directive (COM[2009]267) (EC, 2009b), and the regulation concerning chemicals (Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006 'REACH') (EC.2006) only support the marketing and use of chemical products on the basis that they do not induce endocrine disruption in humans or wildlife species. In the absence of agreed guidance on how to identify and evaluate endocrine activity and disruption within these pieces of legislation a European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC) task force was formed to provide scientific criteria that may be used within the context of these three legislative documents. The resulting ECETOC technical report (ECETOC, 2009a) and the associated workshop (ECETOC, 2009b) presented a science-based concept on how to identify endocrine activity and disrupting properties of chemicals for both human health and the environment. The synthesis of the technical report and the workshop report was published by the ECETOC task force (Bars et al., 2011a,b). Specific scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine activity and disrupting properties that integrate information from both regulatory (eco)toxicity studies and mechanistic/screening studies were proposed. These criteria combined the nature of the adverse effects detected in studies which give concern for endocrine toxicity with an understanding of the mode of action of toxicity so that adverse effects can be explained scientifically. A key element in the data evaluation is the consideration of all available information in a weight-of-evidence approach. However, to be able to discriminate chemicals with endocrine properties of low concern from those of higher concern (for regulatory purposes), the task force recognised that the concept needed further refinement. Following a discussion of the key factors at a second workshop of invited regulatory, academic and industry scientists (ECETOC, 2011), the task force developed further guidance, which is presented in this paper. For human health assessments these factors include the relevance to humans of the endocrine mechanism of toxicity, the specificity of the endocrine effects with respect to other potential toxic effects, the potency of the chemical to induce endocrine toxicity and consideration of exposure levels. For ecotoxicological assessments the key considerations include specificity and potency, but also extend to the consideration of population relevance and negligible exposure. It is intended that these complement and reinforce the approach originally described and previously published in this journal (Bars et al., 2011a,b).

Science based guidance for the assessment of endocrine disrupting properties of chemicals.

The European legislation on plant protection products (Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009) and biocides (Directive 98/8/EC), as well as the regulation concerning chemicals (Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006 'REACH') only support the marketing and use of chemical products on the basis that they do not induce endocrine disruption in humans or non-target species. However, there is currently no agreed guidance on how to identify and evaluate endocrine activity and disruption. Consequently, an ECETOC task force was formed to provide scientific criteria that may be used within the context of these three legislative documents. Specific scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine disrupting properties that integrate information from both regulatory (eco)toxicity studies and mechanistic/screening studies are proposed. These criteria combine the nature of the adverse effects detected in studies which give concern for endocrine toxicity with an understanding of the mode of action of toxicity so that adverse effects can be explained scientifically. The criteria developed are presented in the form of flow charts for assessing relevant effects for both humans and wildlife species. In addition, since not all chemicals with endocrine disrupting properties are of equal hazard, assessment of potency is also proposed to discriminate chemicals of high concern from those of lower concern. The guidance presented in this paper includes refinements made to an initial proposal following discussion of the criteria at a workshop of invited regulatory, academic and industry scientists.

A 1-year toxicity study in dogs is no longer a scientifically justifiable core data requirement for the safety assessment of pesticides.

A review of publications on pesticides assessing the need for 1-year toxicity studies in dogs was performed. Four key peer-reviewed papers with different approaches investigated the value of a 1-year dog study in addition to a 3-month study. Despite different databases and approaches, each concluded with the recommendation to limit the testing of pesticides in dogs to a duration of 3 months. The combined weight of evidence presented in this review reinforces these independent conclusions. Therefore, the routine inclusion of a 1-year dog study as a mandated regulatory requirement for the safety assessment of pesticides is no longer justifiable and a globally harmonized approach should be taken to match the latest legislation of the European Union and the US EPA.