Multidisciplinary Research: Strategies for Assessing Chemical Mixtures to Reduce Risk of Exposure and Disease

The Precautionary Principle is founded on the use of comprehensive, coordinated research to protect human health in the face of uncertain risks. Research directed at key data gaps may significantly reduce the uncertainty underlying the complexities of assessing risk to mixtures. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) has taken a leadership rôle in building the scientific infrastructure to address these uncertainties. The challenge is to incorporate the objectives as defined by the Precautionary Principle with the knowledge gained in understanding the multifactorial nature of gene-environment interactions. Through efforts such as the National Center for Toxicogenomics, the National Toxicology Program, and the Superfund Basic Research Program, NIEHS is translating research findings into public health prevention strategies using a 3-pronged approach: (1) identify/evaluate key deviations from additivity for mixtures; (2) develop/apply/link advanced technologies and bioinformatics to quantitative tools for an integrated science-based approach to chemical mixtures; (3) translate/disseminate these technologies into useable, practical means to reduce exposure and the risk of disease. Preventing adverse health effects from environmental exposures requires translation of research findings to affected communities and must include a high level of public involvement. Integrating these approaches are necessary to advance understanding of the health relevance of exposure to mixtures.     

Toxicogenomic approach for assessing toxicant-related disease

The problems of identifying environmental factors involved in the etiology of human disease and performing safety and risk assessments of drugs and chemicals have long been formidable issues. Three principal components for predicting potential human health risks are: (1) the diverse structure and properties of thousands of chemicals and other stressors in the environment; (2) the time and dose parameters that define the relationship between exposure and disease; and (3) the genetic diversity of organisms used as surrogates to determine adverse chemical effects. The global techniques evolving from successful genomics efforts are providing new exciting tools with which to address these intractable problems of environmental health and toxicology. In order to exploit the scientific opportunities, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences has created the National Center for Toxicogenomics (NCT). The primary mission of the NCT is to use gene expression technology, proteomics and metabolite profiling to create a reference knowledge base that will allow scientists to understand mechanisms of toxicity and to be able to predict the potential toxicity of new chemical entities and drugs. A principal scientific objective underpinning the use of microarray analysis of chemical exposures is to demonstrate the utility of signature profiling of the action of drugs or chemicals and to utilize microarray methodologies to determine biomarkers of exposure and potential adverse effects. The initial approach of the NCT is to utilize proof-of-principle experiments in an effort to "phenotypically anchor" the altered patterns of gene expression to conventional parameters of toxicity and to define dose and time relationships in which the expression of such signature genes may precede the development of overt toxicity. The microarray approach is used in conjunction with proteomic techniques to identify specific proteins that may serve as signature biomarkers. The longer-range goal of these efforts is to develop a reference relational database of chemical effects in biological systems (CEBS) that can be used to define common mechanisms of toxicity, chemical and drug actions, to define cellular pathways of response, injury and, ultimately, disease. In order to implement this strategy, the NCT has created a consortium of research organizations and private sector companies to actively collaborative in populating the database with high quality primary data. The evolution of discrete databases to a knowledge base of toxicogenomics will be accomplished through establishing relational interfaces with other sources of information on the structure and activity of chemicals such as that of the National Toxicology Program (NTP) and with databases annotating gene identity, sequence, and function.     

Current and future needs for developmental toxicity testing

A review is presented of the use of developmental toxicity testing in the United States and international regulatory assessment of human health risks associated with exposures to pharmaceuticals (human and veterinary), chemicals (agricultural, industrial, and environmental), food additives, cosmetics, and consumer products. Developmental toxicology data are used for prioritization and screening of pharmaceuticals and chemicals, for evaluating and labeling of pharmaceuticals, and for characterizing hazards and risk of exposures to industrial and environmental chemicals. The in vivo study designs utilized in hazard characterization and dose-response assessment for developmental outcomes have not changed substantially over the past 30 years and have served the process well. Now there are opportunities to incorporate new technologies and approaches to testing into the existing assessment paradigm, or to apply innovative approaches to various aspects of risk assessment. Developmental toxicology testing can be enhanced by the refinement or replacement of traditional in vivo protocols, including through the use of in vitro assays, studies conducted in alternative nonmammalian species, the application of new technologies, and the use of in silico models. Potential benefits to the current regulatory process include the ability to screen large numbers of chemicals quickly, with the commitment of fewer resources than traditional toxicology studies, and to refine the risk assessment process through an enhanced understanding of the mechanisms of developmental toxicity and their relevance to potential human risk. As the testing paradigm evolves, the ability to use developmental toxicology data to meet diverse critical regulatory needs must be retained.     

Utilization of juvenile animal studies to determine the human effects and risks of environmental toxicants during postnatal developmental stages

BACKGROUND: Toxicology studies utilizing animals and in vitro cellular or tissue preparations have been used to study the toxic effects and mechanism of action of drugs and chemicals and to determine the effective and safe dose of drugs in humans and the risk of toxicity from chemical exposures. Testing in animals could be improved if animal dosing using the mg/kg basis was abandoned and drugs and chemicals were administered to compare the effects of pharmacokinetically and toxicokinetically equivalent serum levels in the animal model and human. Because alert physicians or epidemiology studies, not animal studies, have discovered most human teratogens and toxicities in children, animal studies play a minor role in discovering teratogens and agents that are deleterious to infants and children. In vitro studies play even a less important role, although they are helpful in describing the cellular or tissue effects of the drugs or chemicals and their mechanism of action. One cannot determine the magnitude of human risks from in vitro studies when they are the only source of toxicology data. METHODS: Toxicology studies on adult animals is carried out by pharmaceutical companies, chemical companies, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), many laboratories at the National Institutes of Health, and scientific investigators in laboratories throughout the world. Although there is a vast amount of animal toxicology studies carried out on pregnant animals and adult animals, there is a paucity of animal studies utilizing newborn, infant, and juvenile animals. This deficiency is compounded by the fact that there are very few toxicology studies carried out in children. That is one reason why pregnant women and children are referred to as "therapeutic orphans." RESULTS: When animal studies are carried out with newborn and developing animals, the results demonstrate that generalizations are less applicable and less predictable than the toxicology studies in pregnant animals. Although many studies show that infants and developing animals may have difficulty in metabolizing drugs and are more vulnerable to the toxic effects of environmental chemicals, there are exceptions that indicate that infants and developing animals may be less vulnerable and more resilient to some drugs and chemicals. In other words, the generalization indicating that developing animals are always more sensitive to environmental toxicants is not valid. For animal toxicology studies to be useful, animal studies have to utilize modern concepts of pharmacokinetics and toxicokinetics, as well as "mechanism of action" (MOA) studies to determine whether animal data can be utilized for determining human risk. One example is the inability to determine carcinogenic risks in humans for some drugs and chemicals that produce tumors in rodents, When the oncogenesis is the result of peroxisome proliferation, a reaction that is of diminished importance in humans. CONCLUSIONS: Scientists can utilize animal studies to study the toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic aspects of drugs and environmental toxicants. But they have to be carried out with the most modern techniques and interpreted with the highest level of scholarship and objectivity. Threshold exposures, no-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) exposures, and toxic effects can be determined in animals, but have to be interpreted with caution when applying them to the human. Adult problems in growth, endocrine dysfunction, neurobehavioral abnormalities, and oncogenesis may be related to exposures to drugs, chemicals, and physical agents during development and may be fruitful areas for investigation. Maximum permissible exposures have to be based on data, not on generalizations that are applied to all drugs and chemicals. Epidemiology studies are still the best methodology for determining the human risk and the effects of environmental toxicants. Carrying out these focused studies in developing humans will be difficult. Animal studies may be our only alternative for answering many questions with regard to specific postnatal developmental vulnerabilities.     

Developmental toxicology: new directions workshop: refining testing strategies and study designs

In April 2009, the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) Health and Environmental Sciences Institute's (HESI) Developmental and Reproductive Toxicology Technical Committee held a two-day workshop entitled "Developmental Toxicology-New Directions." The third session of the workshop focused on ways to refine animal studies to improve relevance and predictivity for human risk. The session included five presentations on: (1) considerations for refining developmental toxicology testing and data interpretation; (2) comparative embryology and considerations in study design and interpretation; (3) pharmacokinetic considerations in study design; (4) utility of genetically modified models for understanding mode-of-action; and (5) special considerations in reproductive testing for biologics. The presentations were followed by discussion by the presenters and attendees. Much of the discussion focused on aspects of refining current animal testing strategies, including use of toxicokinetic data, dose selection, tiered/triggered testing strategies, species selection, and use of alternative animal models. Another major area of discussion was use of non-animal-based testing paradigms, including how to define a "signal" or adverse effect, translating in vitro exposures to whole animal and human exposures, validation strategies, the need to bridge the existing gap between classical toxicology testing and risk assessment, and development of new technologies. Although there was general agreement among participants that the current testing strategy is effective, there was also consensus that traditional methods are resource-intensive and improved effectiveness of developmental toxicity testing to assess risks to human health is possible. This article provides a summary of the session's presentations and discussion and describes some key areas that warrant further consideration.     

Community outreach as an iterative dialogue among scientists and communities in the Texas gulf coast region

In response to significant environmental health challenges in Southeast Texas, a National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences Center at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston was created to promote and conduct inter-disciplinary research in the areas of: (1) the molecular biology of DNA repair, replication and mutagenesis, (2) asthma pathogenesis in response to oxidative stress and viral exposures, and (3) environmental toxicant biotransformation. In addition, the NIEHS Center maintains close ties with neighboring communities through an active Community Outreach & Education Program (COEP) that develops and disseminates translational materials for use in environmental health awareness outreach, toxicology consultation, K-12 curriculum enrichment and in developing site-specific Community Partnership projects. The COEP core service divisions include: Environmental Arts & Sciences, Asthma Outreach & Education, Theater Outreach & Education, and Public Forum & Toxics Assistance. Public Forums focus on the use of Augusto Boal's Forum Theater dramaturgy to include the voices and local knowledge of communities within the process of Participatory Research. Forums create the preconditions for significant partnerships that link the hazardous risk perceptions and environmental health needs of communities with the expertise of NIEHS Center investigators and translational services provided through COEP outreach programs. The Forum process also creates leadership cores within environmentally challenged communities that facilitate the ongoing translational process and maintain the vital linkage between the health needs of communities and the analytic tools and the field and clinical technologies of the environmental sciences.     

Bridging epidemiology and model organisms to increase understanding of endocrine disrupting chemicals and human health effects

Concerning temporal trends in human reproductive health has prompted concern about the role of environmentally mediated risk factors. The population is exposed to chemicals present in air, water, food and in a variety of consumer and personal care products, subsequently multiple chemicals are found human populations around the globe. Recent reviews find that endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) can adversely affect reproductive and developmental health. However, there are still many knowledge gaps. This paper reviews some of the key scientific concepts relevant to integrating information from human epidemiologic and model organisms to understand the relationship between EDC exposure and adverse human health effects. Additionally, areas of new insights which influence the interpretation of the science are briefly reviewed, including: enhanced understanding of toxicity pathways; importance of timing of exposure; contribution of multiple chemical exposures; and low dose effects. Two cases are presented, thyroid disrupting chemicals and anti-androgens chemicals, which illustrate how our knowledge of the relationship between EDCs and adverse human health effects is strengthened and data gaps reduced when we integrate findings from animal and human studies.     

Has the mist been peered through? Revisiting the building blocks of human health risk assessment for electronic cigarette use

Electronic cigarettes, battery-powered nicotine delivery devices, have been increasingly used in the past decade. This critical review provides a qualitative research synthesis of the human health risks associated with E-vapor inhalation in the peer-reviewed literature and our own preliminary experimental results. E-cigarettes may be as efficient as traditional cigarettes in nicotine delivery, especially for experienced users, and studies suggest lower emissions of air toxics from E-cigarette vapor and lower second- and third-hand vapor exposures. Some toxic emissions may however surpass those of traditional cigarettes, especially under high voltage vaping conditions. Experimentally, E-vapor/E-liquid exposures reduce cell viability and promote pro-inflammatory cytokine release. User vulnerability to concomitant environmental agent exposures, such as viruses and bacteria, may potentially be increased. While evidence to date suggests that E-cigarettes release fewer toxins and carcinogens compared to cigarettes, E-vapor is not safe and might adversely affect human immune functions. Major knowledge gaps hinder risk quantification and effective regulation of E-cigarette products including: lack of long-term exposure studies, lack of understanding of biological mechanisms associated with exposure, and lack of integration of exposure and toxicity assessments. Better data are needed to inform human health risk assessments and understand the public health impact of E-vapor exposures.     

Issues in Exposure and Dose Assessment for Epidemiology and Risk Assessment

Epidemiologic studies have been effective in identifying human environmental and occupational hazards. However, most epidemiologic data has been difficult to use in quantitative risk assessments because of the vague specification of exposure and dose. Toxicologic animal studies have used applied doses (quantities administered, or exposures with fixed duration) and well characterized end points to determine effects. However, direct use of animal data in human risk assessment has been limited by uncertainties in the extrapolation. The applied dose paradigm of toxicology is not suited for cross species extrapolation, nor for use in epidemiology as a dose metric because of the complexity of human exposures. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling can estimate the time course of tissue concentrations in humans, given an exposure-time profile, and it has been used for extrapolating findings from animals to humans. It is proposed that human PBPK modeling can be used in appropriately designed epidemiologic studies to estimate tissue concentrations. Secondly, tissue time courses can be used to form dose metrics based on the type and time course of adverse effects. These dose metrics will strengthen the determination of epidemiologic dose-response relationships by reducing misclassification. Findings from this approach can be readily integrated into quantitative risk assessment.     

Genomics: implications for toxicology

The primary goal of the Environmental Genome Project (EGP) is the identification of human polymorphisms indicative of susceptibility to specific environmental agents. Despite evidence for a substantial genetic contribution to disease variation in the population, progress towards identifying specific genes has been slow. To date, most of the advances in our understanding of human diseases has come from genetic analyses of monogenic diseases that affect a relatively small portion of the population. The principal strategy of the EGP involves resequencing DNA samples from populations representative of the US racial and ethnic groups to develop a database of variations. Polymorphisms in specific genes may also be detected by gene-expression profiling. The identification of polymorphisms by resequencing is straightforward, and can be accomplished with minimal difficulty. Gene-expression profiling is still problematic; however, determining the functional significance of the allelic variations will be a monumental challenge involving sophisticated proteomics and population-based and animal model studies. These studies will change radically the practice of public health and clinical medicine, and the approach to the development of pharmaceuticals.     

The Use of Epidemiology in Risk Assessment: Challenges and Opportunities

The assessment of risk from environmental and occupational exposures incorporates and synthesizes data from a variety of scientific disciplines including toxicology and epidemiology. Epidemiological data have offered valuable contributions to the identification of human health hazards, estimation of human exposures, quantification of the exposure–response relation, and characterization of risks to specific target populations including sensitive populations. As with any scientific discipline, there are some uncertainties inherent in these data; however, the best human health risk assessments utilize all available information, characterizing strengths and limitations as appropriate. Human health risk assessors evaluating environmental and occupational exposures have raised concerns about the validity of using epidemiological data for risk assessment due to actual or perceived study limitations. This article highlights three concerns commonly raised during the development of human health risk assessments of environmental and occupational exposures: (a) error in the measurement of exposure, (b) potential confounding, and (c) the interpretation of non-linear or non-monotonic exposure–response data. These issues are often the content of scientific disagreement and debate among the human health risk assessment community, and we explore how these concerns may be contextualized, addressed, and often ameliorated.     

Potential risk of asthma associated with in utero exposure to xenobiotics

The incidence of asthma, a complex disease and significant public health problem, has been increasing over the last 30 years for unknown reasons. Changes in environmental exposures or lifestyle may be involved. In some cases asthma may originate in utero or in early life. Associations have been found between in utero exposures to several xenobiotics and increased risk of asthma. There is convincing evidence that maternal smoking and/or in utero and perinatal exposure to environmental tobacco smoke are associated with increased risk of asthma. Similar effects have been demonstrated in animal models of allergic asthma. Evidence also suggests that in utero and/or early‐life exposures to various ambient air pollutants may increase the risk of asthma although supporting animal data are very limited. A few studies have suggested that in utero exposure to acetaminophen is associated with increased risk of asthma; however, animal data are lacking. Various vitamin deficiencies and supplements during pregnancy have been studied. In general, it appears that vitamins A, C, and E have protective effects and vitamins D and B may, in some instances, increase the risk, but the data are not conclusive. Some studies related to in utero exposures to polychlorinated biphenyls and bisphenol A and asthma risk are also reported. The underlying mechanisms for an association between xenobiotic exposures and asthma remain a matter of speculation. Genetic predisposition and epigenetic changes have been explored. The developing immune, respiratory, and nervous systems are potential targets. Oxidative stress and modulation of inflammation are thought to be involved. Birth Defects Research (Part C) 99:1–13, 2013. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Appropriate use of animal models in the assessment of risk during prenatal development: an illustration using inorganic arsenic

BACKGROUND: Assessing risks to human development from chemical exposure typically requires integrating findings from laboratory animal and human studies. METHODS: Using a case study approach, we present a program designed to assess the risk of the occurrence of malformations from inorganic arsenic exposure. We discuss how epidemiological data should be evaluated for quality and criteria for determining whether an association is causal. In this case study, adequate epidemiological data were not available for evaluating the potential effect of arsenic on development. Consequently, results from appropriately designed, conducted, and interpreted developmental toxicity studies, which have been shown to be predictive of human risk under numerous scenarios, were used. In our case study, the existing animal data were not designed appropriately to assess risk from environmental exposures, although such studies may be useful for hazard identification. Because the human and animal databases were deficient, a research program comprising modern guideline toxicological studies was designed and conducted. RESULTS: The results of those studies in rats, mice, and rabbits indicate that oral and inhalational exposures to inorganic arsenic do not cause structural malformations, and inhalational exposures produced no developmental effects at all. The new study results are discussed in conjunction with considerations of metabolism, toxicokinetics, and maternal toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available experimental data, and absent contrary findings from adequately conducted epidemiological studies, we conclude that exposure to inorganic arsenic by environmentally relevant routes poses no risk of the occurrence of malformations and little risk of other prenatal developmental toxicity in developing humans without concomitant and near-lethal toxicological effects in mothers.     

From “Us vs. Them” to “Shared Risk”: Can Animals Help Link Environmental Factors to Human Health?

Linking human health risk to environmental factors can be a challenge for clinicians, public health departments, and environmental health researchers. While it is possible that nonhuman animal species could help identify and mitigate such linkages, the fields of animal and human health remain far apart, and the prevailing human health attitude toward disease events in animals is an “us vs. them” paradigm that considers the degree of threat that animals themselves pose to humans. An alternative would be the development of the concepts of animals as models for environmentally induced disease, as well as potential “sentinels” providing early warning of both noninfectious and infectious hazards in the environment. For such concepts to truly develop, critical knowledge gaps need to be addressed using a “shared risk” paradigm based on the comparative biology of environment–host interactions in different species.     

Environmental Epigenomics,Imprinting and Disease Susceptibility

On Tuesday, November 2, 2005 over 450 scientists representing 14 nations converged on the Washington Duke Inn, Durham, NC, USA to discuss, learn and exchange information on how environmental influences can exert impacts on health not only on the individual that has been exposed but also for up to four subsequent generations in some human and animal models tested. The meeting entitled “Environmental Epigenomics, Imprinting and Disease Susceptibility” was sponsored by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center. The meeting featured presentations from many of the leading authorities/experts in epigenomics in the world and approximately 70 poster presentations, of which twelve were selected for oral presentation. The meeting was organized into nine scientific sessions spread over two and a half days that addressed the fetal basis of disease, epigenetics and gene regulation, epigenetics and cancer, therapeutic and reproductive cloning, stem cell differentiation, epigenetics and chronic diseases and epigenetics and neurodevelopment. The opening session introduced the meeting co-organizers, Randy Jirtle of Duke University Medical Center and Frederick Tyson of NIEHS, to conference participants and included greetings from. Christopher Willett, Chair of Duke Radiation Oncology Department, and William Schlessinger, Dean of the Nicolas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences. David Schwartz, Director of the NIEHS, set the tone for the conference with an overview lecture that identified research priorities of the NIEHS and pointed out the intersections between the environmental genomics component of NIEHS priorities and the environmental epigenomics. He noted that NIEHS research priorities will emphasize and coordinate efforts aimed at the study of complex human diseases. The environmental genomics infrastructural resources developed by NIEHS including over 500 re-sequenced environmentally responsive genes, over 50 humanized mouse strains, and progress towards establishing gene expression standards are available for utilization in the integration of epigenomic studies and the analysis of complex human diseases. Just as epigenomics is becoming increasingly more important in Schwartz’s own asthma research, this conference identified additional opportunities for the integration of environmental epigenomics and complex human disease.      

Phytotechnologies – Preventing Exposures,Improving Public Health

Phytotechnologies have potential to reduce the amount or toxicity of deleterious chemicals and agents, and thereby, can reduce human exposures to hazardous substances. As such, phytotechnologies are tools for primary prevention in public health. Recent research demonstrates phytotechnologies can be uniquely tailored for effective exposure prevention in a variety of applications. In addition to exposure prevention, plants can be used as sensors to identify environmental contamination and potential exposures. In this paper, we have presented applications and research developments in a framework to illustrate how phytotechnologies can meet basic public health needs for access to clean water, air, and food. Because communities can often integrate plant-based technologies at minimal cost and with low infrastructure needs, the use of these technologies can be applied broadly to minimize potential contaminant exposure and improve environmental quality. These natural treatment systems also provide valuable ecosystem services to communities and society. In the future, integrating and coordinating phytotechnology activities with public health research will allow technology development focused on prevention of environmental exposures to toxic compounds. Hence, phytotechnologies may provide sustainable solutions to environmental exposure challenges, improving public health and potentially reducing the burden of disease.     

Center for the evaluation of risks to human reproduction--the first five years

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (NTP-CERHR) was established by the NTP and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) in 1998 to address the impact of chemical exposures on human reproductive and developmental health and to serve as an environmental and reproductive health resource for government agencies and the general public. The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the Center activities and a summary of NTP conclusions on chemicals evaluated during this time period. CERHR evaluations involve the critical review of reproductive, developmental, and other relevant toxicity data by independent panels of scientists. The products of these evaluations are expert panel reports. The public has opportunities to provide oral comments at the panel meeting and written comments on draft and final expert panel reports. The NTP evaluates these comments, the conclusions of the expert panel, and any new data not available at the time of the panel meeting, and prepares an NTP brief that describes in plain language the NTP's conclusions on the reproductive and developmental hazard from specified chemical exposures. The NTP brief, expert panel report, and public comments comprise the NTP monograph on the chemical. Monographs are sent to federal regulatory agencies, the NTP Executive Committee, and the NTP Board of Scientific Counselors, and are publicly available. Over the last five years, CERHR conducted expert panel evaluations on 14 chemicals. At this time, 13 panel reports have been published and 12 NTP-CERHR monographs have been issued. Additionally, CERHR conducted a 2-day workshop on the role of thyroid hormones in reproductive and developmental health.