EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program Tier 1 batter... more EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program Tier 1 battery consists of eleven assays intended to identify the potential of a chemical to interact with the estrogen, androgen, thyroid, or steroidogenesis systems. We have collected control data from a subset of test order recipients from the first round of screening. The analysis undertaken herein demonstrates that the EPA should review all testing methods prior to issuing further test orders. Given the frequency with which certain performance criteria were violated, a primary focus of that review should consider adjustments to these standards to better reflect biological variability. A second focus should be to provide detailed, assay-specific direction on when results should be discarded; no clear guidance exists on the degree to which assays need to be re-run for failing to meet performance criteria. A third focus should be to identify permissible differences in study design and execution that have a large influence on endpoint variance. Experimental guidelines could then be re-defined such that endpoint variances are reduced and performance criteria are violated less frequently. It must be emphasized that because we were restricted to a subset (approximately half) of the control data, our analyses serve only as examples to underscore the importance of a detailed, rigorous, and comprehensive evaluation of the performance of the battery.
Birth Defects Research Part B: Developmental and Reproductive Toxicology, 2014
Weight of evidence (WoE) approaches are recommended for interpreting various toxicological data, ... more Weight of evidence (WoE) approaches are recommended for interpreting various toxicological data, but few systematic and transparent procedures exist. A hypothesis-based WoE framework was recently published focusing on the U.S. EPA's Tier 1 Endocrine Screening Battery (ESB) as an example. The framework recommends weighting each experimental endpoint according to its relevance for deciding eight hypotheses addressed by the ESB. Here we present detailed rationale for weighting the ESB endpoints according to three rank ordered categories and an interpretive process for using the rankings to reach WoE determinations. Rank 1 was assigned to in vivo endpoints that characterize the fundamental physiological actions for androgen, estrogen, and thyroid activities. Rank 1 endpoints are specific and sensitive for the hypothesis, interpretable without ancillary data, and rarely confounded by artifacts or nonspecific activity. Rank 2 endpoints are specific and interpretable for the hypothesis but less informative than Rank 1, often due to oversensitivity, inclusion of narrowly context-dependent components of the hormonal system (e.g., in vitro endpoints), or confounding by nonspecific activity. Rank 3 endpoints are relevant for the hypothesis but only corroborative of Ranks 1 and 2 endpoints. Rank 3 includes many apical in vivo endpoints that can be affected by systemic toxicity and nonhormonal activity. Although these relevance weight rankings (WREL ) necessarily involve professional judgment, their a priori derivation enhances transparency and renders WoE determinations amenable to methodological scrutiny according to basic scientific premises, characteristics that cannot be assured by processes in which the rationale for decisions is provided post hoc.
EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program Tier 1 batter... more EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program Tier 1 battery consists of eleven assays intended to identify the potential of a chemical to interact with the estrogen, androgen, thyroid, or steroidogenesis systems. We have collected control data from a subset of test order recipients from the first round of screening. The analysis undertaken herein demonstrates that the EPA should review all testing methods prior to issuing further test orders. Given the frequency with which certain performance criteria were violated, a primary focus of that review should consider adjustments to these standards to better reflect biological variability. A second focus should be to provide detailed, assay-specific direction on when results should be discarded; no clear guidance exists on the degree to which assays need to be re-run for failing to meet performance criteria. A third focus should be to identify permissible differences in study design and execution that have a large influence on endpoint variance. Experimental guidelines could then be re-defined such that endpoint variances are reduced and performance criteria are violated less frequently. It must be emphasized that because we were restricted to a subset (approximately half) of the control data, our analyses serve only as examples to underscore the importance of a detailed, rigorous, and comprehensive evaluation of the performance of the battery.
Birth Defects Research Part B: Developmental and Reproductive Toxicology, 2014
Weight of evidence (WoE) approaches are recommended for interpreting various toxicological data, ... more Weight of evidence (WoE) approaches are recommended for interpreting various toxicological data, but few systematic and transparent procedures exist. A hypothesis-based WoE framework was recently published focusing on the U.S. EPA's Tier 1 Endocrine Screening Battery (ESB) as an example. The framework recommends weighting each experimental endpoint according to its relevance for deciding eight hypotheses addressed by the ESB. Here we present detailed rationale for weighting the ESB endpoints according to three rank ordered categories and an interpretive process for using the rankings to reach WoE determinations. Rank 1 was assigned to in vivo endpoints that characterize the fundamental physiological actions for androgen, estrogen, and thyroid activities. Rank 1 endpoints are specific and sensitive for the hypothesis, interpretable without ancillary data, and rarely confounded by artifacts or nonspecific activity. Rank 2 endpoints are specific and interpretable for the hypothesis but less informative than Rank 1, often due to oversensitivity, inclusion of narrowly context-dependent components of the hormonal system (e.g., in vitro endpoints), or confounding by nonspecific activity. Rank 3 endpoints are relevant for the hypothesis but only corroborative of Ranks 1 and 2 endpoints. Rank 3 includes many apical in vivo endpoints that can be affected by systemic toxicity and nonhormonal activity. Although these relevance weight rankings (WREL ) necessarily involve professional judgment, their a priori derivation enhances transparency and renders WoE determinations amenable to methodological scrutiny according to basic scientific premises, characteristics that cannot be assured by processes in which the rationale for decisions is provided post hoc.
Uploads