Ted Simon LLC

Winston, GA, United States

Ted Simon LLC

Winston, GA, United States
SEARCH FILTERS
Time filter
Source Type

Becker R.A.,American Chemistry Council ACC | Patlewicz G.,DuPont Company | Patlewicz G.,US Toxicology | Simon T.W.,Ted Simon LLC | And 2 more authors.
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology | Year: 2015

An Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) represents the existing knowledge of a biological pathway leading from initial molecular interactions of a toxicant and progressing through a series of key events (KEs), culminating with an apical adverse outcome (AO) that has to be of regulatory relevance. An AOP based on the mode of action (MOA) of rodent liver tumor promotion by dioxin-like compounds (DLCs) has been developed and the weight of evidence (WoE) of key event relationships (KERs) evaluated using evolved Bradford Hill considerations. Dioxins and DLCs are potent aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AHR) ligands that cause a range of species-specific adverse outcomes. The occurrence of KEs is necessary for inducing downstream biological responses and KEs may occur at the molecular, cellular, tissue and organ levels. The common convention is that an AOP begins with the toxicant interaction with a biological response element; for this AOP, this initial event is binding of a DLC ligand to the AHR. Data from mechanistic studies, lifetime bioassays and approximately thirty initiation-promotion studies have established dioxin and DLCs as rat liver tumor promoters. Such studies clearly show that sustained AHR activation, weeks or months in duration, is necessary to induce rodent liver tumor promotion - hence, sustained AHR activation is deemed the molecular initiating event (MIE). After this MIE, subsequent KEs are 1) changes in cellular growth homeostasis likely associated with expression changes in a number of genes and observed as development of hepatic foci and decreases in apoptosis within foci; 2) extensive liver toxicity observed as the constellation of effects called toxic hepatopathy; 3) cellular proliferation and hyperplasia in several hepatic cell types. This progression of KEs culminates in the AO, the development of hepatocellular adenomas and carcinomas and cholangiolar carcinomas. A rich data set provides both qualitative and quantitative knowledge of the progression of this AOP through KEs and the KERs. Thus, the WoE for this AOP is judged to be strong. Species-specific effects of dioxins and DLCs are well known - humans are less responsive than rodents and rodent species differ in sensitivity between strains. Consequently, application of this AOP to evaluate potential human health risks must take these differences into account. © 2015 The Authors.


Simon T.W.,Ted Simon LLC | Simons Jr. S.S.,U.S. National Institutes of Health | Preston R.J.,Us Epa National Health And Environmental Effects Research Laboratory | Boobis A.R.,Imperial College London | And 6 more authors.
Critical Reviews in Toxicology | Year: 2014

The HESI RISK21 project formed the Dose-Response/Mode-of-Action Subteam to develop strategies for using all available data (in vitro, in vivo, and in silico) to advance the next-generation of chemical risk assessments. A goal of the Subteam is to enhance the existing Mode of Action/Human Relevance Framework and Key Events/Dose Response Framework (KEDRF) to make the best use of quantitative dose-response and timing information for Key Events (KEs). The resulting Quantitative Key Events/Dose-Response Framework (Q-KEDRF) provides a structured quantitative approach for systematic examination of the dose-response and timing of KEs resulting from a dose of a bioactive agent that causes a potential adverse outcome. Two concepts are described as aids to increasing the understanding of mode of action-Associative Events and Modulating Factors. These concepts are illustrated in two case studies; 1) cholinesterase inhibition by the pesticide chlorpyrifos, which illustrates the necessity of considering quantitative dose-response information when assessing the effect of a Modulating Factor, that is, enzyme polymorphisms in humans, and 2) estrogen-induced uterotrophic responses in rodents, which demonstrate how quantitative dose-response modeling for KE, the understanding of temporal relationships between KEs and a counterfactual examination of hypothesized KEs can determine whether they are Associative Events or true KEs. © 2014 Informa Healthcare USA, Inc.


PubMed | University of Cincinnati, Ted Simon LLC, University of South Florida and Regulatory Science Policy
Type: | Journal: Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP | Year: 2016

In 2014, the National Research Council (NRC) published Review of EPAs Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Process that considers methods EPA uses for developing toxicity criteria for non-carcinogens. These criteria are the Reference Dose (RfD) for oral exposure and Reference Concentration (RfC) for inhalation exposure. The NRC Review suggested using Bayesian methods for application of uncertainty factors (UFs) to adjust the point of departure dose or concentration to a level considered to be without adverse effects for the human population. The NRC foresaw Bayesian methods would be potentially useful for combining toxicity data from disparate sources-high throughput assays, animal testing, and observational epidemiology. UFs represent five distinct areas for which both adjustment and consideration of uncertainty may be needed. NRC suggested UFs could be represented as Bayesian prior distributions, illustrated the use of a log-normal distribution to represent the composite UF, and combined this distribution with a log-normal distribution representing uncertainty in the point of departure (POD) to reflect the overall uncertainty. Here, we explore these suggestions and present a refinement of the methodology suggested by NRC that considers each individual UF as a distribution. From an examination of 24 evaluations from EPAs IRIS program, when individual UFs were represented using this approach, the geometric mean fold change in the value of the RfD or RfC increased from 3 to over 30, depending on the number of individual UFs used and the sophistication of the assessment. We present example calculations and recommendations for implementing the refined NRC methodology.


PubMed | ExxonMobil, University of Maryland Baltimore County, Colorado State University, American Chemistry Council and 7 more.
Type: | Journal: Environment international | Year: 2016

Single point estimates of human health hazard/toxicity values such as a reference dose (RfD) are generally used in chemical hazard and risk assessment programs for assessing potential risks associated with site- or use-specific exposures. The resulting point estimates are often used by risk managers for regulatory decision-making, including standard setting, determination of emission controls, and mitigation of exposures to chemical substances. Risk managers, as well as stakeholders (interested and affected parties), often have limited information regarding assumptions and uncertainty factors in numerical estimates of both hazards and risks. Further, the use of different approaches for addressing uncertainty, which vary in transparency, can lead to a lack of confidence in the scientific underpinning of regulatory decision-making. The overarching goal of this paper, which was developed from an invited participant workshop, is to offer five approaches for presenting toxicity values in a transparent manner in order to improve the understanding, consideration, and informed use of uncertainty by risk assessors, risk managers, and stakeholders. The five approaches for improving the presentation and communication of uncertainty are described using U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys (EPAs) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) as a case study. These approaches will ensure transparency in the documentation, development, and use of toxicity values at EPA, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and other similar assessment programs in the public and private sector. Further empirical testing will help to inform the approaches that will work best for specific audiences and situations.


Simon T.W.,Ted Simon LLC | Budinsky R.A.,Dow Chemical Company | Rowlands J.C.,Dow Chemical Company
PLoS ONE | Year: 2015

A stochastic model of nuclear receptor-mediated transcription was developed based on activation of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AHR) by 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD) and subsequent binding the activated AHR to xenobiotic response elements (XREs) on DNA. The model was based on effects observed in cells lines commonly used as in vitro experimental systems. Following ligand binding, the AHR moves into the cell nucleus and forms a heterodimer with the aryl hydrocarbon nuclear translocator (ARNT). In the model, a requirement for binding to DNA is that a generic coregulatory protein is subsequently bound to the AHR-ARNT dimer. Varying the amount of coregulator available within the nucleus altered both the potency and efficacy of TCDD for inducing for transcription of CYP1A1 mRNA, a commonly used marker for activation of the AHR. Lowering the amount of available cofactor slightly increased the EC50 for the transcriptional response without changing the efficacy or maximal response. Further reduction in the amount of cofactor reduced the efficacy and produced non-monotonic dose-response curves (NMDRCs) at higher ligand concentrations. The shapes of these NMDRCs were reminiscent of the phenomenon of squelching. Resource limitations for transcriptional machinery are becoming apparent in eukaryotic cells. Within single cells, nuclear receptor-mediated gene expression appears to be a stochastic process; however, intercellular communication and other aspects of tissue coordination may represent a compensatory process to maintain an organism's ability to respond on a phenotypic level to various stimuli within an inconstant environment. © 2015 Simon et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.


Simon T.,Ted Simon LLC
Human and Experimental Toxicology | Year: 2011

The willingness to view risk as part of daily life has vanished. A risk-averse mindset among environmental regulators engenders confusion between the ethics of intention and the ethics of consequence, leading to the elevation of the precautionary principle with unintended and often unfortunate outcomes. Environmental risk assessment is conservative, but the actual level of conservatism cannot be determined. High-end exposure assumptions and current toxicity criteria from the USEPA, based on linear extrapolation for carcinogens and default uncertainty factors for systemic toxicants, obscure the degree of conservatism in risk assessments. Ideally, one could choose a percentile of the target population to include within environmental standards, but this choice is complicated by the food, pharmaceutical and advertising industries, whose activities, inadvertent or not, often promote maladaptive and unhealthy lifestyle choices. There has lately been much discussion about background exposures and disease processes and their potential to increase the risk from environmental chemicals. Should these background exposures or disease processes, especially those associated with maladaptive individual choices, be included as part of a regulatory risk evaluation? A significant ethical question is whether environmental regulation should protect those pursuing a self-destructive lifestyle that may add to or synergize with otherwise innocuous environmental exposures. Choosing a target percentile of protection would provide an increased level of transparency and the flexibility to choose a higher or lower percentile if such a choice is warranted. Transparency and flexibility will lead to more responsive environmental regulation that balances protection of public health and the stewardship of societal resources. © The Author(s) 2010.


Patlewicz G.,DuPont Company | Simon T.W.,Ted Simon LLC | Rowlands J.C.,Dow Chemical Company | Budinsky R.A.,Dow Chemical Company | Becker R.A.,American Chemistry Council ACC
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology | Year: 2015

An adverse outcome pathway (AOP) describes the causal linkage between initial molecular events and an adverse outcome at individual or population levels. Whilst there has been considerable momentum in AOP development, far less attention has been paid to how AOPs might be practically applied for different regulatory purposes. This paper proposes a scientific confidence framework (SCF) for evaluating and applying a given AOP for different regulatory purposes ranging from prioritizing chemicals for further evaluation, to hazard prediction, and ultimately, risk assessment. The framework is illustrated using three different AOPs for several typical regulatory applications. The AOPs chosen are ones that have been recently developed and/or published, namely those for estrogenic effects, skin sensitisation, and rodent liver tumor promotion. The examples confirm how critical the data-richness of an AOP is for driving its practical application. In terms of performing risk assessment, human dosimetry methods are necessary to inform meaningful comparisons with human exposures; dosimetry is applied to effect levels based on non-testing approaches and in vitro data. Such a comparison is presented in the form of an exposure:activity ratio (EAR) to interpret biological activity in the context of exposure and to provide a basis for product stewardship and regulatory decision making. © 2015 The Authors.


PubMed | American Chemistry Council ACC, DuPont Company, Ted Simon LLC and Dow Chemical Company
Type: Journal Article | Journal: Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP | Year: 2015

An adverse outcome pathway (AOP) describes the causal linkage between initial molecular events and an adverse outcome at individual or population levels. Whilst there has been considerable momentum in AOP development, far less attention has been paid to how AOPs might be practically applied for different regulatory purposes. This paper proposes a scientific confidence framework (SCF) for evaluating and applying a given AOP for different regulatory purposes ranging from prioritizing chemicals for further evaluation, to hazard prediction, and ultimately, risk assessment. The framework is illustrated using three different AOPs for several typical regulatory applications. The AOPs chosen are ones that have been recently developed and/or published, namely those for estrogenic effects, skin sensitisation, and rodent liver tumor promotion. The examples confirm how critical the data-richness of an AOP is for driving its practical application. In terms of performing risk assessment, human dosimetry methods are necessary to inform meaningful comparisons with human exposures; dosimetry is applied to effect levels based on non-testing approaches and in vitro data. Such a comparison is presented in the form of an exposure:activity ratio (EAR) to interpret biological activity in the context of exposure and to provide a basis for product stewardship and regulatory decision making.


Becker R.A.,American Chemistry Council | Friedman K.P.,Bayer AG | Simon T.W.,Ted Simon LLC | Marty M.S.,Dow Chemical Company | And 3 more authors.
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology | Year: 2015

Rapid high throughput in vitro screening (HTS) assays are now available for characterizing dose-responses in assays that have been selected for their sensitivity in detecting estrogen-related endpoints. For example, EPA's ToxCast™ program recently released endocrine assay results for more than 1800 substances and the interagency Tox21 consortium is in the process of releasing data for approximately 10,000 chemicals. But such activity measurements alone fall short for the purposes of priority setting or screening because the relevant exposure context is not considered. Here, we extend the method of exposure:activity profiling by calculating the exposure:activity ratios (EARs) using human exposure estimates and AC50 values for a range of chemicals tested in a suite of seven estrogenic assays in ToxCast™ and Tox21. To provide additional context, relative estrogenic exposure:activity quotients (REEAQ) were derived by comparing chemical-specific EARs to the EAR of the ubiquitous dietary phytoestrogen, genistein (GEN). Although the activity of a substance in HTS-endocrine assays is not a measure of health hazard or risk, understanding how such a dose compares to human exposures provides a valuable additional metric that can be used in decision-making; substances with small EARs and REEAQs would indicate low priority for further endocrine screening or testing. © 2015 The Authors.


PubMed | Dow Chemical Company, American Chemistry Council, Ted Simon LLC, DuPont Company and Bayer AG
Type: Comparative Study | Journal: Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP | Year: 2015

Rapid high throughput in vitro screening (HTS) assays are now available for characterizing dose-responses in assays that have been selected for their sensitivity in detecting estrogen-related endpoints. For example, EPAs ToxCast program recently released endocrine assay results for more than 1800 substances and the interagency Tox21 consortium is in the process of releasing data for approximately 10,000 chemicals. But such activity measurements alone fall short for the purposes of priority setting or screening because the relevant exposure context is not considered. Here, we extend the method of exposure:activity profiling by calculating the exposure:activity ratios (EARs) using human exposure estimates and AC50 values for a range of chemicals tested in a suite of seven estrogenic assays in ToxCast and Tox21. To provide additional context, relative estrogenic exposure:activity quotients (REEAQ) were derived by comparing chemical-specific EARs to the EAR of the ubiquitous dietary phytoestrogen, genistein (GEN). Although the activity of a substance in HTS-endocrine assays is not a measure of health hazard or risk, understanding how such a dose compares to human exposures provides a valuable additional metric that can be used in decision-making; substances with small EARs and REEAQs would indicate low priority for further endocrine screening or testing.

Loading Ted Simon LLC collaborators
Loading Ted Simon LLC collaborators