Advertisement

Exposure-Dose-Response Paradigm as It Relates to Toxicogenomics

  • William H. Hanneman
  • Melvin E. Andersen
  • Marie E. Legare
  • Christine T. French
  • Tami S. McMullin
  • Carolyn Broccardo
  • Ruth E. Billings
Protocol
  • 344 Downloads
Part of the Methods in Pharmacology and Toxicology book series (MIPT)

Abstract

Over the past decades, the risk assessment of chemicals has frequently been considered a pseudoscientific process, primarily determined by public policy that masquerades as science, rather than representing a process well grounded in firm biological principles. Many toxicologists are uncomfortable when their work is linked to risk assessment or even when asked how their work will influence the risk assessment process. This chapter discusses the integration of toxicological data in risk assessment, emphasizing the applications of molecular toxicology (toxicogenomics) for improving the risk assessments of all chemical especially neurotoxicants. The chapter discusses the integration of toxicology information via an exposure-dose paradigm, provides a brief synopsis of the emerging consensus to increase the scientific basis of “neuroactive” chemical risk assessment, and notes the areas where molecular toxicology will likely contribute to refinements of the current risk assessment process.

Keywords

Risk Assessment Cancer Risk Assessment Risk Assessment Process Hazard Identification Molecular Toxicology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Occapational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) (1997) Occupational exposure to methylene chloride; final rule. Fed. Reg. 62(7), 1493–1619.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    US Environmenatal Protection Agency (2000) Toxicological review of vinyl chloride. EPA Report EPA/635R-00/004.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    US EPA (2000) Exposure and human health reassessment of 2.3.7.8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and related compounds. Part II. Health assessment for 2.3.7.8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and related compounds. EPA Report NCEA-1-0835 (Science Advisory Board Review Draft).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lehman, A. J. and Fitzhugh, O. G. (1954) 100-Fold margin of safety. Assoc. Food Drug Off. U.S. Q. Bull. 18, 33–35.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Albert R. E., Train, R. E., and Anderson, E. (1977) Rationale developed by the Environment Protection Agency for the assessment of carcinogenic risks. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 58, 1537–1541.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Slikker, W., Crump, K. S., Andersen, M. E., and Bellinger, D. (1996) Biologically based, quantitative risk assessment of neurotoxicants. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 29, 18–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Watanabe, P. G. and Gehring, P. J. (1976) Dose-dependent fate of vinyl chloride and its possible relationship to oncogenicity in rats. Environ. Health Perspect. 17, 145–152.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leung, H. W. (1991) Development and utilization of physiologically based pharmacokinetic models for toxicological applications. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 32, 247–267.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moolgavkar, S. H. and Knudson, A. G., Jr. (1981) Mutation and cancer: a model for human carcinogenesis. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 66, 1037–1052.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency 91998) Guidelines for neurotoxicity risk assessment. Fed. Reg. 63(93), 26,926–26,954.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Costa, L. G. (1998) Neurotoxicity testing: a discussion of in vitro alternatives. Environ. Health Perspect. 106(Suppl. 2), 505–510.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tison, H. A. (2000) New horizons: future directions in neurotoxicology. Environ. Health Perspect. 108(Suppl. 3), 439–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Costa, L. G. (1998) Biochemical and molecular neurotoxicology: relevance to biomarker development, neurotoxicity testing and risk assessment. Toxicol. Lett. 102–103, 417–421.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Veronesi, B., Ehrich, M., Blusztajn, J. K., Oörtgiesen, M., and Durham, H. (1997) Cell culture models of interspecies selectivity to organophosphorous insecticides. Neurotoxicology 18(1), 283–297.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vohradsky, J. (2001) Neural network model of gene expression. FASEB J. 15, 846–854.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Puga, A., Maire, A., and Medvedovic, P. (2000) Transcriptional signature of dioxin in human hepatoma HepG2 cells. Biochem. Pharmacol. 60, 1129–1142.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    The Food Quality and Protection Act (1996) Public Law 104–170.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lander, E. S. and Weinberg, R. A. (2000) Genomics: journey to the center of biology. Science 287, 1777–1782.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press Inc., Totowa, NJ 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • William H. Hanneman
    • 1
  • Melvin E. Andersen
    • 1
  • Marie E. Legare
    • 1
  • Christine T. French
    • 1
  • Tami S. McMullin
    • 1
  • Carolyn Broccardo
    • 1
  • Ruth E. Billings
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environmental and Radiological Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical SciencesColorado State UniversityFt. Collins

Personalised recommendations