Search

Immunotoxicity is the critical endpoint used by some regulatory agencies to establish toxicity values for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS). However, the hypothesis that exposure to certain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) causes immune dysregulation is subject to much debate. An independent, international expert panel was engaged utilizing methods to reduce bias and "groupthink". The panel concluded there is moderate evidence that PFOS and PFOA are immunotoxic, based primarily on evidence from animal data. However, species concordance and human relevance cannot be well established due to data limitations. The panel recommended additional testing that includes longer-term exposures, evaluates both genders, includes other species of animals, tests lower dose levels, assesses more complete measures of immune responses, and elucidates the mechanism of action. Panel members agreed that the Faroe Islands cohort data should not be used as the primary basis for deriving PFAS risk assessment values. The panel agreed that vaccine antibody titer is not useful as a stand-alone metric for risk assessment. Instead, PFOA and PFOS toxicity values should rely on multiple high-quality studies, which are currently not available for immune suppression. The panel concluded that the available PFAS immune epidemiology studies suffer from weaknesses in study design that preclude their use, whereas available animal toxicity studies provide comprehensive dataset to derive points of departure (PODs) for non-immune endpoints. The panel recommends accounting for potential PFAS immunotoxicity by applying a database uncertainty factor to POD values derived from animal studies for other more robustly supported critical effects.

Adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) are frameworks starting with a molecular initiating event (MIE), followed by key events (KEs) linked by KE relationships (KERs), ultimately resulting in a specific adverse outcome. Relevant data for the pathway and each KE/KER are evaluated to assess biological plausibility, weight-of-evidence, and confidence. We aimed to describe an AOP relevant to chemicals directly inducing mutation in cancer critical gene(s), via the formation of chemical-specific pro-mutagenic DNA adduct(s), as an early critical step in tumor etiology. Such chemicals have mutagenic modes-of-action (MOA) for tumor induction. To assist with developing this AOP, Aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) was selected as a case study because it has a rich database and is considered to have a mutagenic MOA. AFB1 information was used to define specific KEs, KERs, and to inform development of a generic AOP for mutagen-induced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In assessing the AFB1 information, it became clear that existing data are, in fact, not optimal and for some KEs/KERs, the definitive data are not available. In particular, while there is substantial information that AFB1 can induce mutations (based on a number of mutation assays), the definitive evidence - the ability to induce mutation in the cancer critical gene(s) in the tumor target tissue - is not available. Thus, it is necessary to consider the patterns of results in the weight-of-evidence for KEs and KERs. It was important to determine whether there was sufficient evidence that AFB1 can induce the necessary critical mutations early in the carcinogenic process, which was the case.