Reviewers Presentation on US Environmental Protection Agency " White Paper on Species/Stock/Strain on Endocrine Disruptor Assays" Reviewed by but not in.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
M. Tevfik DORAK Environmental & Occupational Health College of Public Health Gender Effect in Cancer Risk Pediatric Cancer Epidemiology: Fundamental Questions.
Advertisements

Virtual Workshop for Alliance for Cancer Prevention Endocrine Disrupters and Human Health Professor Susan Jobling Institute for the Environment Brunel.
ENDOCRINE DISRUPTION DOES THIS POSE SPECIAL DIFFICULTIES WHEN ASSESSING RISK? Sue Barlow Independent Consultant in Toxicology.
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
An Evaluation of Models to Predict the Activity of Environmental Estrogens Candice M. Johnson and Rominder Suri, Ph.D.,P.E. NSF Water and Environmental.
Richard A. Becker, Ph.D., D.A.B.T American Chemistry Council Arlington, Virginia Comments on “Dose Setting” EDMVS Meeting July 23-24, 2002.
Regulatory Toxicology James Swenberg, D.V.M., Ph.D.
Priority-setting for the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program: Pesticide Active Ingredients Penelope A. Fenner-Crisp Office of Pesticide Programs U.S.
John C. O’Connor DuPont Haskell Laboratory for Health and Environmental Sciences The 15-Day Intact Adult Male Assay As An Alternative Tier I Screening.
EDSP Validation Gary E.Timm Senior Technical Advisor Office of Science Coordination and Policy U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Section 3: Chemical Hazards What are toxic and hazardous chemicals? What are some possible impacts from chemical hazards? Are hormonally active agents.
Bisphenol A (BPA) BENJAMIN G. MUÑIZ. Origins  First synthesized in 1891 by A. P. Dianin (Hallberg et al., 2008)  Estrogenic properties identified by.
Environment and fertility: Male-mediated factors Shanna H. Swan, PhD Professor Obstetrics & Gynecology University of Rochester School of Medicine.
MCB 135E Discussion GSI: Jason Lowry Nov 29 – Dec 3.
and Environmental Risk Assessment
BPA, Baby Bottles and prevention of cancer Dr Carl Albrecht Head of Research 11 August 2010.
Bisphenol A Lucas Stoiber CBE 555 Oct. 7 th 2008.
State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals – 2012 UNEP and WHO published in February, 2013 From ”Global Assement of EDCs” published 2002 to.
Assessing the Impact of Body Weight on Male and Female Pubertal Development EPA Special Study Tammy Stoker, PhD. Gamete and Early Embryo Biology Branch.
Criteria for Screens— Review of the EDSTAC Recommendations Presentation to the EDMVS July 23, 2002.
What Information Fulfills EDSP Screening Requirements?
Reproductive Physiology Lecture 1 Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Gonadal axis.
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
Medical Aspects of Developmental Biology: Birth Defects, Endocrine Disruptors, & Cancer Lange BIOL 370 – Developmental Biology Topic #20.
Endocrine Disruption Faith M. Oi University of Florida Entomology and Nematology Dept. Gainesville, FL 32611
Synergistic Action of 17-  estradiol and Bisphenol A in a Pituitary Cell Line Sarah Korb and Winnifred Bryant, Ph. D. Department of Biology University.
POLYCYSTIC OVARY SYNDROME A COMMON FEMALE ENDOCRINE DISEASE SBI4U-01 Mr. Gajewski Bashour Yazji Jason Antrobus Narayan Wagle.
Animal Science 434 Lecture 8: The Onset of Puberty.
Chapter 5 Characterizing Genetic Diversity: Quantitative Variation Quantitative (metric or polygenic) characters of Most concern to conservation biology.
TUTORIAL REPRODUCTIVE PHYSIOLOGY Dr.Mohammed Sharique Ahmed Quadri Assistant Professor Physiology Al Maarefa College 1.
Hormone implants used to promote faster growth First product used in 1954: Diethylstilbestrol (DES) 6 anabolic steroids (in various combinations): 3.
Kevin M. Crofton, PhD US Environmental Protection Agency McKim Conference Duluth MN September 17, 2008 Thyroid Mediated CNS Dysfunction How to use what.
Endocrine disrupters. Endocrine disruption Endocrine disrupters (ED) or endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDC) are exogenous chemical agents that interfere.
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.
Gonadal Steroids And Their Effect On Immune Function.
Wildlife Screens What Do They Tell Us? Dr. Pat Guiney Manager Global Safety, Regulatory & Environmental Assessment S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. Racine, WI.
Environmental Estrogens Stimulate Gene Transcription in the Prolactin Promoter Danae Fitzmaurice and Winnifred Bryant Ph. D. Department of Biology University.
Genetics and Speciation
By Nathan Aleynick AP Biology Period 1 Ms. Straubel.
MAIN TOXICITY TESTING. TESTING STRATEGIES A number of different types of data are used in order to establish the safety of chemical substances for use.
Introduction Topic: The Effects of Bisphenol A on Animals During Prenatal Exposure Topic: The Effects of Bisphenol A on Animals During Prenatal Exposure.
Reproduction & Development
Reproductive Organs and Hormones
LOGO Reproductive System YaoYang, Physiology department of SMC.
Physiology and health Unit 2. 1 Reproduction (a) (i)The structure and function of reproductive organs and gametes and their role in fertilisation. Gamete.
Models, Markers and Mechanisms: Understanding Endocrine Disruptor Effects Brent D. Palmer, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Environmental Biology Department.
A High Throughput Zebrafish Embryo Gene Expression System for Screening Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals G. Callard A. Novillo, S. Sawyer Biology.
Androgens -Role in males similar to the of estrogens in females - development of male sexual characteristics - stimulating protein synthesis, growth of.
Genetic modified mice  Standardization of the genetic background  Identification and genotyping.
Cumulative Risk Assessment: A Critical Step Forward in Human Health Protection Deborah A. Cory-Slechta Department of Environmental Medicine University.
Acute Toxicity Studies Single dose - rat, mouse (5/sex/dose), dog, monkey (1/sex/dose) 14 day observation In-life observations (body wt., food consumption,
Drug Candidate-Induced Changes in the Thyroid Gland: Contrasting Case Studies Joan Lane, Katie Zokowski, Jeffrey Horrigan, Daniel Aleksandrowicz, Doriana.
Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing: An Industry Update
Group 2 – Nabilah (Presenter), Soonguan, Jingkai
Endocrine Disruption August 1996: Statutory.
BIOASSAY OF OESTROGENS
OAK CREEK Toxicology & Risk Assessment Consulting
11.4 Sexual Reproduction.
6.6 – Hormones, homeostasis and reproduction
Department of Zoology, Banaras Hindu University Varanasi , India
Endocrine disruptors and animal-free toxicology
BIOASSAY OF OESTROGENS
Learning objectives.
PESTICIDES AND CHILDREN as a Susceptible Population
Presentation transcript:

Reviewers Presentation on US Environmental Protection Agency " White Paper on Species/Stock/Strain on Endocrine Disruptor Assays" Reviewed by but not in complete concurrence Jimmy L. Spearow, Ph.D. Associate Research Geneticist University of California at Davis Work conducted for Battelle Memorial Institute under EPA Prime Contract 68-W

The US EPA is planning to test a multitude of chemicals for endocrine activity and their ability to disrupt reproductive development and function using in vivo EDSP screening assays. While Sprague-Dawley derived CD rats, and CD-1 mice have been most frequently used for such reproductive toxicology testing, these strains were previously selected mainly for large litter size for over 80 generations. Selection for large litter size results in correlated responses in reproductive endocrine traits, especially decreased sensitivity to estrogen. Strain differences have also been observed in susceptibility to many toxicants. Raises concern that use of a single highly prolific outbred strain in the EDSP could underestimate effects on sensitive genotypes (Spearow et al., 1999; 2001).

Strain Variation in Susceptibility to E2 in Females

While uterine weight responses to E2 were similar between SD and F344 rats, SD rats were less sensitive than F344 rats to the effects of E2 on increasing uterine epithelial cell height, pituitary weight and serum prolactin. SD rats were less sensitive than other strains to EE and NP. F344 rats were consistently as sensitive, and for most female reproductive responses more sensitive than SD rats to E2. Females large litter size selected CD-1 and CD10 mice were also less sensitive than B6, C17 and wild-derived Mus spretus strain mice to the effects of E2

Except for effects on PPS, large litter size selected strains including SD rats and CD-1 strain mice are much more resistant than F344 rats and B6 strain mice to the inhibitory effects of estrogens on male reproductive organ weights, sperm counts, and/or testosterone levels. Strain Variation in Susceptibility to E2 in Males

*In contrast to some of the assertions of the 7/25 version of the White Paper, available scientific data shows that: F344 rats are greater than 10-fold more sensitive than SD rats to the inhibitory effects of E2 on reproductive organ weights Putz et al., (2001). Data from Table 3 of the white paper has been corrected accordingly. Litter size of high prolificacy selected strains does not decline to the "original" population mean following relaxation of selection (Eklund and Bradford, 1977). Relaxed selection in SD derived CD IGS strain rats is thus unlikely to reverse resistance to EDC resulting from long-term selection for high prolificacy and return this strain to the sensitivity of the “original” population.

The Data of Inano et al., (1996) show that SD rats were less responsive, than Wistar-MS, and F344 rats to the inhibition of testis weight, seminal vesicle weight, prostate weight and serum testosterone by DES implants (P<0.01) Effect of exposure to DES from 3 to 15 months of age * Data of Inano et al., 1996 was requested but not included in the 7/25 version of the white paper.

From Spearow et al., 1999 Evidence for Strain Differences in Susceptibility of males to estrogenic agents includes: Large Litter Size Selected CD-1 mice are much less sensitive than B6 and C17 strain mice to inhibition of testes weight by pubertal exposure to E2 (Spearow et al., 1999). Recent studies show that CD-1 mice are less sensitive than wild-derived Mus spretus mice, and >195-fold less sensitive than B6 strain mice to disruption of testes weight by E2 (Spearow et al., 2003).

Effects of pubertal exposure from 3 to 7 weeks of age to E2 on Testicular Histopathology CD-1 0µg E2 Implants B6 0µg E2 Implants Normal spermatogenesis in CD-1 and B6 strain mice in response to pubertal exposure to 0 µg E2 Implants.

Effects of pubertal exposure from 3 to 7 weeks of age to E2 on Testicular Histopathology. CD-1 40µg E2 Implants B6 40µg E2 Implants CD-1 strain mice are much less sensitive than B6 strain mice to the complete disruption of spermatogenesis by E2. Increasing doses of E2 had minimal effects in CD-1, while B6 strain mice showed loss of elongated spermatids and atrophy of seminiferous tubules, with some tubules showing a Sertoli cell only phenotype.

From Spearow et al., 1999 Large Litter Size Selected CD-1 mice are much less sensitive than C57BL/6J (B6) and C17 strain mice to inhibition of spermatogenesis by pubertal exposure to E2 (Spearow et al., 1999).

SD rats are consistently less sensitive than DA/Han, Alderley Park and especially F344 rats to the effects of BPA on many phenotypes including Uterine Weight, Uterine Histopathology, Puberty, and Sperm counts. Strain Variation in Susceptibility to Bis Phenol A

SD and in some cases LE rats were less sensitive than some other strains to the effects of atrazine on estrous cyclicity, gestational loses, as well as LH, Prl and/or Progesterone levels. But, SD is more sensitive than F344 to tamoxifen and effects of long term (> 3 month exposure) to atrazine on persistent estrous, elevated E2 and mammary tumors. Strain Variation in Susceptibility to Atrazine & Tamoxifen

A very limited number of strains, all of which are outbred, have been compared for reproductive responses to androgen disruptors. Data on inbred strains is needed, the existing data do not show a consistent strain difference, except LE is more sensitive than Wistar rats. Strain Variation in Susceptibility to Androgen Disruptors

Strain Variation in Susceptibility to Thyroid Hormone Disruptors TCDD has multiple targets and multiple adverse effects. Male Turku Long-Evans rats are greater than 300-fold more resistant than Han/Wistar rats to the lethal effects of TCDD. LE rats were more sensitive than Han/Wistar rats to the inhibition of T4 by TCDD. In utero exposure to TCDD increased Testosterone (T) in Han/Wistar but not in LE rat testes. Strain differences in effects of RxR ligands are unknown.

Large litter size selected strains including SD and LE rats, as well as, CD-1 mice were less sensitive than F344 and BN rats & B6 mice, respectively, to the disruption of estrous cycles and/or gestation by feed restriction, atrazine, BDCM and/or E2. The robust gestation of large litter size selected strains is associated with decreased sensitive to the disruption of pregnancy. Strain Variation in Susceptibility to the Disruption of Estrous Cyclicity or Gestation

The pattern of strain differences in susceptibility to endocrine disruption by other EDC is not as clear as for estrogenic agents, and likely depends on genetic mechanisms by which each EDC acts F344 rats are sensitive to several EDC, except for being about 50% less responsive to D4 than SD rats. Additional strains need to be compared for EDC with other mechanisms of action. Strain Variation in Susceptibility to Other Diverse Chemicals

Partial Recommendation 1) SD rats were much less sensitive than other strains, and especially F344 strain rats to the disruption of: Most male and female reproductive phenotypes by estrogen; All male and female reproductive phenotypes by BPA; Gestation by diverse EDC; and, Several phenotypes by short term exposure to atrazine. Thus, SD rats should be avoided and F344 rat preferred to provide a more sensitive and reproducible model for such endocrine exposures. 2) However, F344 is less sensitive for several endpoints to partial estrogen agonists/ antagonists such as tamoxifen, long term atrazine and agents with other mechanisms of action such as D4. 3) The sensitivity of F344 to androgen, thyroid hormone and/ RXR disruptors is largely unknown. Thus, multiple, diverse strains in addition to F344 are required to insure that at least one strain in the EDSP is sensitive to the EDC being tested.

Conclusions: 1)Strains of rats and/or strains of mice differ significantly in susceptibility to the disruption of reproductive development and function by: Estrogenic agents, including E2, DES, Bisphenol A, & NP; Partial E2 agonists/antagonists including Atrazine & Tamoxifen; Androgen disruptors, including p,p'-DDE & Vinclozolin; Thyroid hormone disruptors, including TCDD; EDC with other mechanisms of action including, DMAB, & Cadmium; EDC which disrupt gestation including E2, BDCM, & Atrazine. 2)While few studies have conducted extensive dose response curves, the magnitude of Strain Differences in Susceptibility to EDC range from a few percent to over 195-fold. 3)There was no one strain most sensitive to all EDC, or all phenotypic endpoints. 4)There was no one strain most sensitive to all androgen disruptors, or all "other" EDC.

Conclusions: 5)Strain differences in susceptibility to endocrine disruption were clearest for estrogenic agents and for the disruption of gestation. 6)Large litter size selected SD rats were less sensitive than F344, and in some cases other strains of rats, to the effects of E2 on most endpoints in males, and females. Large litter size selected CD-1 mice were also less sensitive than B6 strain mice to the effects of E2 on most endpoints in males, and females. 7)Large litter size selected SD rats were also consistently less sensitive than F344 strain rats to the effects of BPA on both male and female endpoints. 8)Reproductively robust, large litter size selected strains including SD and LE rats, as well as, CD-1 mice were less sensitive than F344 and BN rats & B6 mice, respectively, to the disruption of estrous cycles and/or gestation by several EDC. 9)Thus, SD strain rats should be avoided and F344 rats preferred as one of the strains needed to provide a more sensitive and reproducible model for detection of estrogenic EDC.

Summary 10) The use of isogenic strains rather than outbred strains in the EDSP will provide more precise and reproducible bioassays for detecting endocrine disrupting activities. 11) Given the finding of many Strain x Endocrine disrupting agent interactions, and no single optimal strain for detecting all endocrine agents, conducting EDSP assays with multiple strains on different isogenic genetic backgrounds would better insure that all the animals tested are not resistant to the endocrine disrupting chemical (EDC) being analyzed. Otherwise, the use of a single strain, especially one which is genetically resistant to certain EDC in the EDSP, risks underestimating effects of EDC on sensitive genotypes.

*Confounders, Ligands, and Potential Genotype x Environment interactions that need consideration in EDSP assays: RxR ligands disrupting Thyroid Hormone action: Thyroid hormone Receptor (TR) / Retinoid X receptor (RxR) heterodimer binds to Thyroid hormone Response Element (TRE) to regulate gene transcription. Since the RxR is not a silent partner (Li, et al 2003), the EDSP needs to consider both potential TR and RxR ligands in in vitro and in vivo screens for Thyroid Hormone disruptors. Potential for strain differences in interactions of thyroid and reproductive hormones on the induction of hepatic Cyp, Epoxide hydrolase and other enzymes involved in xenobiotic metabolism. Using a no/low rather than a high phytoestrogen diet (PMI 5002) since: a) varieties of Soybeans with much lower and much higher phytoestrogens are being developed, risking the uniformity of EDSP diets and, b) variation in phytoestrogen levels is likely to confound the detection of weak estrogenic agents with beneficial as well as detrimental effects.

Reference Data: Some Commercially Available Inbred strains of rats Inbred (Harlan Data) Rat Strain Approx. Litter Size Coat color Genetic origin ACI Agouti Black Closely related to COP (E2 sensitive) BN 4.5 Non Agouti Brown Wild Copenhagen (COP) Brown Hooded Curtis and Dunning at Columbia DA 6.0 Agouti F Albino From Curtis at Columbia Lewis 7.5 Albino Wistar derived PVG 4.5 Black hooded Other Wistar Inbreds ~5 Albino Wistar Wistar Furth 5.5 Albino Wistar Note that use of strains with different coat colors in the EDSP will eliminate potential strain mix-ups.

Reference Data: Some Commercially Available Outbred strains of Rats Outbred Strain Approx. Litter Size Coat color Genetic origin Previous Selection (Harlan Data) History SD (HSD) 10.5 Albino Wild x Wistar derived * LLSS SD (CD) (CRL) Albino Wild x Wistar derived Extensive LLSS Long Evans (CRL) Black hooded Wild x Wistar derived Extensive LLSS Long Evans (HSD) 10.8 Black hooded Wild x Wistar derived LLSS (Blue Spruce) Wistar 9.5 Albino Wistar (CRL) LLSS Wistar- Hannover 9.5 Albino Wistar *LLSS = Historic Large Litter Size Selection either by former or current commercial breeder/ supplier. Charles River Laboratories (CRL) selected CD, LE and Wistar outbred stocks mainly for large litter size with more limited selection for increased vigor from the acquisition of the stocks until the early 1990s. Note after 1991 most stocks were no longer selected for large litter size due to concerns raised. Yet these stocks are the products of long term selection mainly for large litter size. Harlan Sprague Dawley = HSD

References Cited: