A retrospective performance assessment of the developmental neurotoxicity study in support of OECD test guideline 426.

Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460-0001, USA.
Environmental Health Perspectives (Impact Factor: 7.03). 02/2009; 117(1):17-25. DOI: 10.1289/ehp.11447
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE: We conducted a review of the history and performance of developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) testing in support of the finalization and implementation of Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) DNT test guideline 426 (TG 426). INFORMATION SOURCES AND ANALYSIS: In this review we summarize extensive scientific efforts that form the foundation for this testing paradigm, including basic neurotoxicology research, interlaboratory collaborative studies, expert workshops, and validation studies, and we address the relevance, applicability, and use of the DNT study in risk assessment. CONCLUSIONS: The OECD DNT guideline represents the best available science for assessing the potential for DNT in human health risk assessment, and data generated with this protocol are relevant and reliable for the assessment of these end points. The test methods used have been subjected to an extensive history of international validation, peer review, and evaluation, which is contained in the public record. The reproducibility, reliability, and sensitivity of these methods have been demonstrated, using a wide variety of test substances, in accordance with OECD guidance on the validation and international acceptance of new or updated test methods for hazard characterization. Multiple independent, expert scientific peer reviews affirm these conclusions.

1 Bookmark
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Differences in the physiology and biological susceptibilities of adults and infants have led to growing interest in safety evaluation methods for exposures from infant formula packaging. In addition to potential physiological differences, infants aged 0 - 6 months may consume a sole source of food, infant formula or breast milk, and consume higher amounts of food relative to body weight compared to adults. While the duration of the exposure is short compared to the expected lifespan of the individual, it occurs during a period of important developmental processes. The purpose of this document is to (1) review key biological and exposure elements that may impact the evaluation of safety for food contact products intended for use by infants, (2) summarize the current reproductive and developmental toxicity testing protocols available, and (3) identify potential data gaps concerning this period of development.
    Food and chemical toxicology: an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association 05/2014; · 2.99 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Developmental toxicity in vitro assays have hitherto been established as stand-alone systems, based on a limited number of toxicants. Within the embryonic stem cell-based novel alternative tests project, we developed a test battery framework that allows inclusion of any developmental toxicity assay and that explores the responses of such test systems to a wide range of drug-like compounds. We selected 28 compounds, including several biologics (e.g., erythropoietin), classical pharmaceuticals (e.g., roflumilast) and also six environmental toxicants. The chemical, toxicological and clinical data of this screen library were compiled. In order to determine a non-cytotoxic concentration range, cytotoxicity data were obtained for all compounds from HEK293 cells and from murine embryonic stem cells. Moreover, an estimate of relevant exposures was provided by literature data mining. To evaluate feasibility of the suggested test framework, we selected a well-characterized assay that evaluates 'migration inhibition of neural crest cells.' Screening at the highest non-cytotoxic concentration resulted in 11 hits (e.g., geldanamycin, abiraterone, gefitinib, chlorpromazine, cyproconazole, arsenite). These were confirmed in concentration-response studies. Subsequent pharmacokinetic modeling indicated that triadimefon exerted its effects at concentrations relevant to the in vivo situation, and also interferon-β and polybrominated diphenyl ether showed effects within the same order of magnitude of concentrations that may be reached in humans. In conclusion, the test battery framework can identify compounds that disturb processes relevant for human development and therefore may represent developmental toxicants. The open structure of the strategy allows rich information to be generated on both the underlying library, and on any contributing assay.
    Archives of Toxicology 04/2014; · 5.08 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Neurodevelopmental disabilities, including autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia, and other cognitive impairments, affect millions of children worldwide, and some diagnoses seem to be increasing in frequency. Industrial chemicals that injure the developing brain are among the known causes for this rise in prevalence. In 2006, we did a systematic review and identified five industrial chemicals as developmental neurotoxicants: lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic, and toluene. Since 2006, epidemiological studies have documented six additional developmental neurotoxicants-manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and the polybrominated diphenyl ethers. We postulate that even more neurotoxicants remain undiscovered. To control the pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity, we propose a global prevention strategy. Untested chemicals should not be presumed to be safe to brain development, and chemicals in existing use and all new chemicals must therefore be tested for developmental neurotoxicity. To coordinate these efforts and to accelerate translation of science into prevention, we propose the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse.
    The Lancet Neurology 03/2014; 13(3):330-338. · 21.82 Impact Factor

Full-text (3 Sources)

Available from
May 29, 2014