Courage for simplification and imperfection in the 21st century assessment of "Endocrine disruption"

Lade...
Vorschaubild
Dateien
Dietrich.pdf
Dietrich.pdfGröße: 1.34 MBDownloads: 383
Datum
2010
Herausgeber:innen
Kontakt
ISSN der Zeitschrift
Electronic ISSN
ISBN
Bibliografische Daten
Verlag
Schriftenreihe
Auflagebezeichnung
DOI (zitierfähiger Link)
ArXiv-ID
Internationale Patentnummer
Angaben zur Forschungsförderung
Projekt
Open Access-Veröffentlichung
Open Access Green
Sammlungen
Core Facility der Universität Konstanz
Gesperrt bis
Titel in einer weiteren Sprache
Publikationstyp
Zeitschriftenartikel
Publikationsstatus
Published
Erschienen in
Alternatives to Animal Experimentation (ALTEX). 2010, 27(4), pp. 264-278
Zusammenfassung

“Endocrine disruption” is a public and political buzzword that has and is still receiving high media attention. Based on the latter, numerous tiered testing strategies have evolved that should ensure that humans will not run a health risk due to the voluntary or involuntary exposure to endocrine active compounds (EAS). An analysis of the currently available knowledge on EAS mediated endocrine disruption in humans demonstrates that there are very few EAS that causally induce endocrine disruptive effects. Conversely, the association EAS exposure with increased risk or incidences of endocrine disruptive effects in humans are difficult to reconcile with the results from animal studies. Consequently, the analysis of the traditional and historically grown tiered approach in EAS testing, often at very high doses or concentrations, demonstrates that the likelihood of detecting EAS with true potential for endocrine disruption in humans is very low, primarily due to inherent differences between the surrogate species and the human, and will provide for a high number of false-positives commensurate with low efficiency, high cost, and often violently disputed interpretations of what the data would mean for human risk assessment. It is thus proposed that EAS testing for putative endocrine disruption in humans and qualitative and quantitative evaluation for risk assessment purposes should be entirely focused on human data, and derived from a combination of in silico and in vitro systems, PBPK modeling, metabonomic or genomic profiling of human tissue, realistic human EAS exposure, dose-effect principles and adverse effect scenarios, human patient or exposure cohort datasets, etc. Animals models should be used only where specific pathways in endocrine physiology and thus development and reproduction is nearly identical to the situation in the human, thereby guaranteeing that causal exposure and effect relationships in the animals can be extrapolated to the human.

Zusammenfassung in einer weiteren Sprache
Fachgebiet (DDC)
570 Biowissenschaften, Biologie
Schlagwörter
risk assessment in humans, integrated testing strategies, combinatorial toxicology
Konferenz
Rezension
undefined / . - undefined, undefined
Forschungsvorhaben
Organisationseinheiten
Zeitschriftenheft
Datensätze
Zitieren
ISO 690DIETRICH, Daniel R., 2010. Courage for simplification and imperfection in the 21st century assessment of "Endocrine disruption". In: Alternatives to Animal Experimentation (ALTEX). 2010, 27(4), pp. 264-278
BibTex
@article{Dietrich2010Coura-13561,
  year={2010},
  title={Courage for simplification and imperfection in the 21st century assessment of "Endocrine disruption"},
  number={4},
  volume={27},
  journal={Alternatives to Animal Experimentation (ALTEX)},
  pages={264--278},
  author={Dietrich, Daniel R.}
}
RDF
<rdf:RDF
    xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/"
    xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#"
    xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
    xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#"
    xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > 
  <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/13561">
    <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">“Endocrine disruption” is a public and political buzzword that has and is still receiving high media attention. Based on the latter, numerous tiered testing strategies have evolved that should ensure that humans will not run a health risk due to the voluntary or involuntary exposure to endocrine active compounds (EAS). An analysis of the currently available knowledge on EAS mediated endocrine disruption in humans demonstrates that there are very few EAS that causally induce endocrine disruptive effects. Conversely, the association EAS exposure with increased risk or incidences of endocrine disruptive effects in humans are difficult to reconcile with the results from animal studies. Consequently, the analysis of the traditional and historically grown tiered approach in EAS testing, often at very high doses or concentrations, demonstrates that the likelihood of detecting EAS with true potential for endocrine disruption in humans is very low, primarily due to inherent differences between the surrogate species and the human, and will provide for a high number of false-positives commensurate with low efficiency, high cost, and often violently disputed interpretations of what the data would mean for human risk assessment. It is thus proposed that EAS testing for putative endocrine disruption in humans and qualitative and quantitative evaluation for risk assessment purposes should be entirely focused on human data, and derived from a combination of in silico and in vitro systems, PBPK modeling, metabonomic or genomic profiling of human tissue, realistic human EAS exposure, dose-effect principles and adverse effect scenarios, human patient or exposure cohort datasets, etc. Animals models should be used only where specific pathways in endocrine physiology and thus development and reproduction is nearly identical to the situation in the human, thereby guaranteeing that causal exposure and effect relationships in the animals can be extrapolated to the human.</dcterms:abstract>
    <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2011-10-30T23:25:04Z</dcterms:available>
    <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2011-06-01T07:23:26Z</dc:date>
    <dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/13561/1/Dietrich.pdf"/>
    <dc:creator>Dietrich, Daniel R.</dc:creator>
    <dspace:hasBitstream rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/13561/1/Dietrich.pdf"/>
    <dcterms:rights rdf:resource="https://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/"/>
    <dc:rights>terms-of-use</dc:rights>
    <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/>
    <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/28"/>
    <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/28"/>
    <dcterms:issued>2010</dcterms:issued>
    <bibo:uri rdf:resource="http://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/13561"/>
    <dcterms:bibliographicCitation>First publ. in: Alternatives to Animal Experimentation (ALTEX) 27 (2010), 4, pp. 264-278</dcterms:bibliographicCitation>
    <dcterms:title>Courage for simplification and imperfection in the 21st century assessment of "Endocrine disruption"</dcterms:title>
    <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
    <dc:contributor>Dietrich, Daniel R.</dc:contributor>
    <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/>
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
Interner Vermerk
xmlui.Submission.submit.DescribeStep.inputForms.label.kops_note_fromSubmitter
Kontakt
URL der Originalveröffentl.
Prüfdatum der URL
Prüfungsdatum der Dissertation
Finanzierungsart
Kommentar zur Publikation
Allianzlizenz
Corresponding Authors der Uni Konstanz vorhanden
Internationale Co-Autor:innen
Universitätsbibliographie
Ja
Begutachtet
Diese Publikation teilen