Pronamide: Weight of evidence for potential estrogen, androgen or thyroid effects

Current testing programs for pesticides adequately capture endocrine activity and adversity for protection of vertebrate wildlife

The toxicity and ecotoxicity of pesticide active ingredients are evaluated by a number of standardized test methods using vertebrate animals. These standard test methods are required under various regulatory programs for the registration of pesticides. Over the past two decades, additional test methods have been developed with endpoints that are responsive to endocrine activity and subsequent adverse effects. This article examines the available test methods and their endpoints that are relevant to an assessment of endocrine-disrupting properties of pesticides. Furthermore, the article highlights how weight-of-evidence approaches should be applied to determine whether an adverse response in (eco)toxicity tests is caused by an endocrine mechanism of action. The large number of endpoints in the current testing paradigms for pesticides make it unlikely that endocrine activity and adversity is being overlooked. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2023;00:1-21. © 2023 Bayer CropScience and The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

Quantification of the Uncertainties in Extrapolating From In Vitro Androgen Receptor Antagonism to In Vivo Hershberger Assay Endpoints and Adverse Reproductive Development in Male Rats

Multiple molecular initiating events exist that disrupt male sexual differentiation in utero including androgen receptor (AR) antagonism and inhibition of synthesis, and metabolism of fetal testosterone. Disruption of androgen signaling by AR antagonists in utero reduces anogenital distance (AGD) and induces malformations in F1 male rat offspring. We are developing a quantitative network of adverse outcome pathways that includes multiple molecular initiating events and key events linking anti-AR activities to permanent reproductive abnormalities. Here, our objective was to determine how accurately the EC50s for AR antagonism in vitro or ED50s for reduced tissue growth in the Hershberger assay (HA) (key events in the adverse outcome pathway) predict the ED50s for reduced AGD in male rats exposed in utero to AR antagonists. This effort included in-house data and published studies from the last 60 years on AR antagonism in vitro and in vivo effects in the HA and on AGD after in utero exposure. In total, more than 250 studies were selected and included in the analysis with data from about 60 potentially antiandrogenic chemicals. The ability to predict ED50s for key events and adverse developmental effects from the in vitro EC50s displays considerable uncertainty with R2 values for HA and AGD of < 6%. In contrast, there is considerably less uncertainty in extrapolating from the ED50s in the HA to the ED50s for AGD (R2 value of about 85%). In summary, the current results suggest that the key events measured in the HA can be extrapolated with reasonable certainty to predict the ED50s for the adverse in utero effects of antiandrogenic chemicals on male rat offspring.

A comprehensive view on mechanistic approaches for cancer risk assessment of non-genotoxic agrochemicals

Currently the only methods for non-genotoxic carcinogenic hazard assessment accepted by most regulatory authorities are lifetime carcinogenicity studies. However, these involve the use of large numbers of animals and the relevance of their predictive power and results has been scientifically challenged. With increased availability of innovative test methods and enhanced understanding of carcinogenic processes, it is believed that tumour formation can now be better predicted using mechanistic information. A workshop organised by the European Partnership on Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing brought together experts to discuss an alternative, mechanism-based approach for cancer risk assessment of agrochemicals. Data from a toolbox of test methods for detecting modes of action (MOAs) underlying non-genotoxic carcinogenicity are combined with information from subchronic toxicity studies in a weight-of-evidence approach to identify carcinogenic potential of a test substance. The workshop included interactive sessions to discuss the approach using case studies. These showed that fine-tuning is needed, to build confidence in the proposed approach, to ensure scientific correctness, and to address different regulatory needs. This novel approach was considered realistic, and its regulatory acceptance and implementation can be facilitated in the coming years through continued dialogue between all stakeholders and building confidence in alternative approaches.

Use of computational toxicology (CompTox) tools to predict in vivo toxicity for risk assessment

Computational Toxicology tools were used to predict toxicity for three pesticides: propyzamide (PZ), carbaryl (CB) and chlorpyrifos (CPF). The tools used included: a) ToxCast/Tox21 assays (AC₅₀ s μM: concentration 50% maximum activity); b) in vitro-to-in vivo extrapolation (IVIVE) using ToxCast/Tox21 AC₅₀s to predict administered equivalent doses (AED: mg/kg/d) to compare to known in vivo Lowest-Observed-Effect-Level (LOEL)/Benchmark Dose (BMD); c) high throughput toxicokinetics population based (HTTK-Pop) using AC₅₀s for endpoints associated with the mode of action (MOA) to predict age-adjusted AED for comparison with in vivo LOEL/BMDs. ToxCast/Tox21 active-hit-calls for each chemical were predictive of targets associated with each MOA, however, assays directly relevant to the MOAs for each chemical were limited. IVIVE AEDs were predictive of in vivo LOEL/BMD₁₀s for all three pesticides. HTTK-Pop was predictive of in vivo LOEL/BMD₁₀s for PZ and CPF but not for CB after human age adjustments 11-15 (PZ) and 6-10 (CB) or 6-10 and 11-20 (CPF) corresponding to treated rat ages (in vivo endpoints). The predictions of computational tools are useful for risk assessment to identify targets in chemical MOAs and to support in vivo endpoints. Data can also aid is decisions about the need for further studies.

Distinguishing between endocrine disruption and non-specific effects on endocrine systems

The endocrine system is responsible for growth, development, maintaining homeostasis and for the control of many physiological processes. Due to the integral nature of its signaling pathways, it can be difficult to distinguish endocrine-mediated adverse effects from transient fluctuations, adaptive/compensatory responses, or adverse effects on the endocrine system that are caused by mechanisms outside the endocrine system. This is particularly true in toxicological studies that require generation of effects through the use of Maximum Tolerated Doses (or Concentrations). Endocrine-mediated adverse effects are those that occur as a consequence of the interaction of a chemical with a specific molecular component of the endocrine system, for example, a hormone receptor. Non-endocrine-mediated adverse effects on the endocrine system are those that occur by other mechanisms. For example, systemic toxicity, which perturbs homeostasis and affects the general well-being of an organism, can affect endocrine signaling. Some organs/tissues can be affected by both endocrine and non-endocrine signals, which must be distinguished. This paper examines in vitro and in vivo endocrine endpoints that can be altered by non-endocrine processes. It recommends an evaluation of these issues in the assessment of effects for the determination of endocrine disrupting properties of chemicals. This underscores the importance of using a formal weight of evidence (WoE) process to evaluate potential endocrine activity.