Screening and Testing for Endocrine Disruption in Fish—Biomarkers As “Signposts,” Not “Traffic Lights,” in Risk Assessment

Abstract

Biomarkers are currently best used as mechanistic “signposts” rather than as “traffic lights” in the environmental risk assessment of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs). In field studies, biomarkers of exposure [e.g., vitellogenin (VTG) induction in male fish] are powerful tools for tracking single substances and mixtures of concern. Biomarkers also provide linkage between field and laboratory data, thereby playing an important role in directing the need for and design of fish chronic tests for EDCs. It is the adverse effect end points (e.g., altered development, growth, and/or reproduction) from such tests that are most valuable for calculating adverseNOEC (no observed effect oncentration) or adverseEC10 (effective concentration for a 10% response) and subsequently deriving predicted no effect concentrations (PNECs). With current uncertainties, biomarkerNOEC or biomarkerEC10 data should not be used in isolation to derive PNECs. In the future, however, there may be scope to increasingly use biomarker data in environmental decision making, if plausible linkages can be made across levels of organization such that adverse outcomes might be envisaged relative to biomarker responses. For biomarkers to fulfil their potential, they should be mechanistically relevant and reproducible (as measured by interlaboratory comparisons of the same protocol). VTG is a good example of such a biomarker in that it provides an insight to the mode of action (estrogenicity) that is vital to fish reproductive health. Interlaboratory reproducibility data for VTG are also encouraging; recent comparisons (using the same immunoassay protocol) have provided coefficients of variation (CVs) of 38–55% (comparable to published CVs of 19–58% for fish survival and growth end points used in regulatory test guidelines). While concern over environmental xenoestrogens has led to the evaluation of reproductive biomarkers in fish, it must be remembered that many substances act via diverse mechanisms of action such that the environmental risk assessment for EDCs is a broad and complex issue. Also, biomarkers such as secondary sexual characteristics, gonadosomatic indices, plasma steroids, and gonadal histology have significant potential for guiding interspecies assessments of EDCs and designing fish chronic tests. To strengthen the utility of EDC biomarkers in fish, we need to establish a historical control database (also considering natural variability) to help differentiate between statistically detectable versus biologically significant responses. In conclusion, as research continues to develop a range of useful EDC biomarkers, environmental decision-making needs to move forward, and it is proposed that the “biomarkers as signposts” approach is a pragmatic way forward in the current risk assessment of EDCs.

References 112

1. 1.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

2. 2.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

3. 3.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

4. 4.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

5. 5.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

6. 6.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

7. 7.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

8. 8.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

9. 9.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

10. 10.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

11. 11.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

12. 12.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

13. 13.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

14. 14.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

15. 15.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

16. 16.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

17. 17.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

18. 18.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

19. 19.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

20. 20.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

21. 21.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

22. 22.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

23. 23.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

24. 24.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

25. 25.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

26. 26.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

27. 27.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

28. 28.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

29. 29.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

30. 30.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

31. 31.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

32. 32.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

33. 33.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

34. 34.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

35. 35.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

36. 36.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

37. 37.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

38. 38.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

39. 39.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

40. 40.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

Cited by papers we hold 2

• Prenatal Exposure to Bisphenol A at Environmentally Relevant Doses Adversely Affects the Murine Female Reproductive Tract Later in Life · 2009
  No notice
• Systems biology meets stress ecology: linking molecular and organismal stress responses in Daphnia magna · 2008
  No notice

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.