The physiological and biochemical basis of potency thresholds modeled using human estrogen receptor alpha: implications for identifying endocrine disruptors.

The endocrine system functions by interactions between ligands and receptors. Ligands exhibit potency for binding to and interacting with receptors. Potency is the product of affinity and efficacy. Potency and physiological concentration determine the ability of a ligand to produce physiological effects. The kinetic behavior of ligand-receptor interactions conforms to the laws of mass action. The laws of mass action define the relationship between the affinity of a ligand and the fraction of cognate receptors that it occupies at any physiological concentration. We previously identified the minimum ligand potency required to produce clinically observable estrogenic agonist effects via the human estrogen receptor-alpha (ERα). By examining data on botanical estrogens and dietary supplements, we demonstrated that ERα ligands with potency lower than one one-thousandth that of the primary endogenous hormone 17ß-estradiol (E2) do not produce clinically observable estrogenic effects. This allowed us to propose a Human-Relevant Potency Threshold (HRPT) for ERα ligands of 1 × 10-4 relative to E2. Here, we test the hypothesis that the HRPT for ERα arises from the receptor occupancy by the normal metabolic milieu of endogenous ERα ligands. The metabolic milieu comprises precursors to hormones, metabolites of hormones, and other normal products of metabolism. We have calculated fractional receptor occupancies for ERα ligands with potencies below and above the previously established HRPT when normal circulating levels of some endogenous ERα ligands and E2 were also present. Fractional receptor occupancy calculations showed that individual ERα ligands with potencies more than tenfold higher than the HRPT can compete for occupancy at ERα against individual components of the endogenous metabolic milieu and against mixtures of those components at concentrations found naturally in human blood. Ligands with potencies less than tenfold higher than the HRPT were unable to compete successfully for ERα. These results show that the HRPT for ERα agonism (10-4 relative to E2) proposed previously is quite conservative and should be considered strong evidence against the potential for disruption of the estrogenic pathway. For chemicals with potency 10-3 of E2, the potential for estrogenic endocrine disruption must be considered equivocal and subject to the presence of corroborative evidence. Most importantly, this work demonstrates that the endogenous metabolic milieu is responsible for the observed ERα agonist HRPT, that this HRPT applies also to ERα antagonists, and it provides a compelling mechanistic explanation for the HRPT that is grounded in basic principles of molecular kinetics using well characterized properties and concentrations of endogenous components of normal metabolism.

Kinetically-derived maximal dose (KMD) indicates lack of human carcinogenicity of ethylbenzene.

The kinetically-derived maximal dose (KMD) is defined as the maximal external dose at which kinetics are unchanged relative to lower doses, e.g., doses at which kinetic processes are not saturated. Toxicity produced at doses above the KMD can be qualitatively different from toxicity produced at lower doses. Here, we test the hypothesis that neoplastic lesions reported in the National Toxicology Program's (NTP) rodent cancer bioassay with ethylbenzene are a high-dose phenomenon secondary to saturation of elimination kinetics. To test this, we applied Bayesian modeling on kinetic data for ethylbenzene from rats and humans to estimate the Vmax and Km for the Michaelis-Menten equation that governs the elimination kinetics. Analysis of the Michaelis-Menten elimination curve generated from those Vmax and Km values indicated KMD ranges for venous ethylbenzene of 8-17 mg/L in rats and 10-18 mg/L in humans. Those venous concentrations are produced by inhalation concentrations of around 200 ppm ethylbenzene, which is well above typical human exposures. These KMD estimates support the hypothesis that neoplastic lesions seen in the NTP rodent bioassay occur secondary to saturation of ethylbenzene elimination pathways and are not relevant for human risk assessment. Thus, ethylbenzene does not pose a credible cancer risk to humans under foreseeable exposure conditions. Cancer risk assessments focused on protecting human health should avoid endpoint data from rodents exposed to ethylbenzene above the KMD range and future toxicological testing should focus on doses below the KMD range.

Issue analysis: key characteristics approach for identifying endocrine disruptors.

For more than a decade, weight of evidence (WoE) evaluations have been the standard method for determining whether a chemical meets the definition of an endocrine disrupting chemical (EDC). WoE methods consider all data pertinent to satisfying the EDC definition and evaluating those data with respect to relevance, reliability, strength, and coherence with established endocrine physiology and pharmacology. A new approach for identifying EDC hazards has been proposed that organizes and evaluates data according to ten so-called "Key Characteristics (KCs) of EDCs". The approach claims to address the lack of a widely accepted, systematic approach for identifying EDC hazards, but completely ignores the WoE literature for EDCs. In contrast to WoE methods, the KC approach fails to apply the consensus definition of EDC and is not amenable to empirical testing or validation, is fungible and ensures inconsistent and unreliable results, ignores principles of hormone action and characteristics of dose-response in endocrine pharmacology and toxicology, lacks a means of distinguishing endocrine-mediated from non-endocrine mediated mechanisms, lacks a means to reach a negative conclusion about a chemical's EDC properties or to distinguish EDCs from non-EDCs, and provides no means for developing a valid consensus among experts nor provides a means of resolving conflicting interpretations of data. Instead of shortcuts like the KC approach, which are prone to bias, error, and arbitrary conclusions, identifying EDCs should rely on WoE evaluations that supply the critical components and scientific rigor lacking in the proposed KCs for EDCs.

Hypothesis-driven weight of evidence evaluation indicates styrene lacks endocrine disruption potential.

Styrene is among the U.S. EPA's List 2 chemicals for Tier 1 endocrine screening subject to the agency's two-tiered Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). Both U.S. EPA and OECD guidelines require a Weight of Evidence (WoE) to evaluate a chemical's potential for disrupting the endocrine system. Styrene was evaluated for its potential to disrupt estrogen, androgen, thyroid, and steroidogenic (EATS) pathways using a rigorous WoE methodology that included problem formulation, systematic literature search and selection, data quality evaluation, relevance weighting of endpoint data, and application of specific interpretive criteria. Sufficient data were available to assess the endocrine disruptive potential of styrene based on endpoints that would respond to EATS modes of action in some Tier 1-type and many Tier 2-type reproductive, developmental, and repeat dose toxicity studies. Responses to styrene were inconsistent with patterns of responses expected for chemicals and hormones known to operate via EATS MoAs, and thus, styrene cannot be deemed an endocrine disruptor, a potential endocrine disruptor, or to exhibit endocrine disruptive properties. Because Tier 1 EDSP screening results would trigger Tier 2 studies, like those evaluated here, subjecting styrene to further endocrine screening would produce no additional useful information and would be unjustified from animal welfare perspectives.

US regulations to curb alleged cancer causes are ineffectual and compromised by scientific, constitutional and ethical violations.

The 1958 Delaney amendment to the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetics Act prohibited food additives causing cancer in animals by appropriate tests. Regulators responded by adopting chronic lifetime cancer tests in rodents, soon challenged as inappropriate, for they led to very inconsistent results depending on the subjective choice of animals, test design and conduct, and interpretive assumptions. Presently, decades of discussions and trials have come to conclude it is impossible to translate chronic animal data into verifiable prospects of cancer hazards and risks in humans. Such conclusion poses an existential crisis for official agencies in the US and abroad, which for some 65 years have used animal tests to justify massive regulations of alleged human cancer hazards, with aggregated costs of $trillions and without provable evidence of public health advantages. This article addresses suitable remedies for the US and potentially worldwide, by critically exploring the practices of regulatory agencies vis-á-vis essential criteria for validating scientific evidence. According to this analysis, regulations of alleged cancer hazards and risks have been and continue to be structured around arbitrary default assumptions at odds with basic scientific and legal tests of reliable evidence. Such practices raise a manifold ethical predicament for being incompatible with basic premises of the US Constitution, and with the ensuing public expectations of testable truth and transparency from government agencies. Potential remedies in the US include amendments to the US Administrative Procedures Act, preferably requiring agencies to justify regulations compliant with the Daubert opinion of the Daubert ruling of the US Supreme Court, which codifies the criteria defining reliable scientific evidence. International reverberations are bound to follow what remedial actions may be taken in the US, the origin of current world regulatory procedures to control alleged cancer causing agents.

A novel approach to calculating the kinetically derived maximum dose.

The kinetically derived maximal dose (KMD) provides a toxicologically relevant upper range for the determination of chemical safety. Here, we describe a new way of calculating the KMD that is based on sound Bayesian, theoretical, biochemical, and toxicokinetic principles, that avoids the problems of relying upon the area under the curve (AUC) approach that has often been used. Our new, mathematically rigorous approach is based on converting toxicokinetic data to the overall, or system-wide, Michaelis-Menten curve (which is the slope function for the toxicokinetic data) using Bayesian methods and using the "kneedle" algorithm to find the "knee" or "elbow"-the point at which there is diminishing returns in the velocity of the Michaelis-Menten curve (or acceleration of the toxicokinetic curve). Our work fundamentally reshapes the KMD methodology, placing it within the well-established Michaelis-Menten theoretical framework by defining the KMD as the point where the kinetic rate approximates the Michaelis-Menten asymptote at higher concentrations. By putting the KMD within the Michaelis-Menten framework, we leverage existing biochemical and pharmacological concepts such as "saturation" to establish the region where the KMD is likely to exist. The advantage of defining KMD as a region, rather than as an inflection point along the curve, is that a region reflects uncertainty and clarifies that there is no single point where the curve is expected to "break;" rather, there is a region where the curve begins to taper off as it approaches the asymptote (Vmax in the Michaelis-Menten equation).

The EU chemicals strategy for sustainability: in support of the BfR position.

The EU chemicals strategy for sustainability (CSS) asserts that both human health and the environment are presently threatened and that further regulation is necessary. In a recent Guest Editorial, members of the German competent authority for risk assessment, the BfR, raised concerns about the scientific justification for this strategy. The complexity and interdependence of the networks of regulation of chemical substances have ensured that public health and wellbeing in the EU have continuously improved. A continuous process of improvement in consumer protection is clearly desirable but any initiative directed towards this objective must be based on scientific knowledge. It must not confound risk with other factors in determining policy. This conclusion is fully supported in the present Commentary including the request to improve both, data collection and the time-consuming and bureaucratic procedures that delay the publication of regulations.

Human exposure to synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) is generally negligible as compared to natural compounds with higher or comparable endocrine activity: how to evaluate the risk of the S-EDCs?

Theoretically, both synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) and natural (exogenous and endogenous) endocrine disrupting chemicals (N-EDCs) can interact with endocrine receptors and disturb hormonal balance. However, compared to endogenous hormones, S-EDCs are only weak partial agonists with receptor affinities several orders of magnitude lower. Thus, to elicit observable effects, S-EDCs require considerably higher concentrations to attain sufficient receptor occupancy or to displace natural hormones and other endogenous ligands. Significant exposures to exogenous N-EDCs may result from ingestion of foods such as soy-based diets, green tea and sweet mustard. While their potencies are lower as compared to natural endogenous hormones, they usually are considerably more potent than S-EDCs. Effects of exogenous N-EDCs on the endocrine system were observed at high dietary intakes. A causal relation between their mechanism of action and these effects is established and biologically plausible. In contrast, the assumption that the much lower human exposures to S-EDCs may induce observable endocrine effects is not plausible. Hence, it is not surprising that epidemiological studies searching for an association between S-EDC exposure and health effects have failed. Regarding testing for potential endocrine effects, a scientifically justified screen should use in vitro tests to compare potencies of S-EDCs with those of reference N-EDCs. When the potency of the S-EDC is similar or smaller than that of the N-EDC, further testing in laboratory animals and regulatory consequences are not warranted.

Human exposure to synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) is generally negligible as compared to natural compounds with higher or comparable endocrine activity. How to evaluate the risk of the S-EDCs?

Theoretically, both synthetic endocrine-disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) and natural (exogenous and endogenous) endocrine-disrupting chemicals (N-EDCs) can interact with endocrine receptors and disturb hormonal balance. However, compared to endogenous hormones, S-EDCs are only weak partial agonists with receptor affinities several orders of magnitude lower than S-EDCs. Thus, to elicit observable effects, S-EDCs require considerably higher concentrations to attain sufficient receptor occupancy or to displace natural hormones and other endogenous ligands. Significant exposures to exogenous N-EDCs may result from ingestion of foods such as soy-based diets, green tea, and sweet mustard. While their potencies are lower as compared to natural endogenous hormones, they usually are considerably more potent than S-EDCs. Effects of exogenous N-EDCs on the endocrine system were observed at high dietary intakes. A causal relation between their mechanism of action and these effects is established and biologically plausible. In contrast, the assumption that the much lower human exposures to S-EDCs may induce observable endocrine effects is not plausible. Hence, it is not surprising that epidemiological studies searching for an association between S-EDC exposure and health effects have failed. Regarding testing for potential endocrine effects, a scientifically justified screen should use in vitro tests to compare potencies of S-EDCs with those of reference N-EDCs. When the potency of the S-EDC is similar or smaller than that of the N-EDC, further testing in laboratory animals and regulatory consequences are not warranted.

Human exposure to synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) is generally negligible as compared to natural compounds with higher or comparable endocrine activity. How to evaluate the risk of the S-EDCs?

Theoretically, both synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) and natural (exogenous and endogenous) endocrine disrupting chemicals (N-EDCs) can interact with endocrine receptors and disturb hormonal balance. However, compared to endogenous hormones, S-EDCs are only weak partial agonists with receptor affinities several orders of magnitude lower. Thus, to elicit observable effects, S-EDCs require considerably higher concentrations to attain sufficient receptor occupancy or to displace natural hormones and other endogenous ligands. Significant exposures to exogenous N-EDCs may result from ingestion of foods such as soy-based diets, green tea and sweet mustard. While their potencies are lower as compared to natural endogenous hormones, they usually are considerably more potent. Effects of exogenous N-EDCs on the endocrine system were observed at high dietary intakes. A causal relation between their mechanism of action and these effects is established and biologically plausible. In contrast, the assumption that the much lower human exposures to S-EDCs may induce observable endocrine effects is not plausible. Hence, it is not surprising that epidemiological studies searching for an association between S-EDC exposure and health effects have failed. Regarding testing for potential endocrine effects, a scientifically justified screen should use in vitro tests to compare potencies of S-EDCs with those of reference N-EDCs. When the potency of the S-EDC is similar or smaller than that of the N-EDC, further testing in laboratory animals and regulatory consequences are not warranted.

Human exposure to synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) is generally negligible as compared to natural compounds with higher or comparable endocrine activity. How to evaluate the risk of the S-EDCs?

Theoretically, both synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) and natural (exogenous and endogenous) endocrine disrupting chemicals (N-EDCs) can interact with endocrine receptors and disturb hormonal balance. However, compared to endogenous hormones, S-EDCs are only weak partial agonists with receptor affinities several orders of magnitude lower. Thus, to elicit observable effects, S-EDCs require considerably higher concentrations to attain sufficient receptor occupancy or to displace natural hormones and other endogenous ligands. Significant exposures to exogenous N-EDCs may result from ingestion of foods such as soy-based diets, green tea and sweet mustard. While their potencies are lower as compared to natural endogenous hormones, they usually are considerably more potent than S-EDCs. Effects of exogenous N-EDCs on the endocrine system were observed at high dietary intakes. A causal relation between their mechanism of action and these effects is established and biologically plausible. In contrast, the assumption that the much lower human exposures to S-EDCs may induce observable endocrine effects is not plausible. Hence, it is not surprising that epidemiological studies searching for an association between S-EDC exposure and health effects have failed. Regarding testing for potential endocrine effects, a scientifically justified screen should use in vitro tests to compare potencies of S-EDCs with those of reference N-EDCs. When the potency of the S-EDC is similar or smaller than that of the N-EDC, further testing in laboratory animals and regulatory consequences are not warranted.

Human exposure to synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) is generally negligible as compared to natural compounds with higher or comparable endocrine activity. How to evaluate the risk of the S-EDCs?

Theoretically, both synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) and natural (exogenous and endogenous) endocrine disrupting chemicals (N-EDCs) can interact with endocrine receptors and disturb hormonal balance. However, compared to endogenous hormones, S-EDCs are only weak partial agonists with receptor affinities several orders of magnitude lower. Thus, to elicit observable effects, S-EDCs require considerably higher concentrations to attain sufficient receptor occupancy or to displace natural hormones and other endogenous ligands. Significant exposures to exogenous N-EDCs may result from ingestion of foods such as soy-based diets, green tea and sweet mustard. While their potencies are lower as compared to natural endogenous hormones, they usually are considerably more potent than S-EDCs. Effects of exogenous N-EDCs on the endocrine system were observed at high dietary intakes. A causal relation between their mechanism of action and these effects is established and biologically plausible. In contrast, the assumption that the much lower human exposures to S-EDCs may induce observable endocrine effects is not plausible. Hence, it is not surprising that epidemiological studies searching for an association between S-EDC exposure and health effects have failed. Regarding testing for potential endocrine effects, a scientifically justified screen should use in vitro tests to compare potencies of S-EDCs with those of reference N-EDCs. When the potency of the S-EDC is similar or smaller than that of the N-EDC, further testing in laboratory animals and regulatory consequences are not warranted.

Human exposure to synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) is generally negligible as compared to natural compounds with higher or comparable endocrine activity. How to evaluate the risk of the S-EDCs?

Theoretically, both synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) and natural (exogenous and endogenous) endocrine disrupting chemicals (N-EDCs) can interact with endocrine receptors and disturb hormonal balance. However, compared to endogenous hormones, S-EDCs are only weak partial agonists with receptor affinities several orders of magnitude lower. Thus, to elicit observable effects, S-EDCs require considerably higher concentrations to attain sufficient receptor occupancy or to displace natural hormones and other endogenous ligands. Significant exposures to exogenous N-EDCs may result from ingestion of foods such as soy-based diets, green tea and sweet mustard. While their potencies are lower as compared to natural endogenous hormones, they usually are considerably more potent than S-EDCs. Effects of exogenous N-EDCs on the endocrine system were observed at high dietary intakes. A causal relation between their mechanism of action and these effects is established and biologically plausible. In contrast, the assumption that the much lower human exposures to S-EDCs may induce observable endocrine effects is not plausible. Hence, it is not surprising that epidemiological studies searching for an association between S-EDC exposure and health effects have failed. Regarding testing for potential endocrine effects, a scientifically justified screen should use in vitro tests to compare potencies of S-EDCs with those of reference N-EDCs. When the potency of the S-EDC is similar or smaller than that of the N-EDC, further testing in laboratory animals and regulatory consequences are not warranted.

Hypothesis-driven weight-of-evidence analysis for the endocrine disruption potential of benzene.

Exposure to benzene has many sources, from gasoline refueling to tobacco combustion. Although the toxicology of benzene is well studied, the potential for environmental exposure and a heightened interest in identifying substances that may cause toxicity by interacting with the endocrine systems of humans and wildlife resulted in benzene being placed on the second list of chemicals for possible screening under the USEPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. Therefore, we conducted a thorough, systematic literature search and used a weight-of-evidence methodology to test hypotheses regarding the potential for benzene to act via estrogen, androgen, thyroid, and steroidogenic pathways. The methodology included an assessment of data quality and a semi-quantitative weighting of endocrine-responsive endpoints measured in various types of studies according to their relevance for evaluating each hypothesis. This maximized use of all relevant and reliable literature on benzene and enabled a transparent comparison of evidence supporting and opposing each hypothesized mode of action. While benzene affected reproductive organ weights and histopathology in a few studies, there was no consistent pattern of effects suggestive of an estrogen, androgen, thyroid or steroidogenic mode of action. Based on data from multiple animal species, benzene appears to lack endocrine activity by these pathways.

Review and recommendations on criteria to evaluate the relevance of pesticide interaction data for ecological risk assessments.

Mixing pesticides with different modes of action can provide a wider spectrum of control with fewer applications compared to using single active ingredients and is essential for comprehensive management of pest resistance. Mixture studies with pesticides are performed to assess compatibility, combined efficacy, and potential for toxicological interactions that damage crops. The purpose of this paper is to review and recommend previously published scientific criteria for evaluating the quality, relevance and interpretability of data on toxicological interactions and to demonstrate a methodology for applying them objectively to mixtures studies used in ecological risk assessment. The recommended criteria reflect the consensus of the literature on interaction analysis from decades of research in pharmacology and toxicology and are broadly applicable to mixtures of drugs, pesticides, industrial chemicals and food additives. They are useful for researchers who design and analyze interaction studies, for risk assessors who use interaction data in risk assessments, and for those who make risk management decisions pertaining to pesticides. This paper describes our methodology for assessing data on the combined activity of pesticides and then discusses how to interpret such data in the context of an ecological risk assessment. Examples have been drawn primarily from studies with herbicides and nontarget plants, and several example analyses have been included that can inform whether mixture data are sufficiently reliable and relevant for use in regulatory decision making.