DOCSLIB.ORG

Grouping of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals for Mixture Risk Assessment - Evidence from a Rat Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Grouping of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals for Mixture Risk Assessment - Evidence from a Rat Study Downloaded from orbit.dtu.dk on: Oct 07, 2021 Grouping of endocrine disrupting chemicals for mixture risk assessment - Evidence from a rat study Christiansen, Sofie; Axelstad, Marta Axelstad; Scholze, Martin; Johansson, Hanna Katarina Lilith; Hass, Ulla; Mandrup, Karen Mandrup; Frandsen, Henrik Lauritz; Frederiksen, Hanne; Isling, Louise Krag; Boberg, Julie Published in: Environment International Link to article, DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.105870 Publication date: 2020 Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link back to DTU Orbit Citation (APA): Christiansen, S., Axelstad, M. A., Scholze, M., Johansson, H. K. L., Hass, U., Mandrup, K. M., Frandsen, H. L., Frederiksen, H., Isling, L. K., & Boberg, J. (2020). Grouping of endocrine disrupting chemicals for mixture risk assessment - Evidence from a rat study. Environment International, 142, [105870]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.105870 General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Environment International 142 (2020) 105870 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Environment International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envint Grouping of endocrine disrupting chemicals for mixture risk assessment – Evidence from a rat study T ⁎ Sofie Christiansena, , Marta Axelstada, Martin Scholzeb, Hanna K.L. Johanssona, Ulla Hassa, Karen Mandrupa, Henrik Lauritz Frandsenc, Hanne Frederiksend, Louise Krag Islinga, Julie Boberga a Division of Diet, Disease Prevention and Toxicology, National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Kemitorvet Building 202, Kgs. Lyngby DK-2800, Denmark b Institute of Environment, Health and Societies, Brunel University London, Quad North, Kingston Lane, Uxbridge UB8 3PH, UK c Research Group for Analytical Food Chemistry, National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Kemitorvet Building 202, DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark d Department of Growth and Reproduction, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Handling Editor: Olga Kalantzi Exposure to mixtures of endocrine disrupting chemicals may contribute to the rising incidence of hormone- Keywords: related diseases in humans. Real-life mixtures are complex, comprised of chemicals with mixed modes of action, Mixture risk assessment and essential knowledge is often lacking on how to group such chemicals into cumulative assessment groups, Endocrine disruptive chemicals which is an essential prerequisite to conduct a chemical mixture risk assessment. EDC We investigated if mixtures of chemicals with diverse endocrine modes of action can cause mixture effects on Adverse outcome pathway hormone sensitive endpoints in developing and adult rat offspring after perinatal exposure. Wistar rats were exposed during pregnancy and lactation simultaneously to either bisphenol A and butylparaben (Emix), die- thylhexyl phthalate and procymidone (Amix), or a mixture of all four substances (Totalmix). In male offspring, the anogenital distance was significantly reduced and nipple retention increased in animals exposed to Amix and Totalmix, and the mixture effects were well approximated by the dose addition model. The combination of Amix and Emix responded with more marked changes on these and other endocrine-sensitive endpoints than each binary mixture on its own. Sperm counts were reduced by all exposures. These experimental outcomes suggest that the grouping of chemicals for mixture risk assessment should be based on common health outcomes rather than only similar modes or mechanisms of action. Mechanistic-based approaches such as the concept of Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) can provide important guidance if both the information on shared target tissues and the information on shared mode/mechanism of action are taken into account. 1. Introduction performing Mixture Risk Assessment (MRA), where the risk of com- bined exposures to multiple chemicals is assessed (Boberg et al., 2019; Chemical exposure is suspected to contribute to a high prevalence of Bopp et al., 2018; EC European Commision, 2012; EFSA, 2019; endocrine disorders in the Western world (WHO/UNEP, 2013). This Howdeshell et al., 2017). calls for an improved understanding of how exposure to complex che- There is clear experimental evidence that mixture effects can be mical mixtures in our everyday life may lead to adverse health effects anticipated for chemicals with similar mechanisms of action even at such as hormone-dependent cancers, fertility problems and congenital doses where each chemical is ineffective (Christiansen et al., 2012, malformations. Risk assessment of chemicals with mixed modes and 2009; Conley et al., 2018, 2016; Hass et al., 2012, 2007; Metzdorff mechanisms of action presents an unsolved challenge. et al., 2007; Silva et al., 2002). Experiments show that cumulative ef- Over the last decades, our understanding of combined exposures to fects of chemicals with the same molecular initiating events (e.g. AR environmental chemicals and how to assess the humans and the en- antagonism) follow the dose-addition principles (Christiansen et al., vironment has improved substantially (Kortenkamp and Faust, 2018). 2008; Hannas et al., 2011; Hass et al., 2007; Howdeshell et al., 2015, Consequently, scientific and regulatory focus has shifted from only 2008b, 2007; Metzdorff et al., 2007; Rider et al., 2009). Additionally, performing risk assessments for an individual substance towards dose-additive effects on androgen sensitive endpoints have been ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Christiansen). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.105870 Received 14 February 2020; Received in revised form 26 May 2020; Accepted 26 May 2020 Available online 24 June 2020 0160-4120/ © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/). S. Christiansen, et al. Environment International 142 (2020) 105870 demonstrated after exposure to anti-androgenic compounds with dif- variation in quality and outcomes (EFSA, 2015). Moreover, numerous in ferent mechanisms of action (Christiansen et al., 2009; Conley et al., vitro studies have demonstrated a weak anti-androgenic activity for BPA 2018) and even for multi-causal effects such as reduced birth weight and butylparaben (Chen et al., 2007; Kjærstad et al., 2010; Reif et al., (Hass et al., 2017). This evidence for mixture effects of chemicals with 2010; Rosenmai et al., 2014; Satoh et al., 2005). different mechanisms of action implies that mixture risk assessment In the current study we exposed pregnant and lactating rats to a should go beyond grouping based on shared mechanisms of action. binary mixture of DEHP and Procymidone (Amix), a binary mixture of In the present paper, we propose to group chemicals based on a BPA and butylparaben (Emix), and a combination of all four com- common target tissue rather than common mechanisms of action. In pounds (Totalmix) and we evaluated both early androgen-sensitive line with this, EFSA and ECHA propose tiered strategies for component- endpoints (AGD, nipple retention, reproductive organ weights) and based mixture risk assessment, where at the first tiers chemicals are late-life effects such as sperm count. Doses were selected based on our grouped on basis of shared effects on target organs, and at more refined previous rat studies showing effects on a common adverse endpoint, tiers chemicals are grouped based on mode or mechanism of action male anogenital distance (AGD) (Boberg et al., 2016; Christiansen et al., (ECHA, 2017; EFSA, 2019, 2013). 2010; Christiansen et al., 2014; Hass et al., 2012, 2007), see Fig. 1. The In developmental and reproductive toxicity studies, commonly used lowest dose of each compound corresponded to around 5% reduction in predictive endpoints for male reproductive disorders are the anogenital AGD in previous studies (Emix-low, Amix-low, Totalmix-low). The distance (AGD) and nipple retention (NR). Both are considered an- highest doses were twice the lowest dose. drogen-sensitive and are expected to be primarily affected by anti-an- Acknowledging that androgens play a key role not only in early life drogens (Christiansen et al., 2008; Schwartz et al., 2019). Other end- sexual development but also during puberty (Monosson et al., 1999), points such as sperm count and development of testis, mammary gland we wanted to investigate if exposure to the same mixtures of EDs both and prostate can be influenced via both androgen and estrogen sensitive perinatally and during puberty would lead to an increased sensitivity pathways. for adverse effects later in life. This part of the study design was in- Importantly, numerous EDCs act via more than one endocrine me- spired by a study showing how adverse effects of perinatal BPA ex- chanism of action, thus
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Evaluation of Tebuconazole, Triclosan, Methylparaben and Ethylparaben According to the Danish Proposal for Criteria for Endocrine Disrupters
    Downloaded from orbit.dtu.dk on: Sep 26, 2021 Evaluation of tebuconazole, triclosan, methylparaben and ethylparaben according to the Danish proposal for criteria for endocrine disrupters Hass, Ulla; Christiansen, Sofie; Petersen, Marta Axelstad; Boberg, Julie; Andersson, Anna-Maria ; Skakkebæk, Niels Erik ; Bay, Katrine ; Holbech, Henrik ; Lund Kinnberg, Karin ; Bjerregaard, Poul Publication date: 2012 Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link back to DTU Orbit Citation (APA): Hass, U., Christiansen, S., Petersen, M. A., Boberg, J., Andersson, A-M., Skakkebæk, N. E., Bay, K., Holbech, H., Lund Kinnberg, K., & Bjerregaard, P. (2012). Evaluation of tebuconazole, triclosan, methylparaben and ethylparaben according to the Danish proposal for criteria for endocrine disrupters. Danish Centre on Endocrine Disrupters. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will
    [Show full text]
  • COMBINED LIST of Particularly Hazardous Substances
    COMBINED LIST of Particularly Hazardous Substances revised 2/4/2021 IARC list 1 are Carcinogenic to humans list compiled by Hector Acuna, UCSB IARC list Group 2A Probably carcinogenic to humans IARC list Group 2B Possibly carcinogenic to humans If any of the chemicals listed below are used in your research then complete a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the product as described in the Chemical Hygiene Plan. Prop 65 known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity Material(s) not on the list does not preclude one from completing an SOP. Other extremely toxic chemicals KNOWN Carcinogens from National Toxicology Program (NTP) or other high hazards will require the development of an SOP. Red= added in 2020 or status change Reasonably Anticipated NTP EPA Haz list COMBINED LIST of Particularly Hazardous Substances CAS Source from where the material is listed. 6,9-Methano-2,4,3-benzodioxathiepin, 6,7,8,9,10,10- hexachloro-1,5,5a,6,9,9a-hexahydro-, 3-oxide Acutely Toxic Methanimidamide, N,N-dimethyl-N'-[2-methyl-4-[[(methylamino)carbonyl]oxy]phenyl]- Acutely Toxic 1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-(4-methylcyclohexyl)-1-nitrosourea (Methyl-CCNU) Prop 65 KNOWN Carcinogens NTP 1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-cyclohexyl-1-nitrosourea (CCNU) IARC list Group 2A Reasonably Anticipated NTP 1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-cyclohexyl-1-nitrosourea (CCNU) (Lomustine) Prop 65 1-(o-Chlorophenyl)thiourea Acutely Toxic 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane IARC list Group 2B 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Prop 65 IARC list Group 2B 1,1-Dichloro-2,2-bis(p -chloropheny)ethylene (DDE) Prop 65 1,1-Dichloroethane
    [Show full text]
  • Toxicological Profile for Bisphenol A
    TT TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILE FOR BISPHENOL A September 2009 Integrated Risk Assessment Branch Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment California Environmental Protection Agency Toxicological Profile for Bisphenol A September 2009 Prepared by Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Prepared for Ocean Protection Council Under an Interagency Agreement, Number 07-055, with the State Coastal Conservancy LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Authors Jim Carlisle, D.V.M., Ph.D., Senior Toxicologist, Integrated Risk Assessment Branch Dave Chan, D. Env., Staff Toxicologist, Integrated Risk Assessment Branch Mari Golub, Ph.D., Staff Toxicologist, Reproductive and Cancer Hazard Assessment Branch Sarah Henkel, Ph.D., California Sea Grant Fellow, California Ocean Science Trust Page Painter, M.D., Ph.D., Senior Toxicologist, Integrated Risk Assessment Branch K. Lily Wu, Ph.D., Associate Toxicologist, Reproductive and Cancer Hazard Assessment Branch Reviewers David Siegel, Ph.D., Chief, Integrated Risk Assessment Branch i Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ iv Use and Exposure ............................................................................................................................... iv Environmental Occurrence ................................................................................................................. iv Effects on Aquatic Life ......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • California Proposition 65 (Prop65)
    20 NOVEMBER 2018 To Whom It May Concern: Certificate of Compliance California Proposition 65 California’s Proposition 65 entitles California consumers to special warnings for products that contain chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm if those products expose consumers to such chemicals above certain threshold levels. This is to certify that Alliance Memory comply with Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly known as California Proposition 65, that are ‘known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity’ as of December 29, 2017, by following the labelling guidelines set out therein. Alliance Memory labelling system clearly states a ‘Prop65 warning’ as and when necessary, on product packaging that is destined for the state of California, USA. This document certifies that to the best of our current knowledge and belief and under normal usage, Alliance Memory’s IC products are in compliance with California Proposition 65 – The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, 1986) and do not contain chemical elements of those listed within the California Proposition 65 chemical listing as shown below. Signature : Date: 20 November 2018 Name : Kim Bagby Title : Director QRA Department/Alliance Memory California Proposition 65 list of chemicals. The following is a list of chemicals published as a requirement of Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly known as California Proposition 65, that are ‘known to the state to cause
    [Show full text]
  • Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019 Theinternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) Was Established in 1980
    The WHO Recommended Classi cation of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classi cation 2019 cation Hazard of Pesticides by and Guidelines to Classi The WHO Recommended Classi The WHO Recommended Classi cation of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classi cation 2019 The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019 TheInternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) was established in 1980. The overall objectives of the IPCS are to establish the scientific basis for assessment of the risk to human health and the environment from exposure to chemicals, through international peer review processes, as a prerequisite for the promotion of chemical safety, and to provide technical assistance in strengthening national capacities for the sound management of chemicals. This publication was developed in the IOMC context. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or stated policies of individual IOMC Participating Organizations. The Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC) was established in 1995 following recommendations made by the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development to strengthen cooperation and increase international coordination in the field of chemical safety. The Participating Organizations are: FAO, ILO, UNDP, UNEP, UNIDO, UNITAR, WHO, World Bank and OECD. The purpose of the IOMC is to promote coordination of the policies and activities pursued by the Participating Organizations, jointly or separately, to achieve the sound management of chemicals in relation to human health and the environment. WHO recommended classification of pesticides by hazard and guidelines to classification, 2019 edition ISBN 978-92-4-000566-2 (electronic version) ISBN 978-92-4-000567-9 (print version) ISSN 1684-1042 © World Health Organization 2020 Some rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Commission Staff Working Document "Monitoring of Pesticide Residues in Products of Plant Origin in the European Union, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein 2006"
    COUNCIL OF Brussels, 3 December 2008 THE EUROPEAN UNION 16734/08 AGRI 424 ENV 933 COVER NOTE from: Secretary-General of the European Commission, signed by Mr Jordi AYET PUIGARNAU, Director date of receipt: 21 November 2008 to: Mr Javier SOLANA, Secretary-General/High Representative Subject: Commission Staff Working Document "Monitoring of Pesticide Residues in Products of Plant Origin in the European Union, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein 2006" Delegations will find attached Commission document SEC(2008) 2902 final. ________________________ Encl.: SEC(2008) 2902 final 16734/08 VLG/sla 1 DG B II EN COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 20/11/2008 SEC(2008) 2902 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Monitoring of Pesticide Residues in Products of Plant Origin in the European Union, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein 2006 EN EN COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Monitoring of Pesticide Residues in Products of Plant Origin in the European Union, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS & SPECIAL TERMS USED IN THE REPORT .....................................4 1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................5 2. Legal basis................................................................................................................5 3. Maximum Residue Levels (MRL), Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADI) and Acute Reference Doses (ARfD) ..........................................................................................6 4.
    [Show full text]
  • A Toxic Eden: Poisons in Your Garden an Analysis of Bee-Harming Pesticides in Ornamental Plants Sold in Europe
    A TOXIC EDEN: POISONS IN YOUR GARDEN AN ANALYSIS OF BEE-HARMING PESTICIDES IN ORNAMENTAL PLANTS SOLD IN EUROPE A TOXIC EDEN: POISONS IN YOUR GARDEN AN ANALYSIS OF BEE-HARMING PESTICIDES IN ORNAMENTAL PLANTS SOLD IN EUROPE April 2014 Technical Report 1 A TOXIC EDEN: POISONS IN YOUR GARDEN AN ANALYSIS OF BEE-HARMING PESTICIDES IN ORNAMENTAL PLANTS SOLD IN EUROPE A TOXIC EDEN: POISONS IN YOUR GARDEN An analysis of bee-harming pesticides in ornamental plants sold in Europe Summary and recommendations by Greenpeace 3 1. Introduction 5 2. Materials & Methods 6 2.1 Overview of Results 6 2.2 Bee-harming pesticides 8 2.3 The maximum concentrations of bee-harming pesticides detected 10 2.4 Most frequently detected pesticides 11 2.5 Authorization status of the detected pesticides 14 2.6 Pesticide residue categories 16 2.7 Manufacturer/Authorization Holder of the bee-harming pesticides 17 3. Annex 18 4. Literature 41 For more information contact: [email protected] Written by: Wolfgang Reuter, ForCare, Freiburg - Germany Dipl.-Biol., Fach-Toxikologe Layout by: Juliana Devis Cover image by: Axel Kirchhof Greenpeace International Ottho Heldringstraat 5 1066 AZ Amsterdam The Netherlands greenpeace.org © Greenpeace / Herman van Bekkem © Greenpeace 2 A TOXIC EDEN: POISONS IN YOUR GARDEN AN ANALYSIS OF BEE-HARMING PESTICIDES IN ORNAMENTAL PLANTS SOLD IN EUROPE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDatIONS BY GREENPEACE © Greenpeace / Christine Gebeneter Current industrial agriculture relies on diverse synthetic chemical inputs, ranging from synthetic fertilisers through to toxic pesticides. These pesticides are designed to address insect and fungal pests as well as control weed plant species.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Reproductive Toxins
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT SAFE DRINKING WATER AND TOXIC ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1986 CHEMICALS KNOWN TO THE STATE TO CAUSE CANCER OR REPRODUCTIVE TOXICITY November 23, 2018 The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 requires that the Governor revise and republish at least once per year the list of chemicals known to the State to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. The identification number indicated in the following list is the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Registry Number. No CAS number is given when several substances are presented as a single listing. The date refers to the initial appearance of the chemical on the list. For easy reference, chemicals which are shown underlined are newly added. Chemicals or endpoints shown in strikeout were placed on the Proposition 65 list on the date noted, and have subsequently been removed. Chemical Type of Toxicity CAS No. Date Listed A-alpha-C (2-Amino-9H-pyrido Cancer 26148-68-5 January 1, 1990 [2,3-b]indole) Abiraterone acetate developmental, female, 154229-18-2 April 8, 2016 male Acetaldehyde Cancer 75-07-0 April 1, 1988 Acetamide cancer 60-35-5 January 1, 1990 Acetazolamide Developmental 59-66-5 August 20, 1999 Acetochlor Cancer 34256-82-1 January 1, 1989 Acetohydroxamic acid Developmental 546-88-3 April 1, 1990 2-Acetylaminofluorene Cancer 53-96-3 July 1, 1987 Acifluorfen sodium Cancer 62476-59-9 January 1, 1990 Acrylamide Cancer 79-06-1 January 1, 1990 Acrylamide developmental, male 79-06-1 February
    [Show full text]
  • PAN International List of Highly Hazardous Pesticides
    PAN International List of Highly Hazardous Pesticides (PAN List of HHPs) December 2016 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Pesticide Action Network International Impressum © PAN International c/o PAN Germany, Nernstweg 32, 22765 Hamburg, Germany December, 2016 This 'PAN International List of Highly Hazardous Pesticides' was initially drafted by PAN Germany for PAN International. The 1st version was adopted by PAN International 2008 and published January 2009. Since then the list has been updated several times as classifications changed for numerous individual pesticides. In 2013/2014 the PAN International Working Group on “HHP criteria” revised the criteria used in this list to identify highly hazardous pesticides. This December 2016 version of the list is based on these hazard criteria adopted by PAN International in June 2014. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Contents Background and introduction ................................................................................................. 4 About this List ........................................................................................................................ 8 What is new in this List ........................................................................................................ 10 Work in progress ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix B Androgen 07/03 13 DRAFT -- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
    Appendix B Androgen 07/03 13 DRAFT -- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Appendix B: Mammalian Studies Describing the Effects of Chemicals That Disrupt the Androgen Signaling Pathways 1 | P a g e Appendix B Androgen 07/03 13 DRAFT -- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Contents of the Appendix of Studies Describing the Effects of Chemicals That Disrupt the Androgen Signaling Pathways *Numbers of studies reviewed (studies with 6 or more dose groups, total studies examined) B. ANDROGEN SIGNALING PATHWAY B.1 Androgen Receptor Antagonists B.1.a Flutamide (FLU) (2, 9)* B.1.b Vinclozolin (VIN) (4, 8) B.1.c Procymidone (4, 6) B.1.d Fenitrothion (1, 4) B.2 Inhibition of Androgen Synthesis –Phthalates (12, 26) B2.a DEHP - In utero and lactational studies in rats B2.b DBP - In utero and lactational studies in rats B2.c Peripubertal exposure effects of DEHP on male rat reproductive development B2.d Peripubertal exposure effects of DBP on male rat reproductive development B.2.e In utero and lactational exposure effects of DEHP reproductive development in male mice B.3 Inhibition of DHT Synthesis –Finasteride (2, 6) B.4 Hypothesized alteration of the androgen signaling pathway -Semicarbazide (1, 3) B.5 Pesticides that disrupt the Androgen signaling pathway via multiple mechanisms B.5.a Prochloraz (PCZ) (3, 5) B.5.b Linuron (0, 6) B.6 Androgen Receptor Agonists B.6.a Trenbolone (TB) (0, 2) B.6.b Testosterone (12, 13) B.7 Selective Androgen Receptor Modulators (SARMS) (3, 7) B.7.a LGD2226 B.7.b C6 B.7.c LGD-4033 in men B.7.d LGD2226 B.7.e S-101479 B.7.f JNJ-28330835 B.7.g TFM-4AS-1 B.8 Disruption of androgen-dependent tissues via the AhR 2 | P a g e Appendix B Androgen 07/03 13 DRAFT -- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE B.
    [Show full text]
  • Antiandrogenic Properties of Parabens and Other Phenolic Containing Small Molecules in Personal Care Products
    Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 221 (2007) 278–284 www.elsevier.com/locate/ytaap Antiandrogenic properties of parabens and other phenolic containing small molecules in personal care products Jiangang Chen a, Ki Chang Ahn b, Nancy A. Gee a,c, Shirley J. Gee b, ⁎ Bruce D. Hammock b,d, Bill L. Lasley a,c, a Center for Health and the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA b Department of Entomology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA c California National Primate Research Center, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA d Cancer Research Center, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA Received 26 January 2007; revised 18 March 2007; accepted 19 March 2007 Available online 27 March 2007 Abstract To identify the androgenic potency of commonly used antimicrobials, an in vitro androgen receptor-mediated transcriptional activity assay was employed to evaluate the androgenic/antiandrogenic activity of parabens and selected other antimicrobials containing a phenolic moiety. This cell- based assay utilizes a stably transfected cell line that lacks critical steroid metabolizing enzymes and is formatted in a 96-well format. At a concentration of 10 μM, methyl-, propyl- and butyl-4-hydroxybenzoate (parabens) inhibited testosterone (T)-induced transcriptional activity by 40%, 33% and 19%, respectively (P<0.05), while 4-hydroxybenzoic acid, the major metabolite of parabens, had no effect on T-induced transcriptional activity. Triclosan inhibited transcriptional activity induced by T by more than 92% at a concentration of 10 μM, and 38.8% at a concentration of 1.0 μM(P<0.05). Thirty-four percent of T-induced transcriptional activity was inhibited by thymol at 10 μM(P<0.05).
    [Show full text]
  • 1 in Addition to the 19 Constituents FDA Proposes to Add to the List Of
    In addition to the 19 constituents FDA proposes to add to the list of Harmful and Potentially Harmful Constituents, FDA should also add compounds that may be carcinogenic or cause pulmonary or cardiovascular harms when inhaled, especially oils and chemicals and chemical classes found in e-cigarette flavorants, and FDA should use as additional criteria California’s Proposition 65 list of carcinogens and reproductive toxicants and the California Air Resources Board’s list of Toxicant Air Contaminants UCSF TCORS Lauren K. Lempert, JD, MPH; Gideon St.Helen, PhD; Jeff Gotts, MD; Shannon Kozlovich, PhD; Matthew Springer, PhD; Bonnie Halpern-Felsher, PhD; Stanton A. Glantz, PhD Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0143 October 2, 2019 FDA is proposing to add the following 19 toxicants that may be found in tobacco products, including electronic cigarettes, to the list of HPHCs: acetic acid, acetoin, (also known as 3-hydroxy-2-butanon3), acetyl propionyl (also known as 2,3-pentanedione), benzyl acetate, butyraldehyde, diacetyl, diethylene glycol, ethyl acetate, ethyl acetoacetate, ethylene glycol, furfural, glycerol, glycidol, isoamyl acetate, isobutyl acetate, methyl acetate, n-butanol, propionic acid, propylene glycol. (These constituents are shown in Table 1 of FDA’s Notice and Request for Comments.) We support adding these 19 toxicants to the HPHC list. The proposed list, however, omits several important toxicants delivered by new products, notably e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products. In addition to the 19 toxicants FDA proposed, the list should be expanded to include other important toxicants and chemical classes delivered by these products. It its especially important for FDA to update the HPHC list to take into account the ingredients, additives, and smoke and aerosol constituents in e- cigarettes and other newly deemed tobacco products (including cigars, hookah, and heated tobacco products such as IQOS) that will likely be included in PMTAs filed in the coming months.
    [Show full text]