Abstract
For more than a decade, weight of evidence (WoE) evaluations have been the standard method for determining whether a chemical meets the definition of an endocrine disrupting chemical (EDC). WoE methods consider all data pertinent to satisfying the EDC definition and evaluating those data with respect to relevance, reliability, strength, and coherence with established endocrine physiology and pharmacology. A new approach for identifying EDC hazards has been proposed that organizes and evaluates data according to ten so-called “Key Characteristics (KCs) of EDCs”. The approach claims to address the lack of a widely accepted, systematic approach for identifying EDC hazards, but completely ignores the WoE literature for EDCs. In contrast to WoE methods, the KC approach fails to apply the consensus definition of EDC and is not amenable to empirical testing or validation, is fungible and ensures inconsistent and unreliable results, ignores principles of hormone action and characteristics of dose–response in endocrine pharmacology and toxicology, lacks a means of distinguishing endocrine-mediated from non-endocrine mediated mechanisms, lacks a means to reach a negative conclusion about a chemical’s EDC properties or to distinguish EDCs from non-EDCs, and provides no means for developing a valid consensus among experts nor provides a means of resolving conflicting interpretations of data. Instead of shortcuts like the KC approach, which are prone to bias, error, and arbitrary conclusions, identifying EDCs should rely on WoE evaluations that supply the critical components and scientific rigor lacking in the proposed KCs for EDCs.
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Commentary
An endocrine disrupting chemical (EDC) is a chemical that (1) causes an adverse effect, and (2) causes that effect through an endocrine mode of action (MoA). Authors and organizations that may differ on some details regarding endocrine disruption nonetheless concur on its essential elements, which are captured in that definition (World Health Organization [WHO] 2002; OECD 2012, 2018; Mihaich et al. 2017; Borgert 2022; Marty et al. 2018; ECETOC 2009). For more than a decade, weight of evidence (WoE) evaluations have been the standard method for determining whether a chemical meets that definition (World Health Organization [WHO] 2002; U.S. EPA 2011; OECD 2012). WoE methods consider all data pertinent to satisfying the EDC definition and evaluating those data with respect to relevance, reliability, strength, and coherence with established endocrine physiology and pharmacology (Rhomberg et al. 2010; Borgert et al. 2011, 2014; Rhomberg 2014; Lutter et al. 2015; Bridges and Solomon 2016; Mihaich et al. 2017; Neal et al. 2017; Mihaich and Borgert 2018; Borgert 2022).
Because experimental proof of causation may be impossible, WoE methods strive to link adverse effects to endocrine MoAs by objective reasoning applied to relevant data through a series of transparent steps. The steps in a WoE evaluate whether a chemical can operate through an endocrine mechanism and whether that endocrine mechanism is then responsible for an adverse effect(s) of the chemical. Of critical importance is that WoE methods provide a transparent means to resolve conflicts in the data through comparisons to known positive and negative controls for established endocrine MoAs (Rhomberg et al. 2010; Borgert et al. 2011, 2014; Rhomberg 2014; Lutter et al. 2015; Bridges and Solomon 2016; Mihaich et al. 2017; Neal et al. 2017; Mihaich and Borgert 2018; Borgert 2022).
Recently, a new approach for identifying EDC hazards has been proposed that organizes and evaluates data according to ten so-called “Key Characteristics (KCs) of EDCs” (La Merrill et al. 2020). The approach claims to address the lack of a widely accepted, systematic approach for identifying “EDC hazards,” but completely ignores the WoE literature cited here (Rhomberg et al. 2010; Borgert et al. 2011, 2014; Rhomberg 2014; Lutter et al. 2015; Bridges and Solomon 2016; Mihaich et al. 2017; Neal et al. 2017; Mihaich and Borgert 2018; Borgert 2022). Proponents of the KC approach define EDCs as “exogenous chemicals that interfere with hormone action, thereby increasing the risk of adverse health outcomes, including cancer, reproductive impairment, cognitive deficits and obesity” and use chemicals alleged to be EDCs to illustrate the “KC-based approach.” In fact, the KC approach searches for and organizes data according to broad, mechanistically indistinct categories such as “alters hormone metabolism or clearance,” and “alters signal transduction in hormone-responsive cells,” which are phenomena that occur by endocrine as well as non-endocrine mechanisms (Marty et al. 2018). It then accepts those data as evidence of EDC properties without evaluating whether the chemical alters any specific endocrine MoA. Thus, the KC approach does not organize and evaluate data to address the two criteria (endocrine MoA that causes an adverse effect) required by the definition of EDC. More problematic, however, is that when used “…to identify EDC hazards,” the KC approach circumvents the definition altogether.
The KC approach for EDCs is based on the claimed success of ten Key Characteristics for identifying carcinogens, (Smith et al. 2016) a method that has been shown to be no more predictive or informative than the toss of a coin (Becker et al. 2017). Advocates of the KC approach for EDCs assert that it is grounded on established mechanisms of hormone action, yet also argue that, like the KC approach for carcinogens, the KC approach for EDCs “frees the reviewer” from linking specific endocrine MoAs to adverse effects (La Merrill et al. 2020). That assertion not only defies logic, but it also contradicts the definition of an EDC. If the KC approach were firmly grounded in mechanistic understanding, it would facilitate and enable establishing the link between an endocrine MoA and adverse effects without any need to free assessors from that requirement.
Although the KC approach lacks the scientific rigor of WoE standards, it is touted to be faster, easier, and less restrictive than WoE methods. Some advocates of the KC approach for EDCs defend its lack of rigor on the premise that it is merely a systematic means of organizing the data regarding the EDC properties of a chemical and they contend that it is not a check-box approach for identifying EDCs (La Merrill et al. 2020). Yet, despite lacking required elements that seem obvious for systematic approaches–i) criteria for searching and selecting data that address the requirements of the EDC definition; ii) criteria for evaluating data quality, relevance and reliability; iii) a transparent means to resolve contradictions among the data–the KCs are, in fact, applied in a check-box fashion and used to reach conclusions regarding a chemical’s EDC status (Muñoz et al. 2020).
The author, in collaboration with members of the Endocrine Policy Forum (EPF), evaluated articles published in peer-reviewed journals through the end of 2020 reporting on the Key Characteristics approach for EDCs (La Merrill et al. 2020; Smith et al. 2016, 2020; Muñoz et al. 2020; Al-Zoughool et al. 2019; Arzuaga et al. 2019; Goodman et al. 2018; Guyton et al. 2018a, 2018b, 2018c; Krewski et al. 2019; Luderer et al. 2019; Nicole 2020; Temkin et al. 2020; Vandenberg et al. 2020). Those publications were evaluated for conceptual clarity, empirical transparency, susceptibility to bias, and consistency with principles of endocrine pharmacology and dose-dependence of endocrine MoAs. We found the following deficiencies in the KC approach for EDCs:
-
Fails to apply the consensus definition of EDC and is not amenable to empirical testing or validation.
-
Is flexible according to diverse goals, which also ensures inconsistent and unreliable results.
-
Ignores principles of hormone action, characteristics of dose–response in endocrine pharmacology and toxicology, and the potential for reversibility of endpoint responses.
-
Lacks a means of distinguishing endocrine-mediated from non-endocrine mediated mechanisms.
-
Lacks a means to reach a negative conclusion about a chemical’s EDC properties and appears to be incapable of distinguishing EDCs from non-EDCs.
-
Provides no means for developing a valid consensus among experts nor provides a means of resolving conflicting interpretations of data.
WoE methods, in contrast, search for and organize data according to specific, testable hypotheses regarding potential endocrine MoAs, appropriately contextualize in vitro and in vivo assays and evaluate data quality and relevance for each hypothesis (Rhomberg et al. 2010; Borgert et al. 2011, 2014; Rhomberg 2014; Lutter et al. 2015; Bridges and Solomon 2016; Mihaich et al. 2017; Neal et al. 2017; Mihaich and Borgert 2018; Borgert 2022). By comparison, the KC approach provides less usable information than WoE methods for the purpose of searching and organizing data. WoE methods address the need to establish causality between mechanistic steps and biological effects, which is implicit in the definition of an EDC (World Health Organization [WHO] 2002). They accomplish that by considering the mechanistic potency of chemicals relative to endogenous hormones (Borgert et al. 2018), the dose-dependence of those mechanisms and their coherence with the pattern of effects produced, and their relevance in the context of human and wildlife exposures (Borgert et al. 2011, 2014; Bridges and Solomon 2016). By comparison, the KC approach does not address that requirement and cannot determine whether chemicals meet the definition of EDC.
Contrary to the assertions of some critics, WoE evaluations can often be completed quickly and efficiently by experts in endocrine toxicology when the relevant data are available from high-quality publications or reports, obviating any perceived need to sacrifice rigor and accuracy for speed. WoE methods also reduce the likelihood of arbitrarily concluding that a chemical is an EDC, which is a significant deficiency of the KC approach. Instead of shortcuts like the KC approach, which are prone to bias, error, and arbitrary conclusions, identifying EDCs should rely on WoE evaluations that supply the critical components and scientific rigor lacking in the proposed KCs for EDC. In cases where the available data are insufficient for a robust WoE evaluation, the solution should be to generate better data, not to adopt inadequate assessment methods like the KC approach.
References
Al-Zoughool M, Bird M, Rice J, Baan RA, Billard M, Birkett N, Krewski D, Zielinski JM (2019) Development of a database on key characteristics of human carcinogens. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev 22:264–287
Arzuaga X, Smith MT, Gibbons CF, Skakkebæk NE, Yost EE, Beverly BEJ, Hotchkiss AK, Hauser R, Pagani RL, Schrader SM, Zeise L, Prins GS (2019) Proposed key characteristics of male reproductive toxicants as an approach for organizing and evaluating mechanistic evidence in human health hazard assessments. Environ Health Perspect 127:65001
Becker RA, Dreier DA, Manibusan MK, Cox LAT, Simon TW, Bus JS (2017) How well can carcinogenicity be predicted by high throughput “characteristics of carcinogens” mechanistic data. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 90:185–196
Borgert CJ, Mihaich EM, Ortego LS, Bentley KS, Holmes CM, Levine SL, Becker RA (2011) Hypothesis-driven weight of evidence framework for evaluating data within the US EPA’s endocrine disruptor screening program. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 61:185–191
Borgert CJ, Stuchal LD, Mihaich EM, Becker RA, Bentley KS, Brausch JM, Coady K, Geter DR, Gordon E, Guiney PD, Hess F, Holmes CM, Lebaron MJ, Levine S, Marty S, Mukhi S, Neal BH, Ortego LS, Saltmiras DA, Snajdr S, Staveley J, Tobia A (2014) Relevance weighting of Tier 1 endocrine screening endpoints by rank order. Birth Defects Res Dev Reprod Toxicol 101:90–113
Borgert CJ, Matthews JC, Baker SP (2018) Human-relevant potency threshold (HRPT) for ERα agonism. Arch Toxicol 92:1685–1702
Borgert CJ (2022) Hypothesis-driven weight of evidence evaluation indicates styrene lacks endocrine disruption potential. Crit Rev Toxicol. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2022.2112652. (in press)
Bridges J, Solomon KR (2016) Quantitative weight-of-evidence analysis of the persistence, bioaccumulation, toxicity, and potential for long-range transport of the cyclic volatile methyl siloxanes. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev 19:345–379
ECETOC (2009) Guidance document on identifying endocrine disruptive effects. european center for ecotoxicology and toxicology of chemicals, technical report no. 106, ISSN-0773–8072–106 Brussels
Goodman JE, Lynch HN, Rhomberg LR (2018) Letter to the editor re: Guyton et al. (2018), Application of the key characteristics of carcinogens in cancer hazard identification. Carcinogenesis 39:1089–1090
Guyton KZ, Rieswijk L, Wang A, Chiu WA, Smith MT (2018a) Key characteristics approach to carcinogenic hazard identification. Chem Res Toxicol 31:1290–1292
Guyton KZ, Rusyn I, Chiu WA, Corpet DE, van den Berg M, Ross MK, Christiani DC, Beland FA, Smith MT (2018b) Application of the key characteristics of carcinogens in cancer hazard identification. Carcinogenesis 39:614–622
Guyton KZ, Rusyn I, Chiu WA, Corpet DE, van den Berg M, Ross MK, Christiani DC, Beland FA, Smith MT (2018c) Re: ‘Application of the key characteristics of carcinogens in cancer hazard evaluation’: response to Goodman, Lynch and Rhomberg. Carcinogenesis 39:1091–1093
Krewski D, Bird M, Al-Zoughool M, Birkett N, Billard M, Milton B, Rice JM, Grosse Y, Cogliano VJ, Hill MA, Baan RA, Little J, Zielinski JM (2019) Key characteristics of 86 agents known to cause cancer in humans. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev 22:244–263
La Merrill MA, Vandenberg LN, Smith MT, Goodson W, Browne P, Patisaul HB, Guyton KZ, Kortenkamp A, Cogliano VJ, Woodruff TJ, Rieswijk L, Sone H, Korach KS, Gore AC, Zeise L, Zoeller RT (2020) Consensus on the key characteristics of endocrine-disrupting chemicals as a basis for hazard identification. Nat Rev Endocrinol 16:45–57
Luderer U, Eskenazi B, Hauser R, Korach KS, McHale CM, Moran F, Rieswijk L, Solomon G, Udagawa O, Zhang L, Zlatnik M, Zeise L, Smith MT (2019) Proposed key characteristics of female reproductive toxicants as an approach for organizing and evaluating mechanistic data in hazard assessment. Environ Health Perspect 127:75001
Lutter R, Abbott L, Becker R, Borgert C, Bradley A, Charnley G, Dudley S, Felsot A, Golden N, Gray G, Juberg D, Mitchell M, Rachman N, Rhomberg L, Solomon K, Sundlof S, Willett K (2015) Improving weight of evidence approaches to chemical evaluations. Risk Anal 35:186–192
Marty MS, Borgert C, Coady K, Green R, Levine SL, Mihaich E, Ortego L, Wheeler JR, Yi KD, Zorrilla LM (2018) Distinguishing between endocrine disruption and non-specific effects on endocrine systems. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 99:142–158
Mihaich EM, Borgert CJ (2018) Hypothesis-driven weight-of-evidence analysis for the endocrine disruption potential of benzene. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 100:7–15
Mihaich E, Capdevielle M, Urbach-Ross D, Slezak B (2017) Hypothesis-driven weight-of-evidence analysis of endocrine disruption potential: a case study with triclosan. Crit Rev Toxicol 47:263–285
Muñoz JP, Bleak TC, Calaf GM (2020) Glyphosate and the key characteristics of an endocrine disruptor: a review. Chemosphere 270:128619
Neal BH, Bus J, Marty MS, Coady K, Williams A, Staveley J, Lamb JC (2017) Weight-of-the-evidence evaluation of 2,4-D potential for interactions with the estrogen, androgen and thyroid pathways and steroidogenesis. Crit Rev Toxicol 47:1–57
Nicole W (2020) Potential male and female reproductive toxicants: applying the key characteristics approach. Environ Health Perspect 128:34001
OECD (2012) Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Guidance document on standardised test guidelines for evaluating chemicals for endocrine disruption. ENV/JM/MONO(2012)22. Paris: OECD/IOMC
OECD (2018) Revised guidance document 150 on standardised test guidelines for evaluating chemicals for endocrine disruption, OECD series on testing and assessment. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304741-en
Rhomberg L (2014) Hypothesis-based weight of evidence: an approach to assessing causation and its application to regulatory toxicology. Risk Anal 35:1114–1124
Rhomberg LR, Bailey LA, Goodman JE (2010) Hypothesis-based weight of evidence: a tool for evaluating and communicating uncertainties and inconsistencies in the large body of evidence in proposing a carcinogenic mode of action–naphthalene as an example. Crit Rev Toxicol 40:671–696
Smith MT, Guyton KZ, Gibbons CF, Fritz JM, Portier CJ, Rusyn I, DeMarini DM, Caldwell JC, Kavlock RJ, Lambert PF, Hecht SS, Bucher JR, Stewart BW, Baan RA, Cogliano VJ, Straif K (2016) Key characteristics of carcinogens as a basis for organizing data on mechanisms of carcinogenesis. Environ Health Perspect 124:713–721
Smith MT, Guyton KZ, Kleinstreuer N, Borrel A, Cardenas A, Chiu WA, Felsher DW, Gibbons CF, Goodson WH, Houck KA, Kane A, La Merrill MA, Lebrec H, Lowe L, McHale CM, Minocherhomji S, Rieswijk L, Sandy MS, Sone H, Wang A, Zhang L, Zeise L, Fielden M (2020) The Key characteristics of carcinogens: relationship to the hallmarks of cancer, relevant biomarkers, and assays to measure them. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-19-1346
Temkin AM, Hocevar BA, Andrews DQ, Naidenko OV, Kamendulis LM (2020) Application of the key characteristics of carcinogens to per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. Int J Environ Res Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17051668
U.S. EPA (2011) Weight-of-evidence: evaluating results of EDSP Tier 1 screening to identify the need for tier 2 testing. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013–0275–0004. USEPA, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Washington, DC
Vandenberg LN, Najmi A, Mogus JP (2020) Agrochemicals with estrogenic endocrine disrupting properties: lessons Learned. Mol Cell Endocrinol 518:110860
World Health Organization [WHO] (2002) International Program on Chemical Safety [IPCS]. Global assessment of the state-of-the-science of endocrine disruptors. WHO/PCS/EDC/02.2. World Health Organization
Funding
The author received funding for this manuscript from the Endocrine Policy Forum.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Borgert, C.J. Issue analysis: key characteristics approach for identifying endocrine disruptors. Arch Toxicol 97, 2819–2822 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-023-03568-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-023-03568-3