A Critical Assessment of the OECD Collaborative Study to Validate the Uterotrophic Assay for the Detection of Oestrogenic and Anti-oestrogenic Chemicals

Abstract

The design and execution of a recently completed validation study on the rat uterotrophic assay for detecting oestrogens and anti-oestrogens, managed by the OECD, are critically assessed with respect to internationally agreed criteria for the validation of new in vitro and in vivo toxicity test methods. It is concluded that, while the design of the study did not take account of several important criteria for validation, the uterotrophic assay appears to reliably detect the strong and weak oestrogenic substances used in the study, which act via binding to the oestrogen receptor in vivo. However, the reliability of the assay has not been substantiated for detecting anti-oestrogens that act as antagonists, due to the involvement of an insufficient number of experiments and test chemicals. Moreover, the data do not permit an assessment of the accuracy of the prediction of oestrogenicity, and the protocols have not been sufficiently optimised with regard to controlling variables. This problem has been exacerbated by a wish to introduce as much flexibility as possible into the protocols during the formal validation phase of the study, rather than during a separate prevalidation stage. In addition, the choice between surgically treated and/or immature animals, and details of housing and husbandry conditions that are necessary for increasing the sensitivity and efficiency of the assay, need to be clarified. The assay also lacks a well-defined prediction model by which the overall relevance of the data to toxicity, and especially to human hazard, can be assessed, and no performance criteria have been established. The results of this analysis of the study indicate that it would be premature to produce an OECD test guideline for the uterotrophic assay at this time, before some of the above issues have been satisfactorily resolved.

Keywords

endocrine disruptors international criteria OECD uterotrophic assay validation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Combes

R.D.

(2000). Endocrine disruptors: a critical review of in vitro and in vivo testing strategies for assessing their toxic hazard to humans. ATLA 28, 81–118.

Baker

(2001). Endocrine disruptors — testing strategies to assess human hazard. Toxicology in Vitro 14, 413–419.

Balls

, Blaauboer

B.J.

, Fentem

J.H.

, Bruner

, Combes

R.D.

, Ekwall

, Fielder

R.J.

, Guillouzo

, Lewis

R.W.

, Lovell

D.P.

, Reinhardt

C.A.

, Repetto

, Sladowski

, Spielmann

, & Zucco

(1995). Practical aspects of the validation of toxicity test procedures. The report and recommendations of ECVAM workshop 5. ATLA 23, 129–147.

Balls

, Blaauboer

, Brusick

, Frazier

, Lamb

, Pemberton

, Reinhardt

, Roberfroid

, Rosenkranz

, Schmid

, Spielmann

, Stammati

A-L.

, & Walum

(1990). Report and recommendations of the CAAT/ERGATT workshop on the validation of toxicity test procedures. ATLA 18, 313–337.

Anon. (2001). Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, on the Implementation of the Community Strategy for Endocrine Disruptors: a Range of Substances Suspected of Interfering with the Hormone Systems of Humans and Wildlife (COM(1999) 706), (COM(2001) 262 final). Brussels, Belgium: Commission of the European Communities.

Ashby

(2000). Validation of in vitro and in vivo methods for assessing endocrine disrupting chemicals. Toxicologic Pathology 28, 432–437.

Owens

J.W.

, & Ashby

(2002). Critical review and evaluation of the uterotrophic bioassay for the identification of possible estrogen agonists and antagonists: in support of the validation of the OECD uterotrophic protocols for the laboratory rodent. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 32, 445–520.

Kanno

, Onyon

, Haseman

, Fenner-Crisp

, Ashby

, & Owens

(2001). The OECD program to validate the rat uterotrophic bioassay to screen compounds for in vivo estrogenic responses: Phase 1. Environmental Health Perspectives 109, 785–794.

Kanno

, Onyon

, Peddada

, Ashby

, Jacob

, & Owens

(2003). The OECD program to validate the rat uterotrophic bioassay. Phase 2: dose–response studies. Environmental Health Perspectives 111, 1530–1549.

10.

Kanno

, Onyon

, Peddada

, Ashby

, Jacob

, & Owens

(2003). The OECD program to validate the rat uterotrophic bioasssay. Phase 2: coded single-dose studies. Environmental Health Perspectives 111, 1550–1558.

11.

Owens

, & Koeter

H.B.W.M.

(2003). The OECD program to validate the rat uterotrophic bioasssay: an overview. Environmental Health Perspectives 111, 1527–1529.

12.

OECD (1996). Final Report of the OECD Workshop on Harmonization of Validation and Acceptance Criteria for Alternative Toxicological Test Methods, 60 pp. Paris, France: OECD.

13.

Combes

R.D.

, & Balls

(2003). How much flexibility is possible when validating new in vivo and in vitro toxicity test methods? ATLA 31, 225–232.

14.

OECD (2001). Draft Guidance Document on the Development, Validation and Regulatory Acceptance of New and Updated Internationally Acceptable Test Methods in Hazard Assessment, 43 pp. Paris, France: OECD.

15.

Bruner

L.H.

, Carr

G.J.

, Chamberlain

, & Curren

R.D.

(1996). Validation of alternative methods for toxicity testing. Toxicology in Vitro 10, 479–501.

16.

Bruner

, Carr

, Chamberlain

, & Curren

(1996). No prediction model, no validation study. ATLA 24, 139–142.

17.

Bruner

L.H.

, Carr

G.J.

, Harbell

J.W.

, & Curren

R.D.

(2002). An investigation of new toxicity method performance in validation studies: 2. Comparison of three measures of test performance. Human and Experimental Toxicology 21, 313–323.

18.

Genschow

, Scholz

, Brown

, Piersma

, Brady

, Clemann

, Huuskonen

, Paillard

, Bremer

, Becker

, & Spielmann

(2000). Development of prediction models for three embryotoxicity tests in an ECVAM validation study. In Vitro and Molecular Toxicology 13, 15–66.

19.

Holzhütter

H-G.

, & Spielmann

(1996). The use of prediction models in toxicology: what should they predict? ATLA 24, 881–884.

20.

Balls

, & Karcher

(1995). The validation of alternative test methods. ATLA 23, 884–886.

21.

Spielmann

, & Liebsch

(2002). Validation successes: chemicals. ATLA 30, Suppl. 2, 33–40.

22.

Holzhütter

H-G.

, Archer

, Dami

, Lovell

D.P.

, Saltelli

, & Sjöström

(1996). Recommendations for the application of biostatistical methods during the development and validation of alternative toxicological methods. ECVAM biostatistics task force report 1. ATLA 24, 511–530.

23.

Edler

, & Ittrich

(2003). Biostatistical methods for the validation of alternative methods for in vitro toxicity testing. ATLA 31, Suppl. 1, 5–41.

24.

Owens

, Ashby

, Odum

, & Onyon

(2003). The OECD program to validate the rat uterotrophic bioasssay. Phase 2: dietary phytoestrogen analyses. Environmental Health Perspectives 111, 1559–1567.

25.

Blom

H.J.M.

, Van Tintelen

, Van Vorstenbosch

C.J.A.H.V.

, Baumans

, & Beynen

A.C.

(1996). Preferences of mice and rats for types of bedding material. Laboratory Animals 30, 234–244.

26.

Ashby

, Owens

, Odum

, & Tinwell

(2003). The intact immature rodent uterotrophic bioassay: possible effects on assay sensitivity of vomeronasal signals from male rodents and strain differences. Environmental Health Perspectives 111, 1568–1570.

27.

Bruner

L.H.

, Carr

G.J.

, Harbell

J.W.

, & Curren

R.D.

(2002). An investigation of new toxicity method performance in validation studies: 1. Toxicity test methods that have predictive capacity no greater than chance. Human and Experimental Toxicology 21, 305–312.

28.

Festing

M.F.W.

, Baumans

, Combes

R.D.

, Halder

, Hendriksen

C.F.M.

, Howard

B.R.

, Lovell

D.P.

, Moore

G.J.

, Overend

, & Wilson

M.S.

(1998). Reducing the use of laboratory animals in biomedical research: problems and possible solutions. The report and recommendations of ECVAM workshop 29. ATLA 26, 283–301.

29.

Bailey

J.A.

, & Nephew

K.P.

(2002). Strain differences in tamoxifen sensitivity of Sprague-Dawley and Fischer 344 rats. Anticancer Drugs 13, 939–947.

30.

Spielmann

, & Liebsch

(2001). Lessons learned from validation of toxicity tests: from failure to acceptance into regulatory practice. Toxicology in Vitro 5, 585–590.

31.

Worth

A.P.

, & Balls

eds (2002). Alternative (non-animal) methods for chemicals testing: current status and future prospects. ATLA 30, Suppl. 1, 1–125.