Dose-Response for Reproductive Effects of ER Binders P. Schmieder R. Johnson.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Dra. Argelia Castaño Ministry of Science and Technology National Institute Food and Agrarian Research (INIA) Animal Health Research Center (CISA) Dra.
Advertisements

Dosimetry in Risk Assessment and a bit More Mel Andersen McKim Conference QSAR and Aquatic Toxicology & Risk Assessment June 27-29, 2006.
Evaluating Existing in vitro Endocrine Data Jeff Pregenzer, Director of Endocrine Studies, CeeTox.
Modern Tools for Drug Discovery NIMBUS Biotechnology Modern Tools for Drug Discovery
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.
Evaluation of a potential mutagenic MOA based on analysis of the weight of evidence and using the modified Hill criteria Martha M. Moore, Ph.D. Director,
IQF Framework for QSAR 1. Identify Plausible Molecular Initiating Events 2. Design Database for Abiotic Binding Affinity/Rates 3. Explore Linkages in Pathways.
Session III: Assessing Cumulative Effects of Endocrine Active Substances 9:15 - 9:30 Introduction” Rick Becker (Session Chair and Panel Moderator) 9:30.
National Pesticide Program A New Toxicology Testing Paradigm: Meeting Common Needs Steven Bradbury, Director Environmental Fate and Effects Division Office.
ECOTOXICITY OF THE WATER-SOLUBLE FRACTION OF THE PRESTIGE FUEL-OIL Laboratory for Ecotoxicology, Department of the Environment, INIA (Spanish National.
Dose response relationships –A graph describing the response of an organism, population, or biological community to a range of concentrations of a xenobiotic.
Effects of 17α -Ethinyl Estradiol on the Reproductive Success of Freshwater Fish ENSC 202 April 24, 2008 Katie Chang Lucas Chapman Jackie Travers Alea.
and Environmental Risk Assessment
Ecological Risk Assessment Definition -Evaluates the likelihood that adverse ecological effects may occur or are occurring as a result of exposure to one.
What Do Toxicologists Do?
Introduction of Cancer Molecular Epidemiology Zuo-Feng Zhang, MD, PhD University of California Los Angeles.
ARSENIC EXPOSURE: PERSPECTIVE ON RISK ASSESSMENT RABIYA SHABNAM M.S.Student ECS program NDSU
Fish Screening Assay Detailed Review Paper NACEPT Endocrine Disruptor Methods Validation Subcommittee March 2002 Les Touart.
Peter L. deFur Environmental Stewardship Concepts Richmond, Virginia March 2010 Copyright 2009.
ILSI Risk Science Institute Acrylamide Toxicity: Research to Address Key Data Gaps Presented by Dr. Stephen S. Olin ILSI Risk Science Institute.
Endocrine Disruption Faith M. Oi University of Florida Entomology and Nematology Dept. Gainesville, FL 32611
Office of Pesticide Programs 21st Century Screening Assessment of Pesticides – A Regulatory View Vicki Dellarco, Ph.D. Senior Science Advisor Office of.
Dr. Manfred Wentz Director, Hohenstein Institutes (USA) Head, Oeko-Tex Certification Body (USA) AAFA – Environmental Committee Meeting November 10, 2008.
VISUALIZATION OF ADVERSE EFFECT PATHWAYS Hristo Aladjov.
Genetic Indicators Research Molecular Ecology Research Branch NERL Overview- Genetic diversity within species Gene induction (expression) research Some.
Applying Adverse Outcome Pathway Concepts to ER-mediated Effects Pat Schmieder US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development National.
Approaches for Evaluating the Relevance of Multiroute Exposures in Establishing Guideline Values for Drinking Water Contaminants Kannan Krishnan, Université.
“The Dose makes the Poison”
42 Hormones and Their Actions In multicellular animals, nerve impulses provide electric signals; hormones provide chemical signals. Hormones are secreted.
Dr. Steven I. Dworkin Pharmacology for the Health Sciences Lecture 2a.
2 n McKim Workshop on Reducing Data Redundancy in Cancer Assessment | 8 – 10 May 2012 | Baltimore, MD Highlighting the Need for AOPs in Streamlining Hazard.
Animal Studies and Human Health Consequences Sorell L. Schwartz, Ph.D. Department of Pharmacology Georgetown University Medical Center.
Designing a QSAR for ER Binding. QSAR Xenobiotic ER Binding Altered Protein Expression Altered Hormone Levels, Ova-testis Chg 2ndry Sex Char, Altered.
Wildlife Screens What Do They Tell Us? Dr. Pat Guiney Manager Global Safety, Regulatory & Environmental Assessment S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. Racine, WI.
Predicting Estrogen Receptor Binding within Categories Rick Kolanczyk Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development National Health.
Chapter 4 Pharmacokinetics Copyright © 2011 Delmar, Cengage Learning.
Which information identifies a chemical as endocrine disrupting? Poul Bjerregaard Institute of Biology University of Southern Denmark Odense and Danish.
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.
0 Focusing on the Adverse Outcomes of ER-mediated Pathways Rodney Johnson ORD/MED McKim Conference September 16-18, 2008.
Biomarkers and mechanisms of toxicity Course summary 1) Introduction - Overview of toxicity mechanisms (with special respect to environmental contaminants)
Michael W. Hornung, Sigmund J. Degitz, Joseph E. Tietge
MECHANISTIC MODEL OF STEROIDOGENESIS IN FISH OVARIES TO PREDICT BIOCHEMICAL RESPONSE TO ENDOCRINE ACTIVE CHEMICALS Michael S. Breen, 1 Miyuki Breen, 2.
Water Quality Criteria: Implications for Testing Russell Erickson U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mid-Continent Ecology Division, Duluth, MN, USA.
QSAR Foundation Goals Facilitate promising QSAR technologies for setting priorities (TIMES-SS, Multipath, ASTER, OECD Toolbox) Encourage the expansion.
Free concentration as dose parameter in in vitro and in vivo (eco)toxicology Joop Hermens Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University The.
Evaluation of the endocrine disrupting potential of the binary exposure to trilostane and prochloraz in H295R cells and Medaka fish Chunsheng Liu 1, Xiaowei.
The Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) for Skin Sensitisation (SS): How We Got Here and Where We are Going 1 T. W. Schultz Professor Emeritus The University.
The McKim Conferences for the Strategic Use of Testing Gitchee Gumee Conference Center Duluth, Minnesota June 27-29, 2006.
QSAR in CANCER ASSESSMENT PURPOSE and AGENDA Gilman Veith Duluth MN May 19-21, 2010.
POLLUTION BY XENOBIOTICS : BIOMARKERS FOR EARLY DETECTION OF POLLUTION EFFECTS Ibon Cancio EUSKALHERRIKOUNIBERTSITATEA UNIVERSITY OF THE BASQUE COUNTRY.
OECD’s work on Adverse outcome pathways
McKim Conference on Predictive Toxicology The Inn of Lake Superior Duluth, Minnesota September 25-27, 2007 Narcosis as a Reference Gilman Veith.
NUATRC/TCEQ Air Toxics Workshop October Air Toxics Air Toxics: What We Know, What we Don’t Know, and What We Need to Know Human Health Effects –
McKim Conference on Predictive Toxicology The Inn of Lake Superior Duluth, Minnesota September 16-18, 2008 Toxicity Pathways as an Organizing Concept Gilman.
Criteria for Inherently toxic (iT) in CEPA, UNEP Proposed iT criteria for non-human organisms –aquatic acute effects levels of < 1 mg/L –above 1 mg/L.
RISK DUE TO AIR POLLUTANTS
McKim Workshop on Strategic Approaches for Reducing Data Redundancy in Cancer Assessment Duluth, MN, USA 19 May, 2010.
A High Throughput Zebrafish Embryo Gene Expression System for Screening Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals G. Callard A. Novillo, S. Sawyer Biology.
McKim Conference on Predictive Toxicology The Inn of Lake Superior Duluth, Minnesota September 25-27, 2007 Toxicity Pathways as an Organizing Concept Gilman.
Perspective on the current state-of-knowledge of mode of action as it relates to the dose response assessment of cancer and noncancer toxicity Jennifer.
QSAR in CANCER ASSESSMENT PURPOSE and AGENDA Gilman Veith Duluth MN May 19-21, 2010.
Toxic effects Acute / chronic Reversible / irreversible Immediate / delayed Idiosyncratic - hypersensitivity Local / systemic Target organs.
Key Concepts on Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures.
Reproductive Module Dr.Halima Babiker. Overview of Steroid Hormones  Steroid hormones: produced in the adrenal cortex, testis, ovary, and some peripheral.
FIFRA SAP Meeting February 2, 2010
Use of Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships (QSAR) to Predict Chemical Toxicity in Aquatic Organisms P. Schmieder US EPA Mid-Continent Ecology.
Potential Role for Endocrine Disruptor Expert Systems in Investigating ‘Endocrine System-Epigenome’ Interactions P. Schmieder EPA, ORD, NHEERL, MED-Duluth,
Visualization of Adverse effect pathways
OAK CREEK Toxicology & Risk Assessment Consulting
Franck Mauvais-Jarvis, Arthur P. Arnold, Karen Reue  Cell Metabolism 
Presentation transcript:

Dose-Response for Reproductive Effects of ER Binders P. Schmieder R. Johnson

Acknowledgements: In Vitro- J. Denny; R. Kolanczyk; Barb Sheedy; Mark Tapper Students: R. Maciewski; W. Backe; M. Dybvig; M. Mereness Post-Doc: H. Aladjov In Vivo- K. Flynn; D. Hammermeister; D. Lothenbach; F. Whiteman; Students: J. Nagel; W. Backe Post-Doc: M. Haasch

QSAR Inert/Antimicrobial Chemical ER Binding Altered Protein Expression Altered proteins, hormones; Ova-testis Sex reversal; Altered behavior; Repro. Estrogen Receptor (ER) Toxicity Pathway Chemical interacts with Receptor at Molecular Level, Initiates a Series of events, and leads to Adverse Outcome Toxicological Understanding Risk Assessment Relevance In vivo Assays MOLECULAR Initiating Event CELLULAR Response TISSUE/ORGAN INDIVIDUAL Skewed Sex Ratios; Yr Class POPULATION In vitro Assays

ER Prioritization System – Establishing Chemical Categories Test chemicals within FI and AM inventories for potential to bind ER to prioritize which chemicals, of hundreds EPA is required to evaluate, should go on for further testing. Focus in on the chemical likely to have the activity. Predictions are needed for chemicals with little of no data EPA problem is low affinity chemicals

Chemical Universe Contains Cycle Yes Contains 2 OH, or OH and =0, at Spec. Dist Possible High Affinity, “A-B”; “A-C”; or “A-B-C” type binder Contains some attenuating feature steric?; other? High Binding Affinity “A-B”;“A-C” or “A-B-C” type No Non binder Ex: Progesterone Corticossterone (RBA< ) Special Rule Classes Log Kow <1.3 Low Affinity Binder “A-B”,“A-C” or “A-B-C” type Assess strength of attenuation steric?; other? Some Complete Contains at least one possible H- bonding site Type “A” Contains Phenol Fragment Alkyl Anilines Phthalates Branched Phenones Cyclo Phenones p-subst Cyclohexanols p-subst Cyclohexanones ring subst (o-CH3, tri-CH3) Benzoates V Possible Low Affinity Binder Type “B” Contains identif. Type B Fragment N-alkyl Phenones Non ring subst Benzoates Alkyl Phenols Alkoxy Phenols Parabens Salicylates Belongs to known Active class Potency Rules / Equations No Potency Rules / Equations No Yes No II Needs testing Yes No Yes Belongs to class with possible Type B low affinity under investigation Belongs to known Inactive class III Belongs to known Inactive class Fully-hindered Alkyl Phenols Belong to untested class with possible Type A low affinity ring subst p-CH3 Benzoates Thiophosphate Esters Mixed Organics Cyclic Alcohols (not p-subst hexanols) Cyclic Pentanones/Others Br, I halobenzenes No Yes Belongs to known Active class Belong to untested class Needs testing Non binder (RBA< ) Mixed Phenols No Yes III Non binder (RBA< ) No Belongs to known Inactive class Non binder (RBA< ) Alkylbenzsulfonic Acids Sulfonic Acid Dyes p-Alkyl Fluorobenzenes Bis–anilines Alkoxy Anilines Imidazolidines Isothiazolines Alkyl Benzthiols Pyrrolidiones IV Yes Oxazoles Benzamide Furans Sorbitans Triazines Yes No Yes DDT-Like Tamoxifen-Like Multi-Cyclohydrocarbons Alkyl Chlorobenzenes

Will a chemical with rtER binding affinity in our assay have ER-mediated effects in vivo? How do you compare dosimetry and effects across in vitro and in vivo assay systems? Dosimetry: Chemical concentration – How much? Where? Total Chemical Conc; Bound vs Free – internal bioavailability Chemical Solubility Effects: Biological Response; Toxicity How do you compare data across levels of biological organization?

Comparing Biological Response Comparing Dosimetry

ER Toxicity Pathway In vitro Assay Endpts ER Binding Altered Protein Expression Chg 2ndry Sex Char Altered Repro. Skewed Sex Ratios, Altered Repro. MOLECULAR Initiating Event CELLULAR Respopse TISSUE/ORGAN Response INDIVIDUAL Response POPULATION Response Altered proteins (VTG), Ova-testis In vivo Assay Endpts

ER Pathway ER Binding Altered Protein Expression Chg 2ndry Sex Char Altered Repro. Skewed Sex Ratios, Altered Repro. MOLECULAR Initiating Event CELLULAR Respopse TISSUE/ORGAN Response INDIVIDUAL Response POPULATION Response In vitro Assay Endpts In vivo Assay Endpts Trout cyto rtER Binding MaleTrout Liver Slice Vtg Induction Altered proteins (VTG), Ova-testis

The in vitro Assays rtER Binding – 3 H-E2 displacement cytosolic fraction from M, F trout livers cytosol diluted in TEDG buffer (Tris, EDTA, dithiothreitol, glycerol); avg protein = 4.6 mg/ml, ± 1.2, (range ) N=97 rtER Liver Slice Vtg Induction precision cut trout liver slices incubated in 1.4ml of L-15 buffer (10% FBS); ~ 3 mg/ml protein

Alkyl Anilines rtER Binding

Alkyl Anilines rtER Gene Expression

Comparing Biological Response

4-n-amyl aniline Comparison are made across the assay systems using one chemical RBA = 0.001

rtER cytosolic receptor binding - blue rtER liver slice VTG - red 4-n-amylaniline

Comparing Dosimetry

MED Analytical rt cytosol 4-n-amylaniline (AAN) [ ]

LogM

Total vs. free concentration of octylphenol in an estrogenicity reporter gene assay using SPME to measure “free” chemical Heringa M.B. et al. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, Picture from J. Hermens, Utrecht University Nominal / total concentration Free aqueous concentration Dose

[Effect]protein “free” Solubility Limit (LogMolar)(mg/ml)fraction(LogMolar) Water Cyto rtER EC Slice Vtg LOEC MaxEC n amyl aniline in: in vitro Assay Media

rtER cytosolic receptor binding - blue rtER liver slice VTG - red 4-n-amylaniline Binding EC50 [free]= -3.7 Vtg maxEC [free]= -4.7

Comparing Biological Response In Vivo Endpoints

ER Pathway ER Binding Altered Protein Expression Chg 2ndry Sex Char Altered Repro. Skewed Sex Ratios, Altered Repro. MOLECULAR Initiating Event CELLULAR Respopse TISSUE/ORGAN Response INDIVIDUAL Response POPULATION Response In vitro Assay Endpts In vivo Assay Endpts Trout cyto rtER Binding MaleTrout Liver Slice Vtg Induction Altered proteins (VTG), Ova-testis

Medaka Bioassay with p-n-amylaniline (AAN) Generation Weeks total F F1 Development Reproduction Adults (F0) exposed for 21 d; Offspring (F1) exposed for 8 wks

Ctrl d-LethalityF0 MALE NOEC50% F0 FEMALE NOEC25%100% Fecundity (eggs/female)F0 FEMALE NOECLOEC:↓↓ Body WeightFO MALE LOEC:↓ F0 FEMALE NA Liver VitellogeninFO MALE LOEC F0 FEMALE Sex Reversal (M to F)FO MALE Papil. Process Body WeightF1 MALE NOECLOEC:↓ F1 FEMALE NOECLOEC:↓ Liver VitellogeninF1 MALE NOECLOEC:↑↑ F1 FEMALE NOECLOEC: ↓↓ Sex Reversal (M to F)F1 MALE NOECLOEC:↓↓ Papil. Process Adults – 21d Eggs from exposed adults hatched and raised thru 8 wk exposure – F1 ER mediated responses were observed Some genetic males had only ovarian tissue with no sign of testes hr LC50 Newly hatched Lethality (reduced hatch)F1 M,F NOECLOEC:↑

Pathology -FO MALE NOECLOEC:↑ SpleenF0 FEMALE NOECLOEC:↑ Pathology-FO MALE none kidney hematopoesisF0 FEMALE none Pathology -F1 MALE LOEC:↑ SpleenF1 FEMALE NOECLOEC:↑ Pathology-F1 MALE NOECLOEC kidney hematopoesisF1 FEMALE NOEC Additional pathology observed is indicative of aromatic amine toxicity (via metabolic activation)

ER Toxicity Pathway In vitro Assay Endpts Trout cyto rtER Binding MaleTrout Liver Slice Vtg Induction ER Binding Altered Protein Expression Chg 2ndry Sex Char Altered Repro. Skewed Sex Ratios, Altered Repro. MOLECULAR Initiating Event CELLULAR Respopse TISSUE/ORGAN Response INDIVIDUAL Response POPULATION Response Altered proteins (VTG), Ova-testis In vivo Assay Endpts Male Medaka Liver Vtg Induction Female Medaka Liver Vtg decr. Male Medaka Chg in 2ndary sex characteristic; behavior? Papillary Processes Male Medaka Gonad Complete conversion to ovary Female Medaka Fecundity Hatch Sex Reversal Genetic Males to Phenotypic Females Reproductive Impairment, but is it EDC in F0??

Comparing Dosimetry

Acute Toxicity – 4-n-pentyl aniline In Vivo96h LC50 Species (mg/L)LogMolarSource Fathead minnow ASTER-calc Medaka MED-msrd Trout ASTER-calc Activity = 96h LC50= -4.87=0.038 Water Solubility d LC50 Species LogMolarSource Medaka~-5.3msrd Activity = 21d LC50= -5.3=0.014 Water Solubility How do we factor in time component in comparing effects?

Chronic ER-mediated Endpoint Vitellogenin Induction In vitro – Liver slice conc where Vtg induction was observed Media = -4.0 LogM In vivo – Lowest conc where Vtg Induction was observed Water = LogM

rtER cytosolic receptor binding - blue rtER liver slice VTG - red 4-n-amylaniline

In vivo uptake of 4-n-amylaniline in Medaka Liver (7 d) Water Conc = ppm; LogMolar BCF =160

Medaka VTG induction in Males, [Water Conc]= Estimate Liver Conc as 160 times Water Conc = Trout Liver Slice Media Conc for Vtg induction = -4.0 We don’t have a measured free concentration in Medaka blood (although it can be estimated from Log Kow), but we do have a measured free fraction of AAN in slice media = Correcting Vtg Induction conc for free fraction = -4.7 Activity = Effect conc (“free”) = -4.7 = Water Solubility -3.45

Common Reference Point for comparing among in vitro assays and from in vitro to in vivo?

Couldn’t go from binding EC50 to in vivo Vtg, But could go from in vitro Vtg to in vivo Vtg if you get on a comparable conc basis Need to compare similar biological effect as well as get dosimetry on common scale