EHP Banner Ad
Skip to content

EHP

Facebook Page EHP Twitter Feed Open Access icon  

Review Volume 117 | Issue 1 | January 2009

Email this to someoneShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on StumbleUpon
Environ Health Perspect; DOI:10.1289/ehp.11447

A Retrospective Performance Assessment of the Developmental Neurotoxicity Study in Support of OECD Test Guideline 426

Susan L. Makris,1 Kathleen Raffaele,2 Sandra Allen,3 Wayne J. Bowers,4 Ulla Hass,5 Enrico Alleva,6 Gemma Calamandrei,6 Larry Sheets,7 Patric Amcoff,8 Nathalie Delrue,8 and Kevin M. Crofton9

Author Affiliations open
1Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment; 2Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA; 3Syngenta CTL, Cheshire, UK; 4Environmental Health Science Bureau, Health Canada, Ottawa, Canada; 5Department of Toxicology and Risk Assessment, National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Søborg, Denmark; 6Dipartimento di Biologia Cellulare e Neuroscienze, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy; 7Bayer CropScience LP, Stilwell, Kansas, USA; 8Environment, Health, and Safety Division, Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France; 9Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratories, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA

PDF icon PDF Version (348 KB)

  • Objective:

    We conducted a review of the history and performance of developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) testing in support of the finalization and implementation of Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) DNT test guideline 426 (TG 426).

    Information sources and analysis:

    In this review we summarize extensive scientific efforts that form the foundation for this testing paradigm, including basic neurotoxicology research, interlaboratory collaborative studies, expert workshops, and validation studies, and we address the relevance, applicability, and use of the DNT study in risk assessment.

    Conclusions:

    The OECD DNT guideline represents the best available science for assessing the potential for DNT in human health risk assessment, and data generated with this protocol are relevant and reliable for the assessment of these end points. The test methods used have been subjected to an extensive history of international validation, peer review, and evaluation, which is contained in the public record. The reproducibility, reliability, and sensitivity of these methods have been demonstrated, using a wide variety of test substances, in accordance with OECD guidance on the validation and international acceptance of new or updated test methods for hazard characterization. Multiple independent, expert scientific peer reviews affirm these conclusions.

  • Citation: Makris SL, Raffaele K, Allen S, Bowers WJ, Hass U, Alleva E, Calamandrei G, Sheets L, Amcoff P, Delrue N, Crofton KM. 2009. A Retrospective Performance Assessment of the Developmental Neurotoxicity Study in Support of OECD Test Guideline 426. Environ Health Perspect 117:17–25; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.11447

    Address correspondence to S. Makris, U.S. EPA, ORD, NCEA, Mail code: 8623P, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. Telephone: (703) 347-8522. Fax: (703) 347-8592. E-mail: makris.susan@epa.gov

    The views expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

    The authors declare they have no competing financial interests.

    Received: 5 March 2008
    Accepted: 12 August 2008
    Advance Publication: 12 August 2008
    Final Publication: 1 January 2009

The purpose and intent of this retrospective performance assessment was to review the history of developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) testing. This review demonstrates the extensive scientific efforts, including basic neurotoxicology research, interlaboratory collaborative studies, expert workshops, and validation studies, that form the foundation for this testing paradigm. We also review the relevance, applicability, and use of the DNT study in human health risk assessment and the historical performance of the DNT study. This analysis was developed by an OECD expert group [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 2008a] in support of drafting the OECD DNT Test Guideline 426 (TG 426; OECD 2007) that satisfies current OECD validation criteria.

OECD validation criteria are described in Guidance Document 34 (GD34; OECD 2005a), which addresses the validation and regulatory acceptance of new or updated test methods for hazard characterization. They are based on the “Solna Principles” for validation and regulatory acceptance (OECD 1996b), but additionally emphasize the importance of flexibility and adaptability in the validation process without compromising scientific rigor.

GD34 (OECD 2005a) also provides concise definitions of related concepts such as accuracy, concordance, performance standards, predictivity, relevance, reliability, repeatability, reproducibility, sensitivity, and specificity. The terminology and definitions presented in GD34 (Annex 1) were used in the DNT review process; however, individual studies may have varied slightly in the definition of terms.

The first DNT guideline was developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and has been subjected to numerous validation studies and rigorous peer reviews over the years. The U.S. EPA has deemed the method validated for its regulatory purposes. As described herein, extensive supportive materials for the relevance, reliability, and overall performance of the DNT study are available. Until recently, only the U.S. EPA DNT guideline has been available for testing laboratories. The new OECD TG 426 (OECD 2007) DNT guideline will fill a regulatory gap for OECD member countries. This review summarizes the considerable work that has been performed in the development of the DNT study and provides the rationale for the regulatory acceptance of TG 426 as a new OECD test guideline.

The U.S. EPA DNT guideline (U.S. EPA 1998), the prototype for TG 426, was founded upon an extensive scientific database. This includes interlaboratory validation studies, such as the Collaborative Behavioral Teratology Study (CBTS), which was conducted in the mid-1980s. A separate group of experts at the Williamsburg Workshop (Kimmel et al. 1990) agreed that the methods in the DNT study are sensitive to known human developmental neurotoxicants. An expert consultation meeting conducted in 2000 (OECD 2003) discussed issues on validation, especially of individual test components versus the whole DNT test method. In doing so, they reviewed the extensive history of international validation, peer review, and evaluation of DNT methods contained in the public record. Experts agreed that individual assays of the DNT test method have been shown to be relevant, reliable, and sensitive and that extensive information demonstrates the validity of individual components of the DNT test method (OECD 2003).

The field of developmental neurotoxicology evolved from the disciplines of neurotoxicology, experimental and development psychology, and developmental toxicology, through an extensive history of scientific research and regulatory consideration. Developmental toxicity is defined in GD43 (OECD 2008b), which states that effects may result from either prenatal or postnatal exposure, may manifest at any life stage, and may be expressed as functional deficits.

The DNT study is a specialized type of developmental toxicity study designed to screen for adverse effects of pre- and postnatal exposure on the development and function of the nervous system and to provide dose–response characterizations of those outcomes. The U.S. EPA and OECD DNT guidelines recommend administration of the test substance during gestation and lactation. Cohorts of offspring (typically rat) are randomly selected from control and treated litters for evaluations of gross neurologic and behavioral abnormalities during postnatal development and adulthood (OECD 2007; U.S. EPA 1998). These include assessments of physical development, behavioral ontogeny, motor activity, motor and sensory function, learning and memory, and postmortem evaluation of brain weights and neuropathology.

History of DNT Test Guideline Development

The evolution of DNT studies has its roots in scientific publications that began to appear in the early 1960s; the science has continued to develop over the past four decades. An extensive scientific literature, composed of studies evaluating the potential for physical, pharmaceutical, and environmental agents to affect the development and function of the nervous system after prenatal and early post-natal exposure, provides a strong foundation for guideline development, implementation, and validation. Table 1 lists some of the key contributions to the development of the DNT guidelines. Table 2 briefly summarizes the history of U.S. EPA and OECD DNT guideline development. Although prenatal developmental toxicity test guidelines have existed for some time (e.g., OECD 1983), the first regulatory protocol designed to evaluate DNT was developed and implemented by the U.S. EPA in support of hazard evaluation for specific solvents (U.S. EPA 1986), and a DNT guideline applicable to the evaluation of both toxic substances and pesticides was finalized in 1991 (U.S. EPA 1991). In 1998, it was revised (U.S. EPA 1998) as part of a broader U.S. effort to harmonize testing guidelines within U.S. EPA program offices and with the OECD.

In 1995, the OECD initiated the development of the DNT TG 426 (OECD 1995). The first draft of TG 426 was prepared after an expert consultation meeting (OECD 1996a), using the U.S. EPA DNT guideline as the design template, and addressed a number of important issues and recommended improvements. The draft TG 426 was distributed for comment in 1998, and significant technical issues identified by this review (e.g., the optimal duration of treatment, direct dosing of preweaning rodents, and conduct of morphometric evaluations) were further discussed at an expert consultation meeting in 2000 (OECD 2003). A revised draft was subsequently circulated for review, and comments from OECD member countries were addressed at a 2005 expert consultation meeting (OECD 2005b). The final version of TG 426 was adopted by the OECD Council in 2007 (OECD 2007).

In the context of toxicologic screening and testing to support human health risk assessment and chemical regulatory activities, the DNT study fills an information requirement that is not satisfied by other OECD test guidelines. Notably, it is the only test guideline that includes functional, behavioral, and anatomical evaluations of the nervous system at multiple time points, in test subjects that were exposed to test substance during critical pre- and early postnatal periods of nervous system development. This test method has been used extensively in the past two decades on a wide variety of chemicals (Table 3).

Scientific Basis of DNT Guideline

The test methods recommended in the DNT guideline have been extensively reviewed and evaluated over the last 25 years. This has included the conduct of a number of meetings and collaborative studies involving experts from academic, industry, regulatory, and public interest groups. Pivotal influences and key events in the history of the development of the DNT guideline (Table 2) include both research on test methods development and efforts to characterize and document the sensitivity, reliability, and performance of the test methods, including a number of intralaboratory collaborative efforts. In the 1970s, a series of studies were conducted in which rats were developmentally exposed to a variety of xenobiotics and subsequently tested during postnatal development using a battery of neurobehavioral tests (Butcher and Vorhees 1979; Vorhees et al. 1979). Other laboratories used behavioral and histologic batteries, focusing on sensory and motor function, in adult rodents exposed to a wide variety of neurotoxicants (Pryor et al. 1983; Tilson et al. 1979). A large body of research has provided an immense database on the ability of the functional observational battery to detect and characterize the effects of drugs and environmental chemicals in adult and developing animal models (Gad 1982; Irwin 1968; Moser et al. 1988). This early work was followed by wide-ranging efforts to characterize the specificity of these test methods and the impact of both organismal and experimental factors (e.g., noise, species, strain, gender, test history) (Gerber and O’Shaughnessy 1986; Levine and Butcher 1990; MacPhail et al. 1989; Spencer et al. 1993). Ultimately, the result of more than 30 years of work in this area is a consensus opinion of neuro toxicologists that proper use and interpretation of the data derived from these test methods provide unique insight into the impact of xenobiotics on the developing and adult nervous system [Cory-Slechta et al. 2001; International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) 2001; Tyl et al. 2008].

The development of test methods in neurotoxicology also includes a long history of efforts to characterize the interlaboratory reliability and sensitivity of the test methods now included in the DNT study design. An article comparing a learning and retention method among three laboratories (Butcher et al. 1979) was followed by the CBTS (Buelke-Sam et al. 1985; Kimmel and Buelke-Sam 1985) and the “Williamsburg Workshop” on qualitative and quantitative comparability of human and animal DNT (Kimmel et al. 1990). These efforts addressed various aspects of DNT study design and conduct, providing a sound scientific basis for the test method and its use in hazard evaluation. Since the publication of the U.S. EPA DNT guideline (U.S. EPA 1991), a continued scientific effort has reviewed and updated methodologies, for neurotoxicology in general and for developmental neurotoxicology in particular. Examples of such reviews include the IPCS collaborative study on neurobehavioral screening methodologies (MacPhail et al. 1997), an International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) Risk Science Institute (RSI) workshop on Developmental Neurotoxicity and Risk Assessment (Mileson and Ferenc 2001), a collaborative study on neurobehavioral screening in 11 Japanese laboratories (Okazaki et al. 2003), and a Behavioral Test Methods Workshop (Slikker et al. 2005). Descriptions of each of these efforts and their contributions to the scientific basis for DNT testing follow.

The CBTS. Several of the test procedures developed in early behavioral teratology studies underwent validation in a large interlaboratory effort, the CBTS. This project characterized the performance of a standardized neurodevelopmental test battery in six different laboratories after in utero and lactational exposure to two known neurotoxicants, methylmercury and amphetamine. The study examined the intra- and inter-laboratory reliability and sensitivity of several behavioral test methods and the effects of a number of other litter- and gender-related variables. The peer-reviewed publications that resulted from the CBTS included descriptions of the background and overview (Kimmel and Buelke-Sam 1985), protocol and test procedures (Adams et al. 1985b), data entry and test systems (Adams et al. 1985c), preliminary research (Adams et al. 1985a), statistical approach (Nelson et al. 1985), results (Buelke-Sam et al. 1985), and implications, current applications, and future directions (Kimmel et al. 1985). Additionally, the results of a workshop held to review the CBTS data were published (Butcher and Nelson 1985; Geyer and Reiter 1985; Kutscher and Nelson 1985; Sobotka and Vorhees 1985; Tilson and Wright 1985). In a corollary study, many end points in the CBTS study were compared within one laboratory to an additional set of behavioral end points, named the Cincinnati Test protocol, using both methylmercury and -amphetamine (Vorhees et al. 1985a, 1985b). The conclusion was that the effects of methylmercury were detected by both the CBTS end points and some of the additional end points in the Cincinnati Test protocol (Vorhees 1985c). The CBTS showed that replicability of data among laboratories using a standardized protocol was excellent and that both positive effects (e.g., with methyl-mercury exposure) and the lack of effects (e.g., after low-level amphetamine exposure) were replicable. The CBTS also demonstrated that the DNT test procedures were sufficiently sensitive; no more than a 5–20% change from control values was required to detect an effect.

The European Interlaboratory Collaborative Study. In the 1980s, the European Interlaboratory Study Group on Behavioural Teratology conducted a study of behavioral test methods (Alder et al. 1986; Elsner 1986; Elsner et al. 1986; Schreiner et al. 1986; Suter and Schon 1986). Three laboratories, one each from industry, academia, and government, tested animals perinatally exposed to methylmercury. The results indicated that behavioral tests were more sensitive than reproductive end points and that automated procedures and measures aimed at specific functional capacities were more sensitive than nonspecific behavioral measures (Elsner et al. 1986, 1988).

The Williamsburg Workshop. In 1989, the U.S. EPA held a workshop on the Qualitative and Quantitative Comparability of Human and Animal Developmental Neurotoxicity (also known as the “Williamsburg Workshop”) to provide scientific input into DNT protocol design and to evaluate its appropriateness for use in risk assessment (Kimmel et al. 1990). Expert scientists from government, industry, public interest groups, and academia reviewed a range of representative chemicals and environmental exposures, including drugs (cannabis, cocaine, methadone, and phencyclidine) (Hutchings 1990), ethanol (Driscoll et al. 1990), the anticonvulsant phenytoin (Adams et al. 1990), and environmental contaminants such as methylmercury (Burbacher et al. 1990), lead (Davis et al. 1990), polychlorinated biphenyls (Tilson et al. 1990), and ionizing radiation (Schull et al. 1990). Based on data available for these known human developmental neurotoxicants, the workshop participants concluded that DNT methodologies were adequate for detecting DNT. A number of specific issues directly relevant to design and usefulness of DNT studies were extensively evaluated by participants (Buelke-Sam and Mactutus 1990; Levine and Butcher 1990; Stanton and Spear 1990; Tyl and Sette 1990). Additionally, workshop participants addressed the relationship between biologic end points specified by DNT guidelines and adverse findings observed in humans after exposure to the developmental neurotoxic agents under consideration. A major conclusion of the workshop was that the DNT protocol would have identified each of the agents presented at the workshop as a potential developmental neurotoxicant (Francis et al. 1990), although the critical effects and the dose at which the effects were observed could vary across species. The workshop participants also concluded that the laboratory animal is an adequate surrogate for humans because many of the biologic and behavioral mechanisms underlying these neurologic functions are shared between humans and laboratory animals. The predictive power of DNT guideline studies was attributed largely to the scope of neurobehavioral and neuropathologic tests used that can evaluate neurologic functions across multiple domains (i.e., sensory, motivational/arousal, cognitive, and motor).

Collaborative studies of the Japanese Teratology Society. The Japanese Teratology Society established the Behavioral Teratology Meeting as a satellite meeting of the Japanese Teratology Society in 1982. This group sponsored a number of collaborative studies conducted primarily by pharmaceutical industry, and contract laboratories (Tanimura 1985). The first effort involved 21 institutions that investigated the effects of parametric variables (water temperature, number of trials) on performance in a water T-maze and two-way shuttle box (Mizutani 1984). This was followed by a larger study involving 46 laboratories that investigated the effects of six chemicals (chlorpromazine, ethanol, hydroxyurea, methylazoxymethanol, phenylalanine, and vitamin A) (Mizutani 1985). These studies demonstrated that the T-maze test was reliable, but possibly not as sensitive as needed, and suggested the need for more complicated learning paradigms for this method (Tanimura 1986). Workshops were then held between 1988 and 1990, with three subgroups: reflexes and sensory function, activity and emotionality, and learning (Tanimura 1992). Subsequently, a core battery test draft for behavioral developmental toxicity was proposed. Its utility was examined with three posi tive behavioral teratogens during 1993–1997: phenytoin (Fukunishi et al. 1998; Tachibana et al. 1996), retinoic acid (Nishmura et al. 2001), and nicotine (Tachibana et al. 1998). The numbers of participating laboratories were 32, 28, and 18, respectively. It was concluded that the proposed core battery of tests is useful as a method to detect postnatal developmental disorders, including behavioral dysfunction, in rats.

Tables

Table 1Table 1 – Historical contributions to the DNT guideline.

View larger image (TIF File)

Table 2Table 2 – History of the DNT guideline.

View larger image (TIF File)

Table 3Table 3 – Number of chemicals studied using the U.S. EPA DNT guideline or draft OECD DNT guideline.

View larger image (TIF File)

Table 4Table 4 – Examples of chemicals and other stressors tested using the U.S. EPA DNT guideline or OECD TG 426.

View larger image (TIF File)

The IPCS Study. The IPCS collaborative study was an interlaboratory evaluation of neurobehavioral screening methodologies used in adult and DNT studies (MacPhail et al. 1997; Moser et al. 1997e). A total of eight laboratories participated in proficiency studies (Moser et al. 1997a), and the full study evaluated seven neurotoxic positive control chemicals [triethyl tin, acrylamide, parathion, p,p′-dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), toluene, N,N′-methylene bisacrylamide, and lead acetate] in adult male rats (Moser et al. 1997b, 1997c). The study examined variability associated with the test methods and reasons for differences. The overall conclusion of this extensive study was general “agreement across laboratories in terms of their ability to detect dose-related changes in behavioral end points with prototypic neurotoxic agents” (Catalano et al. 1997). The study results were also reviewed at a workshop held in 1995 in Capri, Italy (Tilson et al. 1997) and were presented in a symposium at the 1996 meeting of the Society of Toxicology (Moser et al. 1997d).

ILSI workshop on DNT testing. In 1999, ILSI established a working group of scientists from government, industry, academia, and nonprofit nongovernmental organizations (Mileson and Ferenc 2001) that was charged with evaluating revisions to the published U.S. EPA DNT guideline that were also included in the draft OECD TG 426. Some of these changes were implemented by the U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) when it issued Data Call-In notices for organophosphate pesticides with tolerances (U.S. EPA 1999b). The revisions included extension of the offspring dosing period through to the age of weaning, ensuring that the pups are exposed to the test substance, increasing the number of offspring evaluated neuropathologically, and collecting chemical-class–specific biomarker data. The extension of the dosing period during the lactation period raised several issues, specifically in the areas of pharmacokinetic/toxicokinetic data needs, behavioral testing, and neuropathologic evaluation. Overall, the working group agreed that the current DNT test protocol was based upon solid scientific principles and experience, that there were opportunities to revise and improve some aspects of the U.S. EPA guideline study, and that further research would be valuable in providing the scientific basis for development of TG 426 (Cory-Slechta et al. 2001; Dorman et al. 2001; Garman et al. 2001; OECD 2003). Further considerations of methodologic issues related to the conduct of the DNT study include an ILSI workshop on the direct dosing of preweaning mammals. This workshop culminated in a monograph on direct dosing that has broad application to study design for many areas of research, for example, pharmaceuticals, environmental pollutants, and academic research (Moser et al. 2005; Zoetis and Walls 2003).

The Japanese Interlaboratory Study. An interlaboratory evaluation of neurobehavioral screening methodologies (used in DNT studies as well as adult neurotoxicity studies) was carried out by 11 safety research laboratories in Japan (Okazaki et al. 2003). The study examined technical problems in evaluating the neurotoxic potential of chemicals, conducting a variety of neurobehavioral tests on rats after either acute or repeated (28-day) exposure to acrylamide or 3,3′-iminodiproprionitrile. All laboratories detected neurotoxicity of both chemicals. The report identified interlaboratory differences in test method sensitivity and concluded that it is important to standardize the methods and criteria and to improve observers’ skills (Okazaki et al. 2003).

The Behavioral Test Methods Workshop. In 2003, a workshop was conducted to discuss experimental procedures and practices that could help enhance the utility of behavioral data as a reliable index of neurotoxicity and in the safety evaluation of chemical substances (Slikker et al. 2005). Workshop participants included individuals from all sectors of the neuroscience community: academia, government, testing laboratories, industry, and nonprofit nongovernmental organizations. Overall conclusions from the workshop were that consensus can be reached on the fundamentals of behavioral assessment and that aspects such as experimental design, test method selection, training of technical staff, validation, control of confounding factors, data variability, data analysis, and data interpretation should be carefully considered in the planning and conduct of behavioral safety assessment (Slikker et al. 2005).

In summary, the scientific basis of the DNT test method has been subjected to an extensive history of international validation, peer review, and evaluation that is contained in the public record. Through the various collaborative efforts and workshops that have been conducted, a number of important conclusions have been drawn. The individual test methods used in the DNT study have been found to be highly relevant for characterizing health risks of neurotoxic chemicals and to be based on solid scientific principles and experience. Using exposures to known human developmental neurotoxicants, the DNT study has been shown to adequately identify the potential for adverse effects of chemical exposure on neurologic development. The intra- and interlaboratory reproducibility, reliability, and sensitivity of the DNT test method has been established, using a variety of test substances.

Use of the DNT Study in Risk Assessment

There is a regulatory need for DNT testing to support risk assessments in OECD member countries. Many pesticides and other chemicals are known to affect the adult nervous system, and there are concerns regarding the potential for DNT after early-life exposures to these substances [National Research Council (NRC) 2000]. This is particularly important because unique behaviors and activities of children place them at greater risk for increased exposure to xenobiotics by multiple routes (Brent et al. 2004; Weiss et al. 2004). The call for a more rigorous assessment of the potential for DNT has been issued by scientists from multiple and diverse sectors with an interest in public health protection.

An examination of the historical and potential uses of the DNT study in risk assessment is critical to an overall evaluation of its value in protecting human health. Currently, the largest collection of DNT guideline studies resides with the U.S. EPA OPP, which has obtained information on DNT for specific pesticides to satisfy regulatory mandates (Food Quality Protection Act of 1996). The U.S. EPA has furthermore engaged in an ongoing scientific analysis and discourse regarding the conduct of DNT studies, the interpretation of the data from these studies, and their regulatory impact.

A review of 12 DNT studies (Makris et al. 1998) evaluated by the U.S. EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) in support of the registration and/or use of nine pesticides and three solvents was presented to a Scientific Advisory Panel in 1998 (U.S. EPA 1999a). For the nine pesticides examined, the analyses demonstrated that the DNT study includes sensitive end points that are not examined in any other test guideline, including prenatal developmental, reproduction, and neurotoxicity studies (OECD 1983, 1997, 2001), thereby enhancing detection of neurobehavioral and neuropathologic effects in offspring after exposure during sensitive periods of neurologic development. As a result, the DNT study, when present in a chemical database, is often identified as a sensitive study and an important source of quantitative and qualitative information for risk assessment.

DNT data have been shown to be valuable in the selection of end points and doses for risk assessment (Makris et al. 1998; Rowland et al. 2007). As might be expected of a study that uses short-term exposures (~ 25–40 days) during development, where a single exposure during a critical period may result in developmental insult (Rice and Barone 2000; Rodier 1980, 1986, 1994), the predominant use of the DNT study in pesticide risk assessment has been for acute (single dose) reference doses (RfDs) and for short-term (1–30 days) and intermediate-term (1–6 months) nonoccupational exposures, which are especially applicable to risk assessments for children. Results from DNT studies have also been used in calculating a chronic RfD for lifetime exposure to a toxicant when it has been shown to be the most sensitive study in the toxicology database.

A survey of the use and value of neurobehavioral assessment in safety evaluation was also conducted by Middaugh et al. (2003). This survey included the results of multinational studies conducted since 1990 on 174 compounds, including pharmaceutical (81%), agricultural (7%), industrial (1%), or undefined (10%) substances. Notably, the neurobehavioral screening conducted for pharmaceuticals is generally composed of developmental and behavioral assessments of second-generation (F1) offspring but does not address all of the end points assessed in a guideline DNT study. Nevertheless, this review found that F1 behavioral parameters along with other parameters defined the chronic no observed effect level (NOEL) in 17 of 113 (15%) and solely defined the NOEL in 3 of 113 (2.6%) of the studies examined. The conclusion was that F1 behavioral parameters sometimes improved on the standard toxicologic measures of hazard identification, providing information on outcomes not addressed by other standard measures of toxicity.

By early 2006, a review of regulatory and published sources revealed that approximately 114 DNT studies had been completed using either the U.S. EPA guideline or the draft OECD guideline (Table 4). The list of agents in Table 4 demonstrates the extensive history and experience regarding the conduct and interpretation of DNT studies. The outcomes of these efforts do not comprise a focused attempt to validate the study protocol or specific end points. In fact, a few of these studies did not include all the end points recommended by U.S. EPA or OECD guidelines.

As of August 2006, approximately 75 DNT studies had been submitted to the U.S. EPA OPP in support of pesticide registration. A preliminary survey of the use of DNT studies in risk assessment in OPP was conducted in March 2007 (Rowland et al. 2007). For 58 of the 75 pesticide chemicals, a DNT study had been considered in the weight-of-evidence review of the toxicology database. The DNT study was used to select end points and doses for risk assessments for eight of those chemicals. Importantly, for four of the eight DNT studies, the critical effects either included or were solely based upon off-spring behavioral and neuropathologic parameters that are not evaluated in other guideline studies (i.e., motor activity, auditory startle habituation, learning and memory, and morphometric analysis). This is consistent with the conclusions of the earlier retrospective analysis (Makris et al. 1998) and provides further evidence of the sensitivity of the DNT study in identifying adverse effects in the young and the important role of DNT studies in human health risk assessments.

In addition to using DNT data for regulatory decisions, some regulatory agencies have also, on a case-by-case basis, incorporated an additional database uncertainty factor into their regulatory decisions because of the absence of DNT data. This approach reflects regulator views that DNT data are valuable in refining permissible exposure levels and that the absence of these data can increase the uncertainty about the toxicity of the chemicals (U.S. EPA 2002a, 2002b).

Recent reviews have examined specific end points across multiple guideline DNT studies, to demonstrate the value of current methods in hazard characterization and explore further opportunities for methodologic refinement. U.S. EPA scientists have conducted cross-laboratory comparisons of methodologies and results from DNT studies submitted to OPP (Crofton et al. 1991, 2004; Makris et al. 2005, 2006; Raffaele et al. 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006; Sette et al. 2004). Kaufmann and Groters (2006) reviewed the neuropathologic assessments in DNT studies, summarized practical aspects in planning neuropathologic assessments, and highlighted the value of morphology data in reference to both the concurrent behavioral assessments and use in assessing risk. A multisector ILSI RSI workshop examined the evaluation and interpretation of neurodevelopmental end points for human health risk assessment and addressed public health considerations, data interpretation, data variability, positive control data, and statistical analysis (Crofton et al. 2008; Fenner-Crisp et al. 2005; Holson et al. 2008; Raffaele et al. 2008; Tyl et al. 2008).

These various review efforts and resulting publications provide transparent decision criteria for the analysis and interpretation of DNT test results, in accordance with the principles described in GD34 (OECD 2005a). Additionally, they demonstrate test method reliability, reproducibility, and relevance, which is attributable in part to the high level of standardization of the test methods that are recommended in the test guideline.

Future Activities

Although the overall performance of the DNT test method and its ability to detect effects of concern from a regulatory perspective have been well established, the recent increase in the number of regulatory DNT studies being conducted has refocused attention on this test method. Although some argue that specific tests are insensitive (e.g., assessment of cognitive and sensory dysfunction), others suggest that the tests are overly sensitive and have a high rate of false positives (U.S. EPA 1995; Claudio et al. 1999, 2000; Cory-Slechta et al. 2001; U.S. EPA 2006). Diverse groups have advocated increased testing for DNT (Andersen et al. 2000; Grandjean and Landrigan 2006; NRC 1992, 1993; Nelson 1986; Office of Technology Assessment 1990; Stein et al. 2002; Vorhees 1986). There have also been calls to include evaluations of end points not currently assessed, such as social behavior (Cory-Slechta et al. 2001), pharmacokinetics and neurochemistry (Andersen et al. 2000; Dorman et al. 2001), and changes during senescence (Cory-Slechta et al. 2001). In addition, there have been criticisms of the complexity of the study, accompanied by calls for deleting some test components from the protocol (Li 2005) or using screening approaches that incorporate DNT testing into other testing protocols (Cooper et al. 2006; Ladics et al. 2005). Critics also claim that variability of some end points (e.g., motor activity, morphometrics) is too great to be useful (Chemical Manufacturers Association 1987; Nolen 1985; York et al. 2004) and that this in vivo test is not necessary to detect DNT (Balls and Combes 2005). These diverse opinions do not invalidate the DNT study but rather highlight the need for ongoing scientifically based evaluation of this test method and the incorporation of appropriate revisions as scientific knowledge advances and as experience with the DNT study warrants.

A number of efforts are currently under way to review data from existing DNT studies, identify ways to refine the DNT test, and, if possible, reduce the number of animals used. It has been proposed that a reduction in animal use can be achieved by applying certain statistical approaches to the behavioral analysis (Chiarotti and Puopolo 2000; Puopolo 2004). Reviews of historical and positive control data have demonstrated the need for more standardized reporting requirements (Crofton et al. 2004, 2008). Further retrospective reviews of control data have identified differences among laboratories in data quality and variability, suggesting methods to decrease variability (Crofton et al. 1991, 2004; Raffaele et al. 2003, 2004; Sette et al. 2004). Conversely, a review of various neuropathology assessments (e.g., brain weight, standard histopathology, and morphometric assessments) identified low variability for these measures (Crofton et al. 2001), concluding that no one postmortem measure is more sensitive, with each providing important data (Raffaele et al. 2005). The outcome of this continuing effort will allow better data interpretation, help refine requirements for future testing, and guide new methods development.

In addition to the goal of refinement of the current approach to DNT testing, there is another and more pressing driver of change in the science arena of DNT. Currently, thousands of chemicals lack even simple, basic toxicologic data (e.g., high-production-volume chemicals, pesticide inert ingredients, antimicrobial pesticides) but have a high potential for human exposure (NRC 1984). Assessing potential neurotoxicologic effects for these chemicals is a major challenge confronting the chemical industry, international and national regulatory agencies, and associated stakeholders (Dix et al. 2007; Kavlock et al. 2008; NRC 2007). New tools and methods are required to move toward a more sustainable risk assessment paradigm for these types of chemicals. Although the current DNT guidelines generate useful data for risk assessment purposes, this in vivo test is costly and time-consuming and uses a relatively large number of naive animals when conducted as a stand-alone study (compared with incorporating the DNT testing into other protocols, e.g., as proposed in Cooper et al. 2006 and U.S. EPA 2002b). A pressing goal of future research is to develop a validated true first-tier screening paradigm (e.g., a high-throughput in vitro screening battery) that can rapidly screen large numbers of chemicals for their potential to cause DNT (Coecke et al. 2007; Lein et al. 2007; NRC 2007; U.S. EPA 2006). Coupled with development of decision frameworks (e.g., Combes et al. 2003), data from these high-throughput screens may facilitate prioritization of any further testing in vivo, for example, as for substances identified as potentially hazardous under the European regulation on Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemical Substances (REACH) (European Commission 2006). Data generated by the current DNT test method will be vital in the validation of these high-throughput in vitro methods, providing information on their utility and limits, as well as guidance on the potential use of data from these alternative methods in a risk assessment context.

Conclusions

The OECD DNT TG 426 (OECD 2007) represents the best available science for assessing the potential for DNT in human health risk assessment, and data generated by DNT studies are relevant and reliable for this assessment. The test methods used in the DNT have been subjected to an extensive history of international validation, peer review, and evaluation that is contained in the public record. The reproducibility, reliability, and sensitivity of these methods have been demonstrated, using a wide variety of test substances. Multiple, independent, expert scientific peer reviews affirm these conclusions, as described in this document. The OECD DNT TG 426 provides an outline of behavioral domains and morphologic end points, relevant to human neurodevelopment, that should be examined to assess potential DNT of a test compound. The results from DNT studies are used for hazard/risk assessment purposes, and in cases where data from a DNT study are not available, additional uncertainty factors may be employed by regulators to address the need for DNT data from a regulatory standpoint. This document shows that a variety of chemicals have been tested for DNT, constituting a sampled spectrum of the chemical universe that the test is proposed to investigate. Several published reports outlined herein show that the DNT study is robust and can be conducted in multiple laboratories with consistent performance.


References

Adams J. 1986. Methods in behavioral teratology In: Riley EP, Vorhees CV, editors. Handbook of Behavioral Teratology. New York:Plenum Press, 67–97.

Adams J, Buelke-Sam J, Kimmel CA, Nelson CJ, Miller DR. 1985a. Collaborative Behavioral Teratology Study: preliminary research. Neurobehav Toxicol Teratol 7:555–578.

Adams J, Buelke-Sam J, Kimmel CA, Nelson CJ, Reiter LW, Sobotka TJ, et al. 1985b. Collaborative Behavioral Teratology Study: protocol design and testing procedures. Neurobehav Toxicol Teratol 7:579–586.

Adams J, Oglesby DM, Ozemek HS, Rath J, Kimmel CA, Buelke-Sam J. 1985c. Collaborative Behavioral Teratology Study: programmed data entry and automated test systems. Neurobehav Toxicol Teratol 7:547–554.

Adams J, Vorhees CV, Middaugh LD. 1990. Developmental neurotoxicity of anticonvulsants: human and animal evidence on phenytoin. Neurotoxicol Teratol 12:203–214.

Alder S, Candrian R, Elsner J, Zbinden G. 1986. Neurobehavioral screening in rats: validation study. Methods Find Exp Clin Pharmacol 8:279–289.

Andersen HR, Nielsen JB, Grandjean P. 2000. Toxicologic evidence of developmental neurotoxicity of environmental chemicals. Toxicology 144:121–127.

Balls M, Combes R. 2005. The need for a formal invalidation process for animal and non-animal tests. Altern Lab Anim 33:299–308.

Barlow SM, Sullivan FM. 1975. Behavioral teratology In: Berry CL, Poswillo DE, editors. Teratology: Trends and Applications. New York:Springer-Verlag, 103–120.

Brent R; Weitzman M; Balk S; Lanphear B; Landrigan P; Reigart R 2004. The vulnerability, sensitivity, and resiliency of the developing embryo, infant, child, and adolescent to the effects of environmental chemicals, drugs, and physical agents as compared to the adult. Pediatrics 113(suppl):933–1172.

Buelke-Sam J, Kimmel CA, Adams J, Nelson CJ, Vorhees CV, Wright DC, et al. 1985. Collaborative Behavioral Teratology Study: results. Neurobehav Toxicol Teratol 7:591–624.

Buelke-Sam J, Mactutus CF. 1990. Workshop on the qualitative and quantitative comparability of human and animal developmental neurotoxicity, Work Group II report: testing methods in developmental neurotoxicity for use in human risk assessment. Neurotoxicol Teratol 12:269–274.

Burbacher TM, Rodier PM, Weiss B. 1990. Methylmercury developmental neurotoxicity: a comparison of effects in humans and animals. Neurotoxicol Teratol 12:191–202.

Butcher RE, Hoar RM, Nolan GA, Vorhees CV. 1979. Interlaboratory comparison of behavioral testing. J Assoc Off Anal Chem 62:840–843.

Butcher RE, Nelson CJ. 1985. Design and analysis issues in behavioral teratology testing. Neurobehav Toxicol Teratol 7:659.

Butcher RE, Vorhees CV. 1979. A preliminary test battery for the investigation of the behavioral teratology of selected psychotropic drugs. Neurobehav Toxicol 1:207–212.

Catalano PJ, McDaniel KL, Moser VC. 1997. The IPCS Collaborative Study on Neurobehavioral Screening Methods: VI. Agreement and reliability of the data. Neurotoxicology 18:1057–1064.

Chemical Manufacturers Association. 1987. Comments on proposed test rule for glycol ethers by the Chemical Manufacturers Association. Fed Reg 53(38):5935–5936.

Chiarotti F, Puopolo M. 2000. Refinement in behavioral research: a statistical approach In: Balls M, van Zeller AM, Halder ME, editors. Progress in Reduction, Refinement and Replacement of Animal Experimentation. Oxford:Elsevier. pp. 1229–1237.

Claudio L, Bearer CF, Wallinga D. 1999. Assessment of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methods for identification of hazards to developing organisms, part II: the developmental toxicity testing guideline. Am J Ind Med 35:554–563.

Claudio L, Kwa WC, Russell AL, Wallinga D. 2000. Testing methods for developmental neurotoxicity of environmental chemicals. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 164:1–14.

Coecke S, Goldberg AM, Allen S, Buzanska L, Calamandrei G, Crofton K, et al. 2007. Workgroup report: incorporating in vitro alternative methods for developmental neurotoxicity into international hazard and risk assessment strategies. Environ Health Perspect 115:924–931.

Combes R, Barratt M, Balls M. 2003. An overall strategy for the testing of chemicals for human hazard and risk assessment under the EU REACH system. Altern Lab Anim 31:7–19.

Cooper RL, Lamb JC, Barlow SM, Bentley K, Brady AM, Doerrer NG, et al. 2006. A tiered approach to life stages testing for agricultural chemical safety assessment. Crit Rev Toxicol 36:69–98.

Cory-Slechta DA, Crofton KM, Foran JA, Ross JF, Sheets LP, Weiss B, et al. 2001. Methods to identify and characterize developmental neurotoxicity for human health risk assessment. I: behavioral effects. Environ Health Perspect 109(suppl 1):79–91.

Crofton KM, Foss JA, Hass U, Jensen K, Levin ED, Parker SL. 2008. Undertaking positive control studies as part of developmental neurotoxicity testing. Neurotoxicol Teratol 30(4):266–287.

Crofton KM, Howard JL, Moser VC, Gill MW, Reiter LW, Tilson HA, et al. 1991. Interlaboratory comparison of motor activity experiments: implications for neurotoxicological assessments. Neurotoxicol Teratol 13:599–609.

Crofton KM, Makris SL, Sette WF, Mendez E, Raffaele KC. 2004. A qualitative retrospective analysis of positive control data in developmental neurotoxicity studies. Neurotoxicol Teratol 26:345–352.

Crofton KM, Sutton JL, Makris SL, Raffaele K, Sette WF. 2001. Developmental neurotoxicity testing guidelines: variability in morphometric assessments of neuropathology. Toxicologist 60:113.

Davis JM, Otto DA, Weil DE, Grant LD. 1990. The comparative developmental neurotoxicity of lead in humans and animals. Neurotoxicol Teratol 12:215–229.

Dix DJ, Houck KA, Martin MT, Richard AM, Setzer RW, Kavlock RJ. 2007. The ToxCast program for prioritizing toxicity testing of environmental chemicals. Toxicol Sci 95:5–12.

Dorman DC, Allen SL, Byczkowski JZ, Claudio L, Fisher JE Jr, Fisher JW, et al. 2001. Methods to identify and characterize developmental neurotoxicity for human health risk assessment. III. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic considerations. Environ Health Perspect 109(suppl 1):101–111.

Driscoll CD, Streissguth AP, Riley EP. 1990. Prenatal alcohol exposure: comparability of effects in humans and animal models. Neurotoxicol Teratol 12:231–237.

Elsner J. 1986. Testing strategies in behavioral teratology: III. Microanalysis of behavior. Neurobehav Toxicol Teratol 8:573–584.

Elsner J, Hodel B, Suter KE, Oelke D, Ulbrich B, Schreiner G, et al. 1988. Detection limits of different approaches in behavioral teratology, and correlation of effects with neurochemical parameters. Neurotoxicol Teratol 10:155–167.

Elsner J, Suter KE, Ulbrich B, Schreiner G. 1986. Testing strategies in behavioral teratology: IV. Review and general conclusions. Neurobehav Toxicol Teratol 8:585–590.

European Commission.2006 Off J Eur Union. [accessed 21 November 2008]. Registration Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH). Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council..

Fenner-Crisp PA, Adams J, Balbus J, Bellinger D, Brimijoin S, Makris SL, et al. 2005. Application of developmental neurotoxicity testing to public health protection. Neurotoxicol Teratol 27:371.

Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. Public Law 104–170.

Francis EZ, Kimmel CA, Rees DC. 1990. Workshop on the qualitative and quantitative comparability of human and animal developmental neurotoxicity: summary and implications. Neurotoxicol Teratol 12:285–292.

Fukunishi K, Terada Y, Tachibana T, Tanimura T. 1998. Collaborative behavioral teratology study of phenytoin: a test battery for neurobehavioral developmental toxicity in rats. Congenit Anom 38:117–141.

Gad SC. 1982. A neuromuscular screen for use in industrial toxicology. J Toxicol Environ Health 9:691–704.

Garman RH, Fix AS, Jortner BS, Jensen KF, Hardisty JF, Claudio L, et al. 2001. Methods to identify and characterize developmental neurotoxicity for human health risk assessment. II: neuropathology. Environ Health Perspect 109(suppl 1):93–100.

Gerber GJ, O’Shaughnessy D. 1986. Comparison of the behavioral effects of neurotoxic and systemically toxic agents: how discriminatory are behavioral tests of neurotoxicity?. Neurobehav Toxicol Teratol 8:703–710.

Geyer MA, Reiter LW. 1985. Strategies for the selection of test methods. Neurobehav Toxicol Teratol 7:661–662.

Grandjean P, Landrigan PJ. 2006. Developmental neurotoxicity of industrial chemicals. Lancet 368:2167–2178.

Holson RR, Freshwater L, Maurissen JP, Moser V, Phang W. 2008. Statistical issues and techniques appropriate for developmental neurotoxicity testing. Neurotoxicol Teratol 30(4):326–348.

Hutchings DE. 1990. Issues of risk assessment: lessons from the use and abuse of drugs during pregnancy. Neurotoxicol Teratol 12:183–189.

IPCS. 2001. Environmental Health Criteria 223: Neurotoxicity Risk Assessment for Human Health: Principles and Approaches. Geneva:International Programme on Chemical Safety, World Health Organization.

Irwin S. 1968. Comprehensive observational assessment: Ia. A systematic, quantitative procedure for assessing the behavioral and physiologic state of the mouse. Psychopharmacologia 13:222–257.

Kaufmann W, Groters S. 2006. Developmental neuropathology in DNT-studies—a sensitive tool for the detection and characterization of developmental neurotoxicants. Reprod Toxicol 22:196–213.

Kavlock RJ, Ankley G, Blancato J, Breen M, Conolly R, Dix D, et al. 2008. Computational toxicology—a state of the science mini review. Toxicol Sci. 10.1093/toxsci/kfm297 [Online 7 December 2007].

Kimmel CA, Buelke-Sam J. 1985. Collaborative Behavioral Teratology Study: background and overview. Neurobehav Toxicol Teratol 7:541–545.

Kimmel CA, Buelke-Sam J, Adams J. 1985. Collaborative Behavioral Teratology Study: implications, current applications and future directions. Neurobehav Toxicol Teratol 7:669–673.

Kimmel CA; Rees DC; Francis EZ 1990. Qualitative and quantitative comparability of human and animal developmental neurotoxicity. Neurotoxicol Teratol 12:173–292.

Kutscher CL, Nelson BK. 1985. Dosing considerations in behavioral teratology testing. Neurobehav Toxicol Teratol 7:663–664.

Ladics GS, Chapin RE, Hastings KL, Holsapple MP, Makris SL, Sheets LP, et al. 2005. Developmental toxicology evaluations—issues with including neurotoxicology and immunotoxicology assessments in reproductive toxicology studies. Toxicol Sci 88:24–29.

Lein P, Locke P, Goldberg A. 2007. Meeting report: alternatives for developmental neurotoxicity testing. Environ Health Perspect 115:764–768.

Levine TE, Butcher RE. 1990. Workshop on the qualitative and quantitative comparability of human and animal developmental neurotoxicity, Work Group IV report: triggers for developmental neurotoxicity testing. Neurotoxicol Teratol 12:281–284.

Li A. 2005. Regulatory developmental neurotoxicology testing: data evaluation for risk assessment purposes. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 19:727–733.

MacPhail RC, Peele DB, Crofton KM. 1989. Motor activity and screening for neurotoxicity. J Am Coll Toxicol 8:117–125.

MacPhail RC, Tilson HA, Moser VC, Becking GC, Cuomo V, Frantik E, et al. 1997. The IPCS Collaborative Study on Neurobehavioral Screening. I. Background and genesis. Neurotoxicology 18:925–928.

Makris S, Raffaelle K, Sette W, Seed J. 1998 A Retrospective Analysis of Twelve Developmental Neurotoxicity Studies. [accessed 21 November 2008].

Makris SL, Crofton KM, Doherty J, Raffaele KC, Mendez E, Schumacher K. 2006. Retrospective review of developmental neurotoxicity studies utilizing gavage dosing of pre-weaning rats demonstrates no adverse consequences of dosing procedures on brain morphometry. Toxicologist 90:291.

Makris SL, Mendez E, Raffaele KC. 2005. A retrospective review of studies utilizing gavage dosing of pre-weaning rats demonstrated no adverse consequences of dosing procedures. Toxicologist 84:77.

Middaugh LD, Dow-Edwards D, Li AA, Sandler JD, Seed J, Sheets LP, et al. 2003. Neurobehavioral assessment: a survey of use and value in safety assessment studies. Toxicol Sci 76:250–261.

Mileson BE, Ferenc SA. 2001. Methods to identify and characterize developmental neurotoxicity for human health risk assessment: overview. Environ Health Perspect 109(suppl 1):77–78.

Mizutani M. 1984. Joint studies by 31 laboratories on some experimental conditions of water multiple-T-maze and active avoidance test. Congenit Anom 24:265.

Mizutani M. 1985. Collaborative studies on behavioral teratology by 46 laboratories: effects of behavioral teratogenic chemicals on the learning behavior of the rat. Congenit Anom 25:197.

Moser VC, Becking GC, Cuomo V, Frantik E, Kulig BM, MacPhail RC, et al. 1997a. The IPCS Collaborative Study on Neurobehavioral Screening Methods: III. Results of proficiency studies. Steering Group. Neurotoxicology 18:939–946.

Moser VC, Becking GC, Cuomo V, Frantik E, Kulig BM, MacPhail RC, et al. 1997b. The IPCS Collaborative Study on Neurobehavioral Screening Methods: IV. Control data. Steering Group. Neurotoxicology 18:947–967.

Moser VC, Becking GC, Cuomo V, Frantik E, Kulig BM, MacPhail RC, et al. 1997c. The IPCS Collaborative Study on Neurobehavioral Screening Methods: V. Results of chemical testing. Steering Group. Neurotoxicology 18:969–1055.

Moser VC, Becking GC, MacPhail RC, Kulig BM. 1997d. The IPCS collaborative study on neurobehavioral screening methods. Fundam Appl Toxicol 35:143–151.

Moser VC, McCormick JP, Creason JP, MacPhail RC. 1988. Comparison of chlordimeform and carbaryl using a functional observational battery. Fundam Appl Toxicol 11:189–206.

Moser VC, Tilson HA, MacPhail RC, Becking GC, Cuomo V, Frantik E, et al. 1997e. The IPCS Collaborative Study on Neurobehavioral Screening Methods: II. Protocol design and testing procedures. Neurotoxicology 18:929–938.

Moser VC, Walls I, Zoetis T. 2005. Direct dosing of pre-weaning rodents in toxicity testing and research: deliberations of an ILSI RSI Expert Working Group. Int J Toxicol 24:87–94.

Nelson BK. 1986. Developmental neurotoxicology of in utero exposure to industrial solvents in experimental animals. Neurotoxicology 7:441–447.

Nelson CJ, Felton RP, Kimmel CA, Buelke-Sam J, Adams J. 1985. Collaborative Behavioral Teratology Study: statistical approach. Neurobehav Toxicol Teratol 7:587–590.

Nishmura T, Iwase T, Hasimoto Y, Tanimura T. 2001. Evaluation of a core battery of tests for detecting behavioral dysfunction of rat offspring induced by retinoic acid: collaborative work II of the Japanese Behavioral Teratology Committee. Congenit Anom 41:156–168.

Nolen GA. 1985. An industrial developmental toxicologist’s view of behavioral teratology and possible guidelines. Neurobehav Toxicol Teratol 7:653–657.

NRC (National Research Council). 1984. Toxicity Testing: Strategies to Determine Needs and Priorities. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.

NRC (National Research Council). 1992. Environmental Neurotoxicology. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.

NRC (National Research Council). 1993. Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.

NRC (National Research Council). 2000. Scientific Frontiers in Developmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.

NRC (National Research Council). 2007. Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy. Washington, DC:National Academies Press.

OECD.1983 One-Generation Reproduction Toxicity Study. Paris:Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Test Guideline 415. OECD Guideline for Testing of Chemicals.

OECD. 1995. Draft Report of the OECD Ad Hoc Working Group on Reproduction and Developmental Toxicity. Paris:Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

OECD. 1996a. Final Report of the OECD Consultation Meeting on Developmental Neurotoxicity. Paris:Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

OECD. 1996b. Report of the OECD Workshop on “Harmonisation of Validation and Acceptance Criteria for Alternative Toxicological Test Methods” (Solna Report).. Paris:Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development.

OECD.1997 Neurotoxicity Study in Rodents. Paris:Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Test Guideline 424. OECD Guideline for Testing of Chemicals.

OECD.2001 Prenatal Developmental Toxicity Study. Paris:Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Test Guideline 414. OECD Guideline for Testing of Chemicals.

OECD. Report of the OECD Expert Consultation Meeting on Developmental Neurotoxicity Testing; Washington, DC. 23–25 October 2000; Paris:Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2003.

OECD. 2005a. OECD Series on Testing and Assessment, Number 34: Guidance Document on the Validation and International Acceptance of New or Updated Test Methods for Hazard Assessment.. Paris:Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

OECD. 2005b. Report of the Expert Consultation Meeting for the Revision of Draft Test Guideline 426 on Developmental Neurotoxicity. Paris:Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

OECD.2007 Developmental Neurotoxicity Study. Paris:Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Test Guideline 426. OECD Guideline for Testing of Chemicals.

OECD.2008a Paris:Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD Series on Testing and Assessment, Number 89: Retrospective Performance Assessment of the Test Guideline 426 on Developmental Neurotoxicity.

OECD.2008b Paris:Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD Series on Testing and Assessment, Number 43: Guidance Document on Mammalian Reproductive Toxicity Testing and Assessment.

Office of Technology Assessment. 1990. Neurotoxicity: Identifying and Controlling Poisons of the Nervous System. Washington, DC:Office of Technology Assessment.

Okazaki S, Takashima H, Yamaguchi M, Hamamura M, Yamashita K, Okada M, et al. 2003. Neurobehavioral toxicity of acrylamide and IDPN (3,3′-iminodipropionitrile) in rats by 28-day oral administration—problems encountered in collaborative study and a commentary on conducting neurobehavioral testing. J Toxicol Sci 28(suppl 1):1–14.

Pryor GT, Uyeno ET, Tilson HA, Mitchell CL. 1983. Assessment of chemicals using a battery of neurobehavioral tests: a comparative study. Neurobehav Toxicol Teratol 5:91–117.

Puopolo M. 2004. Biostatistical approaches to reducing the number of animals used in biomedical research [in Italian]. Ann Ist Super Sanita 40:157–163.

Raffaele KC, Fisher JE, Hancock S, Hazelden KP, Sobrian SK. 2008. Determining normal variability in a developmental neurotoxicity test. Neurotoxicol Teratol 30(4):288–325.

Raffaele KC, Gilbert ME, Crofton S. 2004. Learning and memory tests in developmental neurotoxicity testing: a cross- laboratory comparison of control data. Toxicologist 78:276.

Raffaele KC, Gilbert ME, Crofton KM, Mendez E, Doherty JD, Schumacher W, et al. 2006. Evaluation of learning and memory in developmental neurotoxicity studies: comparison of single-choice water maze across laboratories. Toxicologist 90:291.

Raffaele KC, Sette W, Doherty JD, Makris SL, Crofton KM. 2005. Neuropathological findings in developmental neurotoxicity testing: comparison of qualitative and quantitative evaluations. Toxicologist 84:200.

Raffaele KC, Sette W, Makris SL, Moser V, Crofton KM. 2003. Motor activity in developmental neurotoxicity testing: a cross-laboratory comparison of control data. Toxicologist 72:123.

Rice D, Barone S Jr. 2000. Critical periods of vulnerability for the developing nervous system: evidence from humans and animal models. Environ Health Perspect 108(suppl 3):511–533.

Rodier PM. 1980. Chronology of neuron development: animal studies and their clinical implications. Dev Med Child Neurol 22:525–545.

Rodier PM. 1986. Time of exposure and time of testing in developmental neurotoxicology. Neurotoxicology 7:69–76.

Rodier PM. 1994. Vulnerable periods and processes during central nervous system development. Environ Health Perspect 102(suppl 2):121–124.

Rowland J, Makris SL, Raffaele K, Schumacher K, Scarano L. 2007. A retrospective review of the use of the developmental neurotoxicity study in pesticide risk assessments. Toxicologist 96:369.

Schreiner G, Ulbrich B, Bass R. 1986. Testing strategies in behavioral teratology: II. Discrimination learning. Neurobehav Toxicol Teratol 8:567–572.

Schull WJ, Norton S, Jensh RP. 1990. Ionizing radiation and the developing brain. Neurotoxicol Teratol 12:249–260.

Sette WF, Crofton KM, Makris SL, Doherty JD, Raffaele KC. 2004. Auditory startle reflex habituation in developmental neurotoxicity testing: a cross-laboratory comparison of control data. Toxicologist 78:275.

Slikker W Jr, Acuff K, Boyes WK, Chelonis J, Crofton KM, Dearlove GE, et al. 2005. Behavioral test methods workshop. Neurotoxicol Teratol 27:417–427.

Sobotka TJ, Vorhees CV. 1985. Application of behavioral teratology testing procedures. Neurobehav Toxicol Teratol 7:665.

Spencer PJ, Mattsson JL, Johnson KA, Albee RR. 1993. Neurotoxicity screening methods are sensitive to experimental history. Int J Psychophysiol 14:5–19.

Spyker JM, Smithberg M. 1972. Effects of methylmercury on prenatal development in mice. Teratology 5:181–190.

Stanton ME, Spear LP. 1990. Workshop on the qualitative and quantitative comparability of human and animal developmental neurotoxicity, Work Group I report: comparability of measures of developmental neurotoxicity in humans and laboratory animals. Neurotoxicol Teratol 12:261–267.

Stein J, Schettler T, Wallinga D, Valenti M. 2002. In harm’s way: toxic threats to child development. J Dev Behav Pediatr 23:S13–S22.

Suter KE, Schon H. 1986. Testing strategies in behavioral teratology: I. Testing battery approach. Neurobehav Toxicol Teratol 8:561–566.

Tachibana T, Narita H, Ogawa T, Tanimura T. 1998. Using post-natal age to determine test dates leads to misinterpretations when treatments alter gestation length: results from a collaborative behavioral teratology study in Japan. Neurotoxicol Teratol 20:449–457.

Tachibana T, Terada Y, Fukunishi K, Tanimura T. 1996. Estimated magnitude of behavioral effects of phenytoin in rats and its reproducibility: a collaborative behavioral teratology study in Japan. Physiol Behav 60:941–952.

Tanimura T. 1985. Guidelines for developmental toxicity testing of chemicals in Japan. Neurobehav Toxicol Teratol 7:647–652.

Tanimura T. 1986. Collaborative studies on behavioral teratology in Japan. Neurotoxicology 7:35–45.

Tanimura T. 1992. Update on the Japanese Behavioral Teratology Meeting. Congenit Anom 32(suppl):S 7–S20.

Tilson HA, Jacobson JL, Rogan WJ. 1990. Polychlorinated biphenyls and the developing nervous system: cross-species comparisons. Neurotoxicol Teratol 12:239–248.

Tilson HA, MacPhail RC, Moser VC, Becking GC, Cuomo V, Frantik E, et al. 1997. The IPCS Collaborative Study on Neurobehavioral Screening Methods: VII. Summary and conclusions. Neurotoxicology 18:1065–1069.

Tilson HA, Mitchell CL, Cabe PA. 1979. Screening for neurobehavioral toxicity: the need for and examples of validation of testing procedures. Neurobehav Toxicol (suppl 1):137–148.

Tilson HA, Wright DC. 1985. Interpretation of behavioral teratology data. Neurobehav Toxicol Teratol 7:667–668.

Tyl RW, Crofton KM, Moretto A, Moser V, Sheets LP, Sobotka TJ. 2008. Identification and interpretation of treatment-related effects in developmental neurotoxicity testing. Neurobehav Toxicol 30(4):349–381.

Tyl RW, Sette WF. 1990. Workshop on the qualitative and quantitative comparability of human and animal developmental neurotoxicity, Work Group III report: weight of evidence and quantitative evaluation of developmental neurotoxicity data. Neurotoxicol Teratol 12:275–280.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1986. Triethylene glycol monomethyl, monoethyl and monobutyl ethers: proposed test rule. Fed Reg 81. (94):17883–17894.

U.S. EPA. 1991. Developmental Neurotoxicity Study, Series 83–6, Addendum 10 (Neurotoxicity), Subdivision F: Hazard Evaluation: Human and Domestic Animals.. Washington, DC:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

U.S. EPA. 1995. Positive Control Requirement for Neurotoxicity Testing.. Letter from American Industrial Health Commission (AIHC) to Richard Hill, U.S. EPA, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Washington, DC:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).1998 Health Effects Guidelines OPPTS 870.6300 Developmental Neurotoxicity Study. [accessed 8 December 2008].

U.S. EPA.1999a Washington, DC:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting, December 8, 1998, held at the Sheraton Crystal Hotel, Arlington, VA, II—A Set of Scientific Issues Being Considered by the Environmental Protection Agency Regarding: A Retrospective Analysis of Developmental Neurotoxicity Studies, U.S. EPA, FIFRA SAP Report No. 99–01B, January 22, 1999.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1999b. Neurotoxic pesticides; availability of data call-in notice. Fed Reg 64:42945–42947.

U.S. EPA.2002a Determination of the Appropriate FQPA Safety Factor(s) in Tolerance Assessment. Washington, DC:Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

U.S. EPA. 2002b. A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference Concentration Processes. Washington, DC:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Risk Assessment Forum.

U.S. EPA. 2006. Evaluation Report: Opportunities to Improve Data Quality and Children’s Health through the Food Quality Protection Act.. Washington, DC:Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Vorhees CV. 1985a. Behavioral effects of prenatal d-amphetamine in rats: a parallel trial to the Collaborative Behavioral Teratology Study. Neurobehav Toxicol Teratol 7:709–716.

Vorhees CV. 1985b. Behavioral effects of prenatal methylmercury in rats: a parallel trial to the Collaborative Behavioral Teratology Study. Neurobehav Toxicol Teratol 7:717–725.

Vorhees CV. 1985c. Comparison of the Collaborative Behavioral Teratology Study and Cincinnati Behavioral Teratology test batteries. Neurobehav Toxicol Teratol 7:625–633.

Vorhees CV. 1986. Methods for assessing the adverse effects of foods and other chemicals on animal behavior. Nutr Rev 44(suppl):185–193.

Vorhees CV, Butcher RE, Brunner RL, Sobotka TJ. 1979. A developmental test battery for neurobehavioral toxicity in rats: a preliminary analysis using monosodium glutamate calcium carrageenan, and hydroxyurea. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 50:267–282.

Weiss B, Amler S, Amler RW. 2004. Pesticides. Pediatrics 113:1030–1036.

York RG, Barnett J Jr, Brown WR, Garman RH, Mattie DR, Dodd D. 2004. A rat neurodevelopmental evaluation of offspring, including evaluation of adult and neonatal thyroid, from mothers treated with ammonium perchlorate in drinking water. Int J Toxicol 23:191–214.

Zoetis T, Walls I. 2003. Principles and Practices for Direct Dosing of Pre-weaning Mammals in Toxicity Testing and Research. Washington, DC:ILSI Press.


WP-Backgrounds Lite by InoPlugs Web Design and Juwelier Schönmann 1010 Wien