Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34292658›Full record

ArticleIntegrated environmental assessment and management2022

Investigating endocrine-disrupting properties of chemicals in fish and amphibians: Opportunities to apply the 3Rs.

Natalie Burden, Michelle R Embry, Thomas H Hutchinson, Scott G Lynn, Samuel K Maynard, Constance A Mitchell, Francesca Pellizzato, Fiona Sewell, Karen L Thorpe, Lennart Weltje and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Integrated environmental assessment and management, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Cross-species comparisons of plasma binding and considerations for data evaluation.Toxicology in vitro : an international journal published in association with BIBRA · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Natalie BurdenNC3Rs, London, UK.
Michelle R EmbryHealth and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI), Washington, DC, USA.
Thomas H HutchinsonSchool of Geography, Earth & Environmental Sciences, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.
Scott G LynnUS Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Science Coordination and Policy, Washington, DC, USA.
Samuel K MaynardAstraZeneca, Global Sustainability, Cambridge, UK.
Constance A MitchellHealth and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI), Washington, DC, USA.
Francesca PellizzatoHazard Assessment, European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), Helsinki, Finland.
Fiona SewellNC3Rs, London, UK.
Karen L ThorpeCentre for Chemical Safety and Stewardship, Fera Science Ltd., York, UK.
Lennart WeltjeBASF SE, Agricultural Solutions-Ecotoxicology, Limburgerhof, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5191-4158
James R WheelerShell Health, Shell International B.V., The Hague, The Netherlands.

Funding

Health and Environmental Sciences InstituteNational Centre for the Replacement Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many regulations are beginning to explicitly require investigation of a chemical's endocrine-disrupting properties as a part of the safety assessment process for substances already on or about to be placed on the market. Different jurisdictions are applying distinct approaches. However, all share a common theme requiring testing for endocrine activity and adverse effects, typically involving in vitro and in vivo assays on selected endocrine pathways. For ecotoxicological evaluation, in vivo assays can be performed across various animal species, including mammals, amphibians, and fish. Results indicating activity (i.e., that a test substance may interact with the endocrine system) from in vivo screens usually trigger further higher-tier in vivo assays. Higher-tier assays provide data on adverse effects on relevant endpoints over more extensive parts of the organism's life cycle. Both in vivo screening and higher-tier assays are animal- and resource-intensive and can be technically challenging to conduct. Testing large numbers of chemicals will inevitably result in the use of large numbers of animals, contradicting stipulations set out within many regulatory frameworks that animal studies be conducted as a last resort. Improved strategies are urgently required. In February 2020, the UK's National Centre for the 3Rs and the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute hosted a workshop ("Investigating Endocrine Disrupting Properties in Fish and Amphibians: Opportunities to Apply the 3Rs"). Over 50 delegates attended from North America and Europe, across academia, laboratories, and consultancies, regulatory agencies, and industry. Challenges and opportunities in applying refinement and reduction approaches within the current animal test guidelines were discussed, and utilization of replacement and/or new approach methodologies, including in silico, in vitro, and embryo models, was explored. Efforts and activities needed to enable application of 3Rs approaches in practice were also identified. This article provides an overview of the workshop discussions and sets priority areas for follow-up. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2022;18:442-458. © 2021 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

Indexed as

Endocrine DisruptorsAmphibiansAnimalsEcotoxicologyEndocrine SystemRisk AssessmentEndocrine Disruptors3RsAnimal alternativesAquatic toxicityNew approach methodologies (NAMs)Safety assessment

Identifiers

PMID34292658
PMCPMC9292818

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.