Dose-response approaches for nuclear receptor-mediated modes of action for liver carcinogenicity: Results of a workshop.

A public workshop, organized by a Steering Committee of scientists from government, industry, universities and research organizations, was held at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) in September, 2010. The workshop explored the dose-response implications of toxicant modes of action (MOA) mediated by nuclear receptors. The dominant paradigm in human health risk assessment has been linear extrapolation without a threshold for cancer, and estimation of sub-threshold doses for non-cancer and (in appropriate cases) cancer endpoints. However, recent publications question the application of dose-response modeling approaches with a threshold. The growing body of molecular toxicology information and computational toxicology tools has allowed for exploration of the presence or absence of sub-threshold doses for a number of receptor-mediated MOAs. The workshop explored the development of dose-response approaches for nuclear receptor-mediated liver cancer, within a MOA Human Relevance Framework (HRF). Case studies addressed activation of the AHR, the CAR and the PPARα. This article describes the workshop process, key issues discussed and conclusions. The value of an interactive workshop approach to apply current MOA/HRF frameworks was demonstrated. The results may help direct research on the MOA and dose-response of receptor-based toxicity, since there are commonalities for many receptors in the basic pathways involved for late steps in the MOA, and similar data gaps in early steps. Three additional papers in this series describe the results and conclusions for each case-study receptor regarding its MOA, relevance of the MOA to humans and the resulting dose-response implications.

The use of mode of action information in risk assessment: quantitative key events/dose-response framework for modeling the dose-response for key events.

The HESI RISK21 project formed the Dose-Response/Mode-of-Action Subteam to develop strategies for using all available data (in vitro, in vivo, and in silico) to advance the next-generation of chemical risk assessments. A goal of the Subteam is to enhance the existing Mode of Action/Human Relevance Framework and Key Events/Dose Response Framework (KEDRF) to make the best use of quantitative dose-response and timing information for Key Events (KEs). The resulting Quantitative Key Events/Dose-Response Framework (Q-KEDRF) provides a structured quantitative approach for systematic examination of the dose-response and timing of KEs resulting from a dose of a bioactive agent that causes a potential adverse outcome. Two concepts are described as aids to increasing the understanding of mode of action-Associative Events and Modulating Factors. These concepts are illustrated in two case studies; 1) cholinesterase inhibition by the pesticide chlorpyrifos, which illustrates the necessity of considering quantitative dose-response information when assessing the effect of a Modulating Factor, that is, enzyme polymorphisms in humans, and 2) estrogen-induced uterotrophic responses in rodents, which demonstrate how quantitative dose-response modeling for KE, the understanding of temporal relationships between KEs and a counterfactual examination of hypothesized KEs can determine whether they are Associative Events or true KEs.

An organizational approach for the assessment of DNA adduct data in risk assessment: case studies for aflatoxin B1, tamoxifen and vinyl chloride.

The framework analysis previously presented for using DNA adduct information in the risk assessment of chemical carcinogens was applied in a series of case studies which place the adduct information into context with the key events in carcinogenesis to determine whether they could be used to support a mutagenic mode of action (MOA) for the examined chemicals. Three data-rich chemicals, aflatoxin B1 (AFB1), tamoxifen (Tam) and vinyl chloride (VCl) were selected for this exercise. These chemicals were selected because they are known human carcinogens and have different characteristics: AFB1 forms a unique adduct and human exposure is through contaminated foods; Tam is a pharmaceutical given to women so that the dose and duration of exposure are known, forms unique adducts in rodents, and has both estrogenic and genotoxic properties; and VCl, to which there is industrial exposure, forms a number of adducts that are identical to endogenous adducts found in unexposed people. All three chemicals produce liver tumors in rats. AFB1 and VCl also produce liver tumors in humans, but Tam induces human uterine tumors, only. To support a mutagenic MOA, the chemical-induced adducts must be characterized, shown to be pro-mutagenic, be present in the tumor target tissue, and produce mutations of the class found in the tumor. The adducts formed by AFB1 and VCl support a mutagenic MOA for their carcinogenicity. However, the data available for Tam shows a mutagenic MOA for liver tumors in rats, but its carcinogenicity in humans is most likely via a different MOA.

DNA reactivity as a mode of action and its relevance to cancer risk assessment.

The ability of a chemical to induce mutations has long been a driver in the cancer risk assessment process. The default strategy has been that mutagenic chemicals demonstrate linear cancer dose responses, especially at low exposure levels. In the absence of additional confounding information, this is a reasonable approach, because risk assessment is appropriately considered as being protective of human health. The concept of mode of action has allowed for an opportunity to move off this default position; mutagenicity is now not considered as the driver but rather the mode of action is. In a more precise way, it is the set of key events that define a mode of action that is fundamental in defining the shape of a cancer dose response. A key event is an informative bioindicator of the cancer response and as such should be predictive of the tumor response, at least in a qualitative way. A clear example of the use of key events in cancer risk assessment is for DNA reactive chemicals. A series of such key events is initiated by the production of DNA damage in target cells from direct interaction of the chemical with DNA leading to the production of mutations by misreplication that results in enhanced cell replication. This enhanced cell replication eventually leads to the development of preneoplastic cells and ultimately overt neoplasms. The response of each of these key events to dose of the chemical can inform the cancer dose-response curve shape. Thus, the dose-response curve for any DNA-reactive chemical can be predicted from knowledge of its mode of action and the behavior of the induced key events.

Uncertainties in estimating health risks associated with exposure to ionising radiation.

The information for the present discussion on the uncertainties associated with estimation of radiation risks and probability of disease causation was assembled for the recently published NCRP Report No. 171 on this topic. This memorandum provides a timely overview of the topic, given that quantitative uncertainty analysis is the state of the art in health risk assessment and given its potential importance to developments in radiation protection. Over the past decade the increasing volume of epidemiology data and the supporting radiobiology findings have aided in the reduction of uncertainty in the risk estimates derived. However, it is equally apparent that there remain significant uncertainties related to dose assessment, low dose and low dose-rate extrapolation approaches (e.g. the selection of an appropriate dose and dose-rate effectiveness factor), the biological effectiveness where considerations of the health effects of high-LET and lower-energy low-LET radiations are required and the transfer of risks from a population for which health effects data are available to one for which such data are not available. The impact of radiation on human health has focused in recent years on cancer, although there has been a decided increase in the data for noncancer effects together with more reliable estimates of the risk following radiation exposure, even at relatively low doses (notably for cataracts and cardiovascular disease). New approaches for the estimation of hereditary risk have been developed with the use of human data whenever feasible, although the current estimates of heritable radiation effects still are based on mouse data because of an absence of effects in human studies. Uncertainties associated with estimation of these different types of health effects are discussed in a qualitative and semi-quantitative manner as appropriate. The way forward would seem to require additional epidemiological studies, especially studies of low dose and low dose-rate occupational and perhaps environmental exposures and for exposures to x rays and high-LET radiations used in medicine. The development of models for more reliably combining the epidemiology data with experimental laboratory animal and cellular data can enhance the overall risk assessment approach by providing biologically refined data to strengthen the estimation of effects at low doses as opposed to the sole use of mathematical models of epidemiological data that are primarily driven by medium/high doses. NASA's approach to radiation protection for astronauts, although a unique occupational group, indicates the possible applicability of estimates of risk and their uncertainty in a broader context for developing recommendations on: (1) dose limits for occupational exposure and exposure of members of the public; (2) criteria to limit exposures of workers and members of the public to radon and its short-lived decay products; and (3) the dosimetric quantity (effective dose) used in radiation protection.

Radiation adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) are on the horizon: advancing radiation protection through an international Horizon-Style exercise.

PURPOSE: The Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) framework, a systematic tool that can link available mechanistic data with phenotypic outcomes of relevance to regulatory decision-making, is being explored in areas related to radiation risk assessment. To examine the challenges including the use of AOPs to support the radiation protection community, an international horizon-style exercise was initiated through the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Nuclear Energy Agency High-Level Group on Low Dose Research Radiation/Chemical AOP Joint Topical Group. The objective of the HSE was to facilitate the collection of ideas from a range of experts, to short-list a set of priority research questions that could, if answered, improve the description of the radiation dose-response relationship for low dose/dose-rate exposures, as well as reduce uncertainties in estimating the risk of developing adverse health outcomes following such exposures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The HSE was guided by an international steering committee of radiation risk experts. In the first phase, research questions were solicited on areas that can be supported by the AOP framework, or challenges on the use of AOPs in radiation risk assessment. In the second phase, questions received were refined and sorted by the SC using a best-worst scaling method. During a virtual 3-day workshop, the list of questions was further narrowed. In the third phase, an international survey of the broader radiation protection community led to an orderly ranking of the top questions. RESULTS: Of the 271 questions solicited, 254 were accepted and categorized into 9 themes. These were further refined to the top 25 prioritized questions. Among these, the higher ranked questions will be considered as 'important' to drive future initiatives in the low dose radiation protection community. These included questions on the ability of AOPs to delineate responses across different levels of biological organization, and how AOPs could be applied to address research questions on radiation quality, doses or dose-rates, exposure time patterns and deliveries, and uncertainties in low dose/dose-rate effects. A better understanding of these concepts is required to support the use of the AOP framework in radiation risk assessment. CONCLUSION: Through dissemination of these results and considerations on next steps, the JTG will address select priority questions to advance the development and use of AOPs in the radiation protection community. The major themes observed will be discussed in the context of their relevance to areas of research that support the system of radiation protection.

A proposed framework for assessing risk from less-than-lifetime exposures to carcinogens.

Quantitative methods for estimation of cancer risk have been developed for daily, lifetime human exposures. There are a variety of studies or methodologies available to address less-than-lifetime exposures. However, a common framework for evaluating risk from less-than-lifetime exposures (including short-term and/or intermittent exposures) does not exist, which could result in inconsistencies in risk assessment practice. To address this risk assessment need, a committee of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) Health and Environmental Sciences Institute conducted a multisector workshop in late 2009 to discuss available literature, different methodologies, and a proposed framework. The proposed framework provides a decision tree and guidance for cancer risk assessments for less-than-lifetime exposures based on current knowledge of mode of action and dose-response. Available data from rodent studies and epidemiological studies involving less-than-lifetime exposures are considered, in addition to statistical approaches described in the literature for evaluating the impact of changing the dose rate and exposure duration for exposure to carcinogens. The decision tree also provides for scenarios in which an assumption of potential carcinogenicity is appropriate (e.g., based on structural alerts or genotoxicity data), but bioassay or other data are lacking from which a chemical-specific cancer potency can be determined. This paper presents an overview of the rationale for the workshop, reviews historical background, describes the proposed framework for assessing less-than-lifetime exposures to potential human carcinogens, and suggests next steps.

The fractions of respiratory tract cells at risk in formaldehyde carcinogenesis.

Clonal growth modeling of carcinogenesis requires data on the number of cells at risk of becoming cancerous. We synthesized literature data to estimate the fraction of respiratory tract epithelial cells that are progenitor cells, and therefore at risk, in formaldehyde carcinogenesis for specific respiratory tract regions. We concluded that the progenitor cells for the transitional and respiratory epithelia of the nose are basal and nonciliated cells and Type II cells in the alveolar region. In the conducting airways, our evaluation indicated that ciliated and basal cells are not in the progenitor pool. Respiratory tract epithelial cell fractions of 0.819 in rats and 0.668 in humans were estimated from the data. The total numbers of epithelial cells in the lower respiratory tract of humans and rats were allocated to individual generations. Cell cycle times were also estimated from literature data, since the reciprocal of cell cycle time is an important variable in clonal growth modeling. Sensitivity analyses of a previously published risk model for formaldehyde carcinogenesis showed that specification of the fraction of cells at risk markedly affects estimates of some parameters of the clonal growth model. When all epithelial cells are considered part of the progenitor pool, additional risks for the non-smoking population was typically over predicted by about 35% for high exposure levels. These results demonstrate the importance of accurately identifying cell populations at risk when applying quantitative models in risk assessments.

Adverse outcome pathways, key events, and radiation risk assessment.

The overall aim of this contribution to the 'Second Bill Morgan Memorial Special Issue' is to provide a high-level review of a recent report developed by a Committee for the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) titled 'Approaches for Integrating Information from Radiation Biology and Epidemiology to Enhance Low-Dose Health Risk Assessment'. It derives from previous NCRP Reports and Commentaries that provide the case for integrating data from radiation biology studies (available and proposed) with epidemiological studies (also available and proposed) to develop Biologically-Based Dose-Response (BBDR) models. In this review, it is proposed for such models to leverage the adverse outcome pathways (AOP) and key events (KE) approach for better characterizing radiation-induced cancers and circulatory disease (as the example for a noncancer outcome). The review discusses the current state of knowledge of mechanisms of carcinogenesis, with an emphasis on radiation-induced cancers, and a similar discussion for circulatory disease. The types of the various informative BBDR models are presented along with a proposed generalized BBDR model for cancer and a more speculative one for circulatory disease. The way forward is presented in a comprehensive discussion of the research needs to address the goal of enhancing health risk assessment of exposures to low doses of radiation. The use of an AOP/KE approach for developing a mechanistic framework for BBDR models of radiation-induced cancer and circulatory disease is considered to be a viable one based upon current knowledge of the mechanisms of formation of these adverse health outcomes and the available technical capabilities and computational advances. The way forward for enhancing low-dose radiation risk estimates will require there to be a tight integration of epidemiology data and radiation biology information to meet the goals of relevance and sensitivity of the adverse health outcomes required for overall health risk assessment at low doses and dose rates.

A review of biomonitoring studies measuring genotoxicity in humans exposed to hair dyes.

Hair dye ingredients frequently produce positive results in short-term in vitro genotoxicity tests, although results from in vivo assays are typically negative, especially for ingredients in use today. The use of hair dyes is quite widespread resulting in the exposure both for persons working in hairdressing salons and for individuals who have their hair dyed. This provides the opportunity to add to the data from standard in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity tests by investigating whether or not genotoxic responses are detected in such exposed individuals. A number of biomonitoring studies of humans exposed to hair dyes have been conducted using either cytogenetic alterations or DNA damage as measures of genotoxicity, or urine mutagenicity as a measure of exposure to genotoxic compounds. In this paper, each study is critically reviewed and interpreted. Overall, there is no consistent evidence of genotoxicity in humans exposed to hair dyes occupationally or through individual use.

Reciprocal translocations in somatic and germ cells of mice chronically exposed by inhalation to ethylene oxide: implications for risk assessment.

Groups of male B6C3F1 mice were exposed by inhalation to 0, 25, 50, 100 or 200 p.p.m. ethylene oxide (EO) for up to 48 weeks (6 hours/day, 5 days/week). Animals were sacrificed at 6, 12, 24 and 48 weeks after the start of the exposure for analyses of reciprocal translocations in peripheral blood lymphocytes and germ cells. The frequency of the total chromosomal aberrations in the peripheral blood lymphocytes was significantly increased at the 100 and 200 p.p.m. exposure concentrations at the 12-week time point, at 50, 100 and 200 p.p.m. at the 24-week time point and at all EO concentrations at the 48-week time point. The frequency of stable reciprocal translocations, which can be used as biomarkers, was increased (P < 0.05) at 100 and 200 p.p.m. at the 12-week time point, at 100 and 200 p.p.m. at the 24-week time point and at 50, 100 and 200 p.p.m. at the 48-week time point. No statistically significant increase could be observed in translocation frequencies at the 6-week time point in the peripheral blood lymphocytes. The exposure-response curves were non-linear when the frequencies of translocations were plotted against EO exposure durations or against EO exposure concentrations. There was no effect of exposure concentration rate on reciprocal translocation frequency. Reciprocal translocations induced in spermatogonial stem cells (observed at the sprematocyte stage) showed significant increases in translocation frequencies over controls at all EO concentrations at 48 weeks. However, increases were small and they did not occur in a dose-responsive manner. The statistically significant increase observed at 12 weeks in the spermatocytes was equivocal. This study provides low-level chronic exposure somatic cytogenetic data generated in mice that can be used to support the shape of the tumour dose-response in rodents and humans The germ cell cytogenetic data are discussed in terms of its relevance for a threshold response for genetic effects at low exposures.

Creating context for the use of DNA adduct data in cancer risk assessment: I. Data organization.

The assessment of human cancer risk from chemical exposure requires the integration of diverse types of data. Such data involve effects at the cell and tissue levels. This report focuses on the specific utility of one type of data, namely DNA adducts. Emphasis is placed on the appreciation that such DNA adduct data cannot be used in isolation in the risk assessment process but must be used in an integrated fashion with other information. As emerging technologies provide even more sensitive quantitative measurements of DNA adducts, integration that establishes links between DNA adducts and accepted outcome measures becomes critical for risk assessment. The present report proposes an organizational approach for the assessment of DNA adduct data (e.g., type of adduct, frequency, persistence, type of repair process) in concert with other relevant data, such as dosimetry, toxicity, mutagenicity, genotoxicity, and tumor incidence, to inform characterization of the mode of action. DNA adducts are considered biomarkers of exposure, whereas gene mutations and chromosomal alterations are often biomarkers of early biological effects and also can be bioindicators of the carcinogenic process.

Application of key events analysis to chemical carcinogens and noncarcinogens.

The existence of thresholds for toxicants is a matter of debate in chemical risk assessment and regulation. Current risk assessment methods are based on the assumption that, in the absence of sufficient data, carcinogenesis does not have a threshold, while noncarcinogenic endpoints are assumed to be thresholded. Advances in our fundamental understanding of the events that underlie toxicity are providing opportunities to address these assumptions about thresholds. A key events dose-response analytic framework was used to evaluate three aspects of toxicity. The first section illustrates how a fundamental understanding of the mode of action for the hepatic toxicity and the hepatocarcinogenicity of chloroform in rodents can replace the assumption of low-dose linearity. The second section describes how advances in our understanding of the molecular aspects of carcinogenesis allow us to consider the critical steps in genotoxic carcinogenesis in a key events framework. The third section deals with the case of endocrine disrupters, where the most significant question regarding thresholds is the possible additivity to an endogenous background of hormonal activity. Each of the examples suggests that current assumptions about thresholds can be refined. Understanding inter-individual variability in the events involved in toxicological effects may enable a true population threshold(s) to be identified.

Recent Epidemiologic Studies and the Linear No-Threshold Model For Radiation Protection-Considerations Regarding NCRP Commentary 27.

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements Commentary 27 examines recent epidemiologic data primarily from low-dose or low dose-rate studies of low linear-energy-transfer radiation and cancer to assess whether they support the linear no-threshold model as used in radiation protection. The commentary provides a critical review of low-dose or low dose-rate studies, most published within the last 10 y, that are applicable to current occupational, environmental, and medical radiation exposures. The strengths and weaknesses of the epidemiologic methods, dosimetry assessments, and statistical modeling of 29 epidemiologic studies of total solid cancer, leukemia, breast cancer, and thyroid cancer, as well as heritable effects and a few nonmalignant conditions, were evaluated. An appraisal of the degree to which the low-dose or low dose-rate studies supported a linear no-threshold model for radiation protection or on the contrary, demonstrated sufficient evidence that the linear no-threshold model is inappropriate for the purposes of radiation protection was also included. The review found that many, though not all, studies of solid cancer supported the continued use of the linear no-threshold model in radiation protection. Evaluations of the principal studies of leukemia and low-dose or low dose-rate radiation exposure also lent support for the linear no-threshold model as used in protection. Ischemic heart disease, a major type of cardiovascular disease, was examined briefly, but the results of recent studies were considered too weak or inconsistent to allow firm conclusions regarding support of the linear no-threshold model. It is acknowledged that the possible risks from very low doses of low linear-energy-transfer radiation are small and uncertain and that it may never be possible to prove or disprove the validity of the linear no-threshold assumption by epidemiologic means. Nonetheless, the preponderance of recent epidemiologic data on solid cancer is supportive of the continued use of the linear no-threshold model for the purposes of radiation protection. This conclusion is in accord with judgments by other national and international scientific committees, based on somewhat older data. Currently, no alternative dose-response relationship appears more pragmatic or prudent for radiation protection purposes than the linear no-threshold model.

Assessing human germ-cell mutagenesis in the Postgenome Era: a celebration of the legacy of William Lawson (Bill) Russell.

Birth defects, de novo genetic diseases, and chromosomal abnormality syndromes occur in approximately 5% of all live births, and affected children suffer from a broad range of lifelong health consequences. Despite the social and medical impact of these defects, and the 8 decades of research in animal systems that have identified numerous germ-cell mutagens, no human germ-cell mutagen has been confirmed to date. There is now a growing consensus that the inability to detect human germ-cell mutagens is due to technological limitations in the detection of random mutations rather than biological differences between animal and human susceptibility. A multidisciplinary workshop responding to this challenge convened at The Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor, Maine. The purpose of the workshop was to assess the applicability of an emerging repertoire of genomic technologies to studies of human germ-cell mutagenesis. Workshop participants recommended large-scale human germ-cell mutation studies be conducted using samples from donors with high-dose exposures, such as cancer survivors. Within this high-risk cohort, parents and children could be evaluated for heritable changes in (a) DNA sequence and chromosomal structure, (b) repeat sequences and minisatellites, and (c) global gene expression profiles and pathways. Participants also advocated the establishment of a bio-bank of human tissue samples from donors with well-characterized exposure, including medical and reproductive histories. This mutational resource could support large-scale, multiple-endpoint studies. Additional studies could involve the examination of transgenerational effects associated with changes in imprinting and methylation patterns, nucleotide repeats, and mitochondrial DNA mutations. The further development of animal models and the integration of these with human studies are necessary to provide molecular insights into the mechanisms of germ-cell mutations and to identify prevention strategies. Furthermore, scientific specialty groups should be convened to review and prioritize the evidence for germ-cell mutagenicity from common environmental, occupational, medical, and lifestyle exposures. Workshop attendees agreed on the need for a full-scale assault to address key fundamental questions in human germ-cell environmental mutagenesis. These include, but are not limited to, the following: Do human germ-cell mutagens exist? What are the risks to future generations? Are some parents at higher risk than others for acquiring and transmitting germ-cell mutations? Obtaining answers to these, and other critical questions, will require strong support from relevant funding agencies, in addition to the engagement of scientists outside the fields of genomics and germ-cell mutagenesis.

Cancer risk assessment for 1,3-butadiene: data integration opportunities.

The US Environmental Protection Agency recently released its new guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment together with supplemental guidance for assessing susceptibility from early-life exposure to carcinogens. In particular, these guidelines encourage the use of mechanistic data in support of dose-response characterization at doses below those at which an increase in tumor frequency over background levels might be detected. In this context of the utility of mechanistic data for human cancer risk assessment, the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) has developed a human relevance framework (HRF) that can be used to assess the plausibility of a mode of action (MoA) described for animal models operating in humans. The MoA is described as a sequence of key events and processes that result in an adverse outcome. A key event is a measurable precursor step that is in itself a necessary element of the MoA or is a bioindicator for such an element. A number of cellular and molecular perturbations have been identified as key events whereby DNA-reactive chemicals can produce tumors. These include DNA adducts in target tissues, gene mutations and/or chromosomal alterations in target tissues and enhanced cell proliferation in target tissues. This type of data integration approach to quantitative cancer risk assessment can be applied to 1,3-butadiene, for example, using data on biomarkers in exposed Czech workers [1]. For this study, an extensive range of biomarkers of exposure and response was assessed, including: polymorphisms in metabolizing enzymes; urinary concentrations of several metabolites of 1,3-butadiene; hemoglobin adducts; HPRT mutations in T-lymphocytes; chromosomal aberrations by FISH and conventional staining procedures; sister chromatid exchanges. Exposure levels were monitored in a comprehensive fashion. For risk assessment purposes, these data need to be considered in the context of how they inform the MoA for leukemia, the tumor type reported to be increased in synthetic rubber workers exposed to 1,3-butadiene. Also, for the HRF it is necessary to establish key events for a MoA in rodents for the induction of tumors by 1,3-butadiene. There is clearly a species difference in sensitivity to tumor induction, with mice being much more sensitive than rats; key events need to explain this difference. For butadiene, the MoA is DNA-reactivity and subsequent mutagenicity and so following the EPA's cancer guidelines, a linear extrapolation is used from the point of departure (POD), unless additional data support a non-linear extrapolation. For the present case, the human bioindicator data are not informative as far as dose-response characterization is concerned. Mouse chromosome aberration data for in vivo exposures might be used for establishing a POD, with linear extrapolation from this POD. The available cytogenetic data from rodent studies appear to be sufficiently extensive and consistent for this to be a viable approach. This approach of using MoA and key events to establish the human relevance can lead to the development of specific informative bioindicators of response that can be used as surrogates to predict the shape of the tumor dose response curve at low doses. Truly informative predictors of tumor responses should be able to provide estimates of human tumor frequencies at low, environmental exposures to 1,3-butadiene.

Epigenetic processes and cancer risk assessment.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment encourages the use of mechanistic data in the assessment of human cancer risk at low (environmental) exposure levels. The key events that define a particular mode of action for tumor formation have been concentrated to date more on mutational responses that are broadly the result of induced DNA damage and enhanced cell proliferation. While it is clear that these processes are important in terms of tumor induction, other modes that fall under the umbrella of epigenetic responses are increasingly being considered to play an important role in susceptibility to tumor induction by environmental chemicals and as significant modifiers of tumor responses. Alterations in gene expression, DNA repair, cell cycle control, genome stability and genome reprogramming could be the result of modification of DNA methylation and chromatin remodeling patterns as a consequence of exposure to environmental chemicals. These concepts are described and discussed.

Can radiation research impact the estimation of risk?

PURPOSE: This review is a contribution to the memory of Dr William (Bill) Morgan and highlights an area of research and deliberation that he considered extremely important in support of the setting of protective radiation dose limits. Biological research has generally played a minor role in the estimation of adverse health outcomes following exposure to low doses and low dose rates of radiation. The reliance has been on the available, quite extensive data base of epidemiology studies. The major concern is that such studies are for moderate to high doses requiring risk extrapolation methodologies for estimating low dose effects. There are significant uncertainties associated with this approach. This review will discuss how radiation biology studies can potentially reduce this uncertainty through the use of a key events/adverse outcome pathways approach to identify bioindicators of cancer and non-cancer effects for use as parameters in biologically-based dose-response (BBDR) models. Such models would allow for an improved extrapolation approach for estimating health effects at low doses and low dose rates of radiation. CONCLUSION: Based on reported and ongoing studies for environmental chemicals, the adverse outcome/key events approach is a viable one for enhanced risk assessment (and risk management practice). The identification of informative bioindicators of adverse health effects will be a challenge but with modern molecular and advanced computational techniques, it is certainly feasible. This approach provides a framework for defining a low dose radiation research program; something that was of great importance to Bill Morgan.

International organizations, risk assessment and research-Why, what and how.

The process of setting radiation protection standards requires the interaction of a number of international and national organizations that in turn require the input of scientific and regulatory experts. Bill Morgan served in an expert capacity for several of these organizations particularly for the application of radiation biology data to risk assessment. He brought great enthusiasm and dedication to these committee efforts. In fact, he really enjoyed this type of service. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), for example, provides comprehensive reviews of the input data for radiation risk assessments. In this context, they do not conduct risk assessments. In Europe, a research component of the risk assessment process is provided by the Multidisciplinary European Low Dose Initiative (MELODI). Specific issue areas are identified for which additional research can aid in reducing uncertainty in risk assessments. The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) uses these types of input data to develop nominal cancer risk estimates as input data for establishing dose limits for the public and workers. A similar regulatory role is provided in the US by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). The NCRP Reports address the underlying principles for setting regulatory dose limits for the US public and workers; these differ to a limited extent from those of ICRP. The implementation of dose limits is conducted by individual countries but with significant guidance by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) through its Basic Safety Standards. The role of other national and international organizations are discussed in this same framework.