Penelope A. Fenner-Crisp

PPARα Agonist-Induced Rodent Tumors: Modes of Action and Human Relevance

Widely varied chemicals—including certain herbicides, plasticizers, drugs, and natural products—induce peroxisome proliferation in rodent liver and other tissues. This phenomenon is characterized by increases in the volume density and fatty acid oxidation of these organelles, which contain hydrogen peroxide and fatty acid oxidation systems important in lipid metabolism. Research showing that some peroxisome proliferating chemicals are nongenotoxic animal carcinogens stimulated interest in developing mode of action (MOA) information to understand and explain the human relevance of animal tumors associated with these chemicals. Studies have demonstrated that a nuclear hormone receptor implicated in energy homeostasis, designated peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPARα), is an obligatory factor in peroxisome proliferation in rodent hepatocytes. This report provides an in-depth analysis of the state of the science on several topics critical to evaluating the relationship between the MOA for PPARα agonists and the human relevance of related animal tumors. Topics include a review of existing tumor bioassay data, data from animal and human sources relating to the MOA for PPARα agonists in several different tissues, and case studies on the potential human relevance of the animal MOA data. The summary of existing bioassay data discloses substantial species differences in response to peroxisome proliferators in vivo, with rodents more responsive than primates. Among the rat and mouse strains tested, both males and females develop tumors in response to exposure to a wide range of chemicals including DEHP and other phthalates, chlorinated paraffins, chlorinated solvents such as trichloroethylene and perchloroethylene, and certain pesticides and hypolipidemic pharmaceuticals. MOA data from three different rodent tissues—rat and mouse liver, rat pancreas, and rat testis—lead to several different postulated MOAs, some beginning with PPARα activation as a causal first step. For example, studies in rodent liver identified seven “key events,” including three “causal events”—activation of PPARα, perturbation of cell proliferation and apoptosis, and selective clonal expansion—and a series of associative events involving peroxisome proliferation, hepatocyte oxidative stress, and Kupffer-cell-mediated events. Similar in-depth analysis for rat Leydig-cell tumors (LCTs) posits one MOA that begins with PPARα activation in the liver, but two possible pathways, one secondary to liver induction and the other direct inhibition of testicular testosterone biosynthesis. For this tumor, both proposed pathways involve changes in the metabolism and quantity of related hormones and hormone precursors. Key events in the postulated MOA for the third tumor type, pancreatic acinar-cell tumors (PACTs) in rats, also begin with PPARα activation in the liver, followed by changes in bile synthesis and composition. Using the new human relevance framework (HRF) (see companion article), case studies involving PPARα-related tumors in each of these three tissues produced a range of outcomes, depending partly on the quality and quantity of MOA data available from laboratory animals and related information from human data sources.

Overview: Using mode of action and life stage information to evaluate the human relevance of animal toxicity data

A complete mode of action human relevance analysis—as distinct from mode of action (MOA) analysis alone—depends on robust information on the animal MOA, as well as systematic comparison of the animal data with corresponding information from humans. In November 2003, the International Life Sciences Institutes Risk Science Institute (ILSI RSI) published a 2-year study using animal and human MOA information to generate a four-part Human Relevance Framework (HRF) for systematic and transparent analysis of MOA data and information. Based mainly on non-DNA-reactive carcinogens, the HRF features a “concordance” analysis of MOA information from both animal and human sources, with a focus on determining the appropriate role for each MOA data set in human risk assessment. With MOA information increasingly available for risk assessment purposes, this article illustrates the further applicability of the HRF for reproductive, developmental, neurologic, and renal endpoints, as well as cancer. Based on qualitative and quantitative MOA considerations, the MOA/human relevance analysis also contributes to identifying data needs and issues essential for the dose-response and exposure assessment steps in the overall risk assessment.

A Tiered Approach to Life Stages Testing for Agricultural Chemical Safety Assessment

Aproposal has been developed by the Agricultural Chemical Safety Assessment (ACSA) Technical Committee of the ILSI Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI) for an improved approach to assessing the safety of crop protection chemicals. The goal is to ensure that studies are scientifically appropriate and necessary without being redundant, and that tests emphasize toxicological endpoints and exposure durations that are relevant for risk assessment. The ACSA Life Stages Task Force proposes a tiered approach to toxicity testing that assesses a compounds potential to cause adverse effects on reproduction, and that assesses the nature and severity of effects during development and adolescence, with consideration of the sensitivity of the elderly. While incorporating many features from current guideline studies, the proposed approach includes a novel rat reproduction and developmental study with enhanced endpoints and a rabbit development study. All available data, including toxicokinetics, ADMEdata, and systemic toxicity information, are considered in the design and interpretation of studies. Compared to existing testing strategies, the proposed approach uses fewer animals, provides information on the young animal, and includes an estimation of human exposure potential for making decisions about the extent of testing required.

The Human Relevance of Information on Carcinogenic Modes of Action: Overview

Risk assessment policies and practice place increasing reliance on mode of action (MOA) data to inform conclusions about the human relevance of animal tumors. In June 2001, the Risk Science Institute of the International Life Sciences Institute formed a workgroup to study this issue. The workgroup divided into two subgroups, one developing and testing a “framework” for MOA relevance analysis and the other conducting an in-depth analysis of peroxisome proliferation-activated receptor (PPAR)α activation as the MOA for some animal carcinogens. This special issue of Critical Reviews in Toxicology presents the scientific reports emerging from this activity. These reports serve several purposes. For risk assessors in and out of government, they offer a new human relevance framework (HRF) that complements and extends existing guidance from other organizations. Regarding the specific MOA for peroxisome proliferating chemicals, these reports offer a state-of-the-science review of this important MOA and its role in tumorigenesis in three different tissues (liver, testis, and pancreas). The case studies in these reports present models for using MOA information to evaluate the hazard potential for humans. The cases also illustrate the substantial impact of a complete human relevance analysis, as distinct from an animal MOA analysis alone, on the nature and scope of risk assessment.

Agricultural chemical safety assessment: A multisector approach to the modernization of human safety requirements.

Better understanding of toxicological mechanisms, enhanced testing capabilities, and demands for more sophisticated data for safety and health risk assessment have generated international interest in improving the current testing paradigm for agricultural chemicals. To address this need, the ILSI Health and Environmental Sciences Institute convened a large and diverse group of international experts to develop a credible and viable testing approach that includes scientifically appropriate studies that are necessary without being redundant, and that emphasize toxicological endpoints and exposure durations that are relevant for risk assessment. Benefits of the proposed approach include improved data for risk assessment, greater efficiency, use of fewer animals, and better use of resources. From the outset of this endeavor, it was unanimously agreed that a tiered approach should be designed to incorporate existing knowledge on the chemistry, toxicology, and actual human exposure scenarios of the compound, with integration of studies on metabolism/kinetics, life stages, and systemic toxicities. Three international task forces were charged with designing study types and endpoints on metabolism/ kinetics, life stages, and systemic toxicities to be used in the tiered approach. This tiered testing proposal departs from the current standardized list of hazard studies used by many national authorities, and represents the first comprehensive effort of its kind to scientifically redesign the testing framework for agricultural chemicals.

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

Abstract 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.

The endocrine disruptor screening program developed by the U.S. environmental protection agency.

The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) was signed into law on 3 August 1996. FQPA amended both laws under which the Environmental Protection Agency manages the regulatory process for pesticide registration and use in the United States. Many new requirements were incorporated into these two laws, including the development of “a screening program, using appropriate validated test systems and other scientifically relevant information, to determine whether certain substances may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen, or such other endocrine effect....” “Certain substances” includes all pesticides (both active and other ingredients of pesticide formulations) as well as “any other substance that may have an effect cumulative to an effect of a pesticide chemical if...a substantial population may be exposed to such substance.” With the assistance of an advisory committee made up of 40 members representing several other agencies of the Federal government, States, chemical manufacturers and users, public interest groups, and the public health and academic communities, EPA has developed, and is currently implementing, such a screening program. The initial program, as proposed, consists of two tiers, a screening tier containing eight assays, and a testing tier, containing five multigeneration tests. The screening battery is designed to determine whether or not the agent being evaluated has the potential to interact not only with the estrogen-hormone system, but also the androgen- and thyroid-hormone systems, as well. The testing tier is designed to provide definitive characterization of an agents inherent ability to disrupt one or more of the three hormone systems. This presentation will describe, in detail, the status of development and validation of each component of the proposed screening program, including possible alternatives; the universe of chemical agents that are candidates for inclusion in the program, the priority-setting process to be used for chemical selection and the relationship between EPAs program and the OECD effort to develop a program for use by its member countries.

Evaluation of the carcinogenic potential of pesticides. 2. Methidathion.

The carcinogen potential of methidathion, a dimethoxyorganic phosphorus pesticide and cholinesterase inhibitor, was evaluated by the Health Effects Division of the Office of Pesticide Programs using a consensus peer review process and the EPAs guidelines for risk assessment. Methidathion was categorized as a Group C (possible human) carcinogen based upon evidence of an increased incidence of benign and malignant hepatocellular tumors, alone and in combination, in a single study involving male Chr-CD-1 mice. The compound was not carcinogenic in female Chr-CD-1 mice in the same study or in Sprague-Dawley rats of either sex in a second study. Methidathion was not genotoxic in a variety of in vitro or in vivo tests designed to detect DNA damage, chromosome aberrations, gene mutations, and sister chromatid exchange. Although methidathion was identified as being structurally similar to two other organophosphate insecticides, prothidathion and lythidathion, no toxicological data were available on either of these agents for comparative purposes. The biological information on methidathion was reviewed by the agencys FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel who agreed with the category C designation for methidathion. The data were not found to be sufficient to quantify human risk to methidathion.

Advancing human health risk assessment: integrating recent advisory committee recommendations.

Abstract Over the last dozen years, many national and international expert groups have considered specific improvements to risk assessment. Many of their stated recommendations are mutually supportive, but others appear conflicting, at least in an initial assessment. This review identifies areas of consensus and difference and recommends a practical, biology-centric course forward, which includes: (1) incorporating a clear problem formulation at the outset of the assessment with a level of complexity that is appropriate for informing the relevant risk management decision; (2) using toxicokinetics and toxicodynamic information to develop Chemical Specific Adjustment Factors (CSAF); (3) using mode of action (MOA) information and an understanding of the relevant biology as the key, central organizing principle for the risk assessment; (4) integrating MOA information into dose–response assessments using existing guidelines for non-cancer and cancer assessments; (5) using a tiered, iterative approach developed by the World Health Organization/International Programme on Chemical Safety (WHO/IPCS) as a scientifically robust, fit-for-purpose approach for risk assessment of combined exposures (chemical mixtures); and (6) applying all of this knowledge to enable interpretation of human biomonitoring data in a risk context. While scientifically based defaults will remain important and useful when data on CSAF or MOA to refine an assessment are absent or insufficient, assessments should always strive to use these data. The use of available 21st century knowledge of biological processes, clinical findings, chemical interactions, and dose–response at the molecular, cellular, organ and organism levels will minimize the need for extrapolation and reliance on default approaches.

Classification schemes for carcinogenicity based on hazard-identification have become outmoded and serve neither science nor society

Classification schemes for carcinogenicity based solely on hazard-identification such as the IARC monograph process and the UN system adopted in the EU have become outmoded. They are based on a concept developed in the 1970s that chemicals could be divided into two classes: carcinogens and non-carcinogens. Categorization in this way places into the same category chemicals and agents with widely differing potencies and modes of action. This is how eating processed meat can fall into the same category as sulfur mustard gas. Approaches based on hazard and risk characterization present an integrated and balanced picture of hazard, dose response and exposure and allow informed risk management decisions to be taken. Because a risk-based decision framework fully considers hazard in the context of dose, potency, and exposure the unintended downsides of a hazard only approach are avoided, e.g., health scares, unnecessary economic costs, loss of beneficial products, adoption of strategies with greater health costs, and the diversion of public funds into unnecessary research. An initiative to agree upon a standardized, internationally acceptable methodology for carcinogen assessment is needed now. The approach should incorporate principles and concepts of existing international consensus-based frameworks including the WHO IPCS mode of action framework.