A proposed framework for the systematic review and integrated assessment (SYRINA) of endocrine disrupting chemicals

Background - The issue of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) is receiving wide attention from both the scientific and regulatory communities. Recent analyses of the EDC literature have been criticized for failing to use transparent and objective approaches to draw conclusions about the strength of evidence linking EDC exposures to adverse health or environmental outcomes. Systematic review methodologies are ideal for addressing this issue as they provide transparent and consistent approaches to study selection and evaluation. Objective methods are needed for integrating the multiple streams of evidence (epidemiology, wildlife, laboratory animal, in vitro, and in silico data) that are relevant in assessing EDCs. Methods - We have developed a framework for the systematic review and integrated assessment (SYRINA) of EDC studies. The framework was designed for use with the International Program on Chemical Safety (IPCS) and World Health Organization (WHO) definition of an EDC, which requires appraisal of evidence regarding 1) association between exposure and an adverse effect, 2) association between exposure and endocrine disrupting activity, and 3) a plausible link between the adverse effect and the endocrine disrupting activity. Results - Building from existing methodologies for evaluating and synthesizing evidence, the SYRINA framework includes seven steps: 1) Formulate the problem; 2) Develop the review protocol; 3) Identify relevant evidence; 4) Evaluate evidence from individual studies; 5) Summarize and evaluate each stream of evidence; 6) Integrate evidence across all streams; 7) Draw conclusions, make recommendations, and evaluate uncertainties. The proposed method is tailored to the IPCS/WHO definition of an EDC but offers flexibility for use in the context of other definitions of EDCs. Conclusions - When using the SYRINA framework, the overall objective is to provide the evidence base needed to support decision making, including any action to avoid/minimise potential adverse effects of exposures. This framework allows for the evaluation and synthesis of evidence from multiple evidence streams. Finally, a decision regarding regulatory action is not only dependent on the strength of evidence, but also the consequences of action/inaction, e.g. limited or weak evidence may be sufficient to justify action if consequences are serious or irreversible.The workshops that supported the writing of this manuscript were funded by the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research “Mistra”. LNV was funded by Award Number K22ES025811 from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. TJW was funded by The Clarence Heller Foundation (A123547), the Passport Foundation, the Forsythia Foundation, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (grants ES018135 and ESO22841), and U.S. EPA STAR grants (RD83467801 and RD83543301). JT was funded by the Academy of Finland and Sigrid Juselius. UH was funded by the Danish EPA. KAK was funded by the Canada Research Chairs program grant number 950–230607

Improving the Value of Standard Toxicity Test Data in REACH

Worldwide, environmental risk assessment strategies are based on the assumption that measuring direct effects of single substances, using a few single species tests, in combination with safety factors correcting for extrapolation inconsistencies, can be used to protect higher levels of biological organization, such as populations and even ecosystems. At the same time, we are currently facing a range of pollution problems (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Series 2005), of which some could at least indirectly be linked to the fact that this assumption may not be fully valid. Consequently, there is an ongoing scientific debate on whether current chemical control protocols are sufficient for protection of ecosystems, and numerous suggestions for improvements have been presented by the scientific community, e.g. alternative tests and testing strategies. On the other hand, few of these suggestions actually reach the regulatory world (or become implemented), and risk assessment today basically follows the same paradigm as 30 years ago. While the new REACH regime is exceptionally ambitious, this chapter observes several problems and gaps in this regulatory framework. We suggest measures and approaches which imply increased ecological realism and understanding in future regulatory work

Identifying potential endocrine disruptors among industrial chemicals and their metabolites - development and evaluation of <em>in silico</em> tools.

The aim of this study was to improve the identification of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) by developing and evaluating in silico tools that predict interactions at the estrogen (E) and androgen (A) receptors, and binding to transthyretin (T). In particular, the study focuses on evaluating the use of the EAT models in combination with a metabolism simulator to study the significance of bioactivation for endocrine disruption. Balanced accuracies of the EAT models ranged from 77-87%, 62-77%, and 65-89% for E-, A-, and T-binding respectively. The developed models were applied on a set of more than 6000 commonly used industrial chemicals of which 9% were predicted E- and/or A-binders and 1% were predicted T-binders. The numbers of E- and T-binders increased 2- and 3-fold, respectively, after metabolic transformation, while the number of A-binders marginally changed. In-depth validation confirmed that several of the predicted bioactivated E- or T-binders demonstrated in vivo estrogenic activity or influenced blood levels of thyroxine in vivo. The metabolite simulator was evaluated using in vivo data from the literature which showed a 50% accuracy for studied chemicals. The study stresses, in summary, the importance of including metabolic activation in prioritization activities of potentially emerging contaminants

Five charges against the precautionary principle

We defend the precautionary principle against five common charges, namely that it is ill-defined, absolutist, and a value judgement, increases risk-taking, and marginalizes science. We argue, first, that the precautionary principle is, in principle, no more vague or ill-defined than other decision principles and like them it can be made precise through elaboration and practice. Second, the precautionary principle need not be absolutist in the way that has been claimed. A way to avoid this is through combining the precautionary principle with a specification of the degree of scientific evidence required to trigger precaution, and/or with some version of the de minimis rule. Third, the precautionary principle does not lead to increased risk-taking, unless the framing is too narrow, and then the same problem applies to other decision rules as well. Fourth, the precautionary principle is indeed value-based, but only to the same extent as other decision rules. Fifth and last, the precautionary principle is not unscientific other than in the weak sense of not being exclusively based on science. In that sense all decision rules are unscientific

A Novel Approach to Chemical Mixture Risk Assessment—Linking Data from Population-Based Epidemiology and Experimental Animal Tests

Humans are continuously exposed to chemicals with suspected or proven endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). Risk management of EDCs presents a major unmet challenge because the available data for adverse health effects are generated by examining one compound at a time, whereas real-life exposures are to mixtures of chemicals. In this work, we integrate epidemiological and experimental evidence toward a whole mixture strategy for risk assessment. To illustrate, we conduct the following four steps in a case study: (1) identification of single EDCs (“bad actors”)—measured in prenatal blood/urine in the SELMA study—that are associated with a shorter anogenital distance (AGD) in baby boys; (2) definition and construction of a “typical” mixture consisting of the “bad actors” identified in Step 1; (3) experimentally testing this mixture in an in vivo animal model to estimate a dose–response relationship and determine a point of departure (i.e., reference dose [RfD]) associated with an adverse health outcome; and (4) use a statistical measure of “sufficient similarity” to compare the experimental RfD (from Step 3) to the exposure measured in the human population and generate a “similar mixture risk indicator” (SMRI). The objective of this exercise is to generate a proof of concept for the systematic integration of epidemiological and experimental evidence with mixture risk assessment strategies. Using a whole mixture approach, we could find a higher rate of pregnant women under risk (13%) when comparing with the data from more traditional models of additivity (3%), or a compound-by-compound strategy (1.6%). © 2019 Society for Risk Analysi

Characterization of human monoclonal antibodies directed against the pp65-kD matrix antigen of human cytomegalovirus.

Human monoclonal antibodies specific for human cytomegalovirus (CMV) antigens have been established using peripheral blood lymphocytes from a seropositive donor. Immortalization of antigen-specific B cells was achieved by Epstein-Barr virus transformation followed by somatic cell fusion of antigen-specific lymphoblastoid cells. Four clones producing high-affinity antibodies (0.2-7 x 10(9) M-1) specific for the viral matrix protein pp65 have been further characterized with respect to epitope specificity of secreted antibodies. The studied antigen represents a major protein produced by in vitro-cultivated virus, and is important in the serodiagnosis of CMV infection. The human monoclonal antibodies recognized different epitopes, some of which proved to be overlapping. The fine specificity of these antibodies was evaluated using synthetic peptides covering the sequence of pp65. The antibody MO58 recognized a linear epitope (residues 283-288) whereas antibody MO53 recognized a discontinuous epitope involving residues 208-216 and 280-285. Despite the close proximity of these epitopes, the antibodies did not compete with each other for the same binding site on intact antigen

A proposed framework for the systematic review and integrated assessment (SYRINA) of endocrine disrupting chemicals

Abstract Background: The issue of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) is receiving wide attention from both the scientific and regulatory communities. Recent analyses of the EDC literature have been criticized for failing to use transparent C exposures to adverse health or environmental outcomes. Systematic review methodologies are ideal for addressing this issue as they provide transparent and consistent approaches to study selection and evaluation. Objective methods are needed for integrating the multiple streams of evidence (epidemiology, wildlife, laboratory animal, in vitro, and in silico data) that are relevant in assessing EDCs. Methods: We have developed a framework for the systematic review and integrated assessment (SYRINA) of EDC studies. The framework was designed for use with the International Program on Chemical Safety (IPCS) and World Health Organization (WHO) definition of an EDC, which requires appraisal of evidence regarding 1) association between exposure and an adverse effect, 2) association between exposure and endocrine disrupting activity, and 3) a plausible link between the adverse effect and the endocrine disrupting activity. Results: Building from existing methodologies for evaluating and synthesizing evidence, the SYRINA framework includes seven steps: 1) Formulate the problem; 2) Develop the review protocol; 3) Identify relevant evidence; 4) Evaluate evidence from individual studies; 5) Summarize and evaluate each stream of evidence; 6) Integrate evidence across all streams; 7) Draw conclusions, make recommendations, and evaluate uncertainties. The proposed method is tailored to the IPCS/WHO definition of an EDC but offers flexibility for use in the context of other definitions of EDCs. Conclusions: When using the SYRINA framework, the overall objective is to provide the evidence base needed to support decision making, including any action to avoid/minimise potential adverse effects of exposures. This framework allows for the evaluation and synthesis of evidence from multiple evidence streams. Finally, a decision regarding regulatory action is not only dependent on the strength of evidence, but also the consequences of action/inaction, e.g. limited or weak evidence may be sufficient to justify action if consequences are serious or irreversible

From cohorts to molecules: Adverse impacts of endocrine disrupting mixtures

Convergent evidence associates exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) with major human diseases, even at regulation-compliant concentrations. This might be because humans are exposed to EDC mixtures, whereas chemical regulation is based on a risk assessment of individual compounds. Here, we developed a mixture-centered risk assessment strategy that integrates epidemiological and experimental evidence. We identified that exposure to an EDC mixture in early pregnancy is associated with language delay in offspring. At human-relevant concentrations, this mixture disrupted hormone-regulated and disease-relevant regulatory networks in human brain organoids and in the model organisms Xenopus leavis and Danio rerio, as well as behavioral responses. Reinterrogating epidemiological data, we found that up to 54% of the children had prenatal exposures above experimentally derived levels of concern, reaching, for the upper decile compared with the lowest decile of exposure, a 3.3 times higher risk of language delay. © 2022 American Association for the Advancement of Science. All rights reserved