Principles of Pharmacology and Toxicology Also Govern Effects of Chemicals on the Endocrine System

The physiological and biochemical basis of potency thresholds modeled using human estrogen receptor alpha: implications for identifying endocrine disruptors

The endocrine system functions by interactions between ligands and receptors. Ligands exhibit potency for binding to and interacting with receptors. Potency is the product of affinity and efficacy. Potency and physiological concentration determine the ability of a ligand to produce physiological effects. The kinetic behavior of ligand-receptor interactions conforms to the laws of mass action. The laws of mass action define the relationship between the affinity of a ligand and the fraction of cognate receptors that it occupies at any physiological concentration. We previously identified the minimum ligand potency required to produce clinically observable estrogenic agonist effects via the human estrogen receptor-alpha (ERα). By examining data on botanical estrogens and dietary supplements, we demonstrated that ERα ligands with potency lower than one one-thousandth that of the primary endogenous hormone 17β-estradiol (E2) do not produce clinically observable estrogenic effects. This allowed us to propose a Human-Relevant Potency Threshold (HRPT) for ERα ligands of 1 × 10-4 relative to E2. Here, we test the hypothesis that the HRPT for ERα arises from the receptor occupancy by the normal metabolic milieu of endogenous ERα ligands. The metabolic milieu comprises precursors to hormones, metabolites of hormones, and other normal products of metabolism. We have calculated fractional receptor occupancies for ERα ligands with potencies below and above the previously established HRPT when normal circulating levels of some endogenous ERα ligands and E2 were also present. Fractional receptor occupancy calculations showed that individual ERα ligands with potencies more than tenfold higher than the HRPT can compete for occupancy at ERα against individual components of the endogenous metabolic milieu and against mixtures of those components at concentrations found naturally in human blood. Ligands with potencies less than tenfold higher than the HRPT were unable to compete successfully for ERα. These results show that the HRPT for ERα agonism (10-4 relative to E2) proposed previously is quite conservative and should be considered strong evidence against the potential for disruption of the estrogenic pathway. For chemicals with potency 10-3 of E2, the potential for estrogenic endocrine disruption must be considered equivocal and subject to the presence of corroborative evidence. Most importantly, this work demonstrates that the endogenous metabolic milieu is responsible for the observed ERα agonist HRPT, that this HRPT applies also to ERα antagonists, and it provides a compelling mechanistic explanation for the HRPT that is grounded in basic principles of molecular kinetics using well characterized properties and concentrations of endogenous components of normal metabolism.

Research advances in identification procedures of endocrine disrupting chemicals

Endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are increasingly concerned substance endangering human health and environment. However, there is no unified standard for identifying chemicals as EDCs, which is also controversial internationally. In this review, the procedures for EDC identification in different organizations/countries were described. Importantly, three aspects to be considered in identifying chemical substances as EDCs were summarized, which were mechanistic data, animal experiments, and epidemiological information. The relationships between them were also discussed. To elaborate more clearly on these three aspects of evidence, scientific data on some chemicals including bisphenol A, 1,2-dibromo-4-(1,2 dibromoethyl) cyclohexane and perchlorate were collected and evaluated. Altogether, the above three chemicals were assessed for interfering with hormones and elaborated their health hazards from macroscopic to microscopic. This review is helpful for standardizing the identification procedure of EDCs.

Analysis of different preferences for the EU's regulatory options for endocrine disruptor identification criteria using argumentation theory

What criteria are most suitable to identify endocrine disrupting substances (EDSs) for regulatory purposes in the EU? The results of the European Commission's public consultation, as part of the process to establish identification criteria for EDSs, show that different regulatory options are supported. Some respondents prefer an option including hazard characterization considerations, whereas others prefer an option that avoids these considerations and introduces several hazard-identification based weight-of-evidence categories. In this study, the argumentation underlying the different preferences for identification criteria are analyzed and compared using pragma-dialectical argumentation theory (PDAT). All responses of non-anonymous, national governments that submitted a response in English (n = 17) were included. Responses of other stakeholder organizations were included if a Google News search returned an opinionated presence in the media on the subject (n = 9). Five topical themes and 21 underlying issues were identified. The themes are 1) mechanistic understanding of EDSs, 2) regulatory considerations related to the identification of EDSs, 3) consistency with existing regulatory frameworks, and 4) evaluations of specific issues related to a category approach and 5) related to including potency. We argue that two overarching (implicit) 'advocacy coalitions' can be discerned, that adopted contrasting positions towards the identified themes and issues. Among these 'coalitions', there appears to be consensus about the necessity of having 'science-based' criteria, though different perspectives exist as to what the most accurate mechanistic understanding of EDSs entails. To move the discussion forward, we argue that a societal dialogue would be beneficial, where EDS science and regulation are discussed as interrelated themes.

Human exposure to synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) is generally negligible as compared to natural compounds with higher or comparable endocrine activity. How to evaluate the risk of the S-EDCs?

Theoretically, both synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) and natural (exogenous and endogenous) endocrine disrupting chemicals (N-EDCs) can interact with endocrine receptors and disturb hormonal balance. However, compared to endogenous hormones, S-EDCs are only weak partial agonists with receptor affinities several orders of magnitude lower. Thus, to elicit observable effects, S-EDCs require considerably higher concentrations to attain sufficient receptor occupancy or to displace natural hormones and other endogenous ligands. Significant exposures to exogenous N-EDCs may result from ingestion of foods such as soy-based diets, green tea and sweet mustard. While their potencies are lower as compared to natural endogenous hormones, they usually are considerably more potent. Effects of exogenous N-EDCs on the endocrine system were observed at high dietary intakes. A causal relation between their mechanism of action and these effects is established and biologically plausible. In contrast, the assumption that the much lower human exposures to S-EDCs may induce observable endocrine effects is not plausible. Hence, it is not surprising that epidemiological studies searching for an association between S-EDC exposure and health effects have failed. Regarding testing for potential endocrine effects, a scientifically justified screen should use in vitro tests to compare potencies of S-EDCs with those of reference N-EDCs. When the potency of the S-EDC is similar or smaller than that of the N-EDC, further testing in laboratory animals and regulatory consequences are not warranted.

Human exposure to synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) is generally negligible as compared to natural compounds with higher or comparable endocrine activity. How to evaluate the risk of the S-EDCs?

Theoretically, both synthetic endocrine-disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) and natural (exogenous and endogenous) endocrine-disrupting chemicals (N-EDCs) can interact with endocrine receptors and disturb hormonal balance. However, compared to endogenous hormones, S-EDCs are only weak partial agonists with receptor affinities several orders of magnitude lower than S-EDCs. Thus, to elicit observable effects, S-EDCs require considerably higher concentrations to attain sufficient receptor occupancy or to displace natural hormones and other endogenous ligands. Significant exposures to exogenous N-EDCs may result from ingestion of foods such as soy-based diets, green tea, and sweet mustard. While their potencies are lower as compared to natural endogenous hormones, they usually are considerably more potent than S-EDCs. Effects of exogenous N-EDCs on the endocrine system were observed at high dietary intakes. A causal relation between their mechanism of action and these effects is established and biologically plausible. In contrast, the assumption that the much lower human exposures to S-EDCs may induce observable endocrine effects is not plausible. Hence, it is not surprising that epidemiological studies searching for an association between S-EDC exposure and health effects have failed. Regarding testing for potential endocrine effects, a scientifically justified screen should use in vitro tests to compare potencies of S-EDCs with those of reference N-EDCs. When the potency of the S-EDC is similar or smaller than that of the N-EDC, further testing in laboratory animals and regulatory consequences are not warranted.

Human exposure to synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) is generally negligible as compared to natural compounds with higher or comparable endocrine activity: how to evaluate the risk of the S-EDCs?

Theoretically, both synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) and natural (exogenous and endogenous) endocrine disrupting chemicals (N-EDCs) can interact with endocrine receptors and disturb hormonal balance. However, compared to endogenous hormones, S-EDCs are only weak partial agonists with receptor affinities several orders of magnitude lower. Thus, to elicit observable effects, S-EDCs require considerably higher concentrations to attain sufficient receptor occupancy or to displace natural hormones and other endogenous ligands. Significant exposures to exogenous N-EDCs may result from ingestion of foods such as soy-based diets, green tea and sweet mustard. While their potencies are lower as compared to natural endogenous hormones, they usually are considerably more potent than S-EDCs. Effects of exogenous N-EDCs on the endocrine system were observed at high dietary intakes. A causal relation between their mechanism of action and these effects is established and biologically plausible. In contrast, the assumption that the much lower human exposures to S-EDCs may induce observable endocrine effects is not plausible. Hence, it is not surprising that epidemiological studies searching for an association between S-EDC exposure and health effects have failed. Regarding testing for potential endocrine effects, a scientifically justified screen should use in vitro tests to compare potencies of S-EDCs with those of reference N-EDCs. When the potency of the S-EDC is similar or smaller than that of the N-EDC, further testing in laboratory animals and regulatory consequences are not warranted.

Human exposure to synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) is generally negligible as compared to natural compounds with higher or comparable endocrine activity. How to evaluate the risk of the S-EDCs?

Theoretically, both synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) and natural (exogenous and endogenous) endocrine disrupting chemicals (N-EDCs) can interact with endocrine receptors and disturb hormonal balance. However, compared to endogenous hormones, S-EDCs are only weak partial agonists with receptor affinities several orders of magnitude lower. Thus, to elicit observable effects, S-EDCs require considerably higher concentrations to attain sufficient receptor occupancy or to displace natural hormones and other endogenous ligands. Significant exposures to exogenous N-EDCs may result from ingestion of foods such as soy-based diets, green tea and sweet mustard. While their potencies are lower as compared to natural endogenous hormones, they usually are considerably more potent than S-EDCs. Effects of exogenous N-EDCs on the endocrine system were observed at high dietary intakes. A causal relation between their mechanism of action and these effects is established and biologically plausible. In contrast, the assumption that the much lower human exposures to S-EDCs may induce observable endocrine effects is not plausible. Hence, it is not surprising that epidemiological studies searching for an association between S-EDC exposure and health effects have failed. Regarding testing for potential endocrine effects, a scientifically justified screen should use in vitro tests to compare potencies of S-EDCs with those of reference N-EDCs. When the potency of the S-EDC is similar or smaller than that of the N-EDC, further testing in laboratory animals and regulatory consequences are not warranted.

Thresholds of adversity and their applicability to endocrine disrupting chemicals

Within the European Union, various legislative acts contain specific provisions on endocrine disruption, requiring the regulation of substances with endocrine disrupting properties via a hazard-based approach. Presumably this is due to an assumed lack of thresholds for the adverse effects of such substances. Conversely, in other jurisdictions, such as USA, Canada, Australia and Japan, endocrine disruptors (EDs) are regulated using a risk-based approach. As a consequence, in recent years there has been increasing controversy on whether thresholds can be inferred for endocrine-mediated effects. There is concern that the endocrine system is too complex to allow estimation of safe levels of exposure to such chemicals. This brief review aims to evaluate the available scientific evidence in this area and offer a sound and robust conclusion supported by this analysis. It is concluded that there is nothing special or unique about endocrine disruption or greater uncertainties in its assessment compared to other non-genotoxic forms of toxicity to justify adopting a non-threshold approach by default. Biology predicts that thresholds of adversity exist and are the rule for all endpoints, including those arising from endocrine disruption. A threshold approach to the risk assessment of endocrine disrupting chemicals is scientifically justified.

Scientific principles for the identification of endocrine-disrupting chemicals: a consensus statement

Endocrine disruption is a specific form of toxicity, where natural and/or anthropogenic chemicals, known as "endocrine disruptors" (EDs), trigger adverse health effects by disrupting the endogenous hormone system. There is need to harmonize guidance on the regulation of EDs, but this has been hampered by what appeared as a lack of consensus among scientists. This publication provides summary information about a consensus reached by a group of world-leading scientists that can serve as the basis for the development of ED criteria in relevant EU legislation. Twenty-three international scientists from different disciplines discussed principles and open questions on ED identification as outlined in a draft consensus paper at an expert meeting hosted by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) in Berlin, Germany on 11-12 April 2016. Participants reached a consensus regarding scientific principles for the identification of EDs. The paper discusses the consensus reached on background, definition of an ED and related concepts, sources of uncertainty, scientific principles important for ED identification, and research needs. It highlights the difficulty in retrospectively reconstructing ED exposure, insufficient range of validated test systems for EDs, and some issues impacting on the evaluation of the risk from EDs, such as non-monotonic dose-response and thresholds, modes of action, and exposure assessment. This report provides the consensus statement on EDs agreed among all participating scientists. The meeting facilitated a productive debate and reduced a number of differences in views. It is expected that the consensus reached will serve as an important basis for the development of regulatory ED criteria.

Peer-reviewed and unbiased research, rather than 'sound science', should be used to evaluate endocrine-disrupting chemicals

Evidence increasingly confirms that synthetic chemicals disrupt the endocrine system and contribute to disease and disability across the lifespan. Despite a United Nations Environment Programme/WHO report affirmed by over 100 countries at the Fourth International Conference on Chemicals Management, 'manufactured doubt' continues to be cast as a cloud over rigorous, peer-reviewed and independently funded scientific data. This study describes the sources of doubt and their social costs, and suggested courses of action by policymakers to prevent disease and disability. The problem is largely based on the available data, which are all too limited. Rigorous testing programmes should not simply focus on oestrogen, androgen and thyroid. Tests should have proper statistical power. 'Good laboratory practice' (GLP) hardly represents a proper or even gold standard for laboratory studies of endocrine disruption. Studies should be evaluated with regard to the contamination of negative controls, responsiveness to positive controls and dissection techniques. Flaws in many GLP studies have been identified, yet regulatory agencies rely on these flawed studies. Peer-reviewed and unbiased research, rather than 'sound science', should be used to evaluate endocrine-disrupting chemicals.

Does GLP enhance the quality of toxicological evidence for regulatory decisions?

There is debate over whether the requirements of GLP are appropriate standards for evaluating the quality of toxicological data used to formulate regulations. A group promoting the importance of non-monotonic dose responses for endocrine disruptors contend that scoring systems giving primacy to GLP are biased against non-GLP studies from the literature and are merely record-keeping exercises to prevent fraudulent reporting of data from non-published guideline toxicology studies. They argue that guideline studies often employ insensitive species and outdated methods, and ignore the perspectives of subject-matter experts in endocrine disruption, who should be the sole arbiters of data quality. We believe regulatory agencies should use both non-GLP and GLP studies, that GLP requirements assure fundamental tenets of study integrity not typically addressed by journal peer-review, and that use of standardized test guidelines and GLP promotes consistency, reliability, comparability, and harmonization of various types of studies used by regulatory agencies worldwide. This debate suffers two impediments to progress: a conflation of different phases of study interpretation and levels of data validity, and a misleading characterization of many essential components of GLP and regulatory toxicology. Herein we provide clarifications critical for removing those impediments.

Comments on the opinions published by Bergman et al. (2015) on Critical Comments on the WHO-UNEP State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (Lamb et al., 2014)

Recently Bergman et al. (2015) took issue with our comments (Lamb et al., 2014) on the WHO-UNEP(1) report entitled the "State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals - 2012" (WHO 2013a). We find several key differences between their view and ours regarding the selection of studies and presentation of data related to endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) under the WHO-IPCS(2) definition (2002). In this response we address the factors that we think are most important: 1. the difference between hazard and risk; 2. the different approaches for hazard identification (weight of the evidence [WOE] vs. emphasizing positive findings over null results); and 3. the lack of a justification for conceptual or practical differences between EDCs and other groups of agents.

Toxicology: a discipline in need of academic anchoring--the point of view of the German Society of Toxicology

The paper describes the importance of toxicology as a discipline, its past achievements, current scientific challenges, and future development. Toxicological expertise is instrumental in the reduction of human health risks arising from chemicals and drugs. Toxicological assessment is needed to evaluate evidence and arguments, whether or not there is a scientific base for concern. The immense success already achieved by toxicological work is exemplified by reduced pollution of air, soil, water, and safer working places. Predominantly predictive toxicological testing is derived from the findings to assess risks to humans and the environment. Assessment of the adversity of molecular effects (including epigenetic effects), the effects of mixtures, and integration of exposure and biokinetics into in vitro testing are emerging challenges for toxicology. Toxicology is a translational science with its base in fundamental science. Academic institutions play an essential part by providing scientific innovation and education of young scientists.