Title |
Non-monotonic dose-response relationships and endocrine disruptors: a qualitative method of assessment
|
---|---|
Published in |
Environmental Health, February 2015
|
DOI | 10.1186/1476-069x-14-13 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Fabien Lagarde, Claire Beausoleil, Scott M Belcher, Luc P Belzunces, Claude Emond, Michel Guerbet, Christophe Rousselle |
Abstract |
Experimental studies investigating the effects of endocrine disruptors frequently identify potential unconventional dose-response relationships called non-monotonic dose-response (NMDR) relationships. Standardized approaches for investigating NMDR relationships in a risk assessment context are missing. The aim of this work was to develop criteria for assessing the strength of NMDR relationships. A literature search was conducted to identify published studies that report NMDR relationships with endocrine disruptors. Fifty-one experimental studies that investigated various effects associated with endocrine disruption elicited by many substances were selected. Scoring criteria were applied by adaptation of an approach previously used for identification of hormesis-type dose-response relationships. Out of the 148 NMDR relationships analyzed, 82 were categorized with this method as having a "moderate" to "high" level of plausibility for various effects. Numerous modes of action described in the literature can explain such phenomena. NMDR can arise from numerous molecular mechanisms such as opposing effects induced by multiple receptors differing by their affinity, receptor desensitization, negative feedback with increasing dose, or dose-dependent metabolism modulation. A stepwise decision tree was developed as a tool to standardize the analysis of NMDR relationships observed in the literature with the final aim to use these results in a Risk Assessment purpose. This decision tree was finally applied to studies focused on the effects of bisphenol A. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Canada | 1 | 10% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 10% |
United States | 1 | 10% |
Unknown | 7 | 70% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 8 | 80% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Germany | 3 | <1% |
France | 3 | <1% |
United States | 2 | <1% |
South Africa | 1 | <1% |
Chile | 1 | <1% |
Spain | 1 | <1% |
Poland | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 327 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 72 | 21% |
Student > Master | 50 | 15% |
Researcher | 39 | 12% |
Student > Bachelor | 23 | 7% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 21 | 6% |
Other | 51 | 15% |
Unknown | 83 | 24% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 53 | 16% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 39 | 12% |
Environmental Science | 39 | 12% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 27 | 8% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 8% |
Other | 48 | 14% |
Unknown | 106 | 31% |