You are here:
Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis of Test Endpoints for Detecting the Effects of Endocrine Active Substances in Fish Full Life Cycle Tests
Citation:
CRANE, M., M. GROSS, P. MATTHIESSEN, G. T. ANKLEY, S. AXFORD, P. BJERREGAARD, R. BROWN, P. CHAPMAN, M. DORGELOH, M. GALAY-BURGOS, J. GREEN, C. HAZLERIGG, J. JANSSEN, K. LORENZEN, J. PARROTT, H. RUFLI, C. SCHAFERS, M. SEKI, H. STOLZENBERG, N. VAN DER HOEVEN, D. VETHAAK, I. J. WINFIELD, S. ZOK, AND J. WHEELER. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis of Test Endpoints for Detecting the Effects of Endocrine Active Substances in Fish Full Life Cycle Tests. Integrated Assessment and Management. SETAC Press, Pensacola, FL, 6(3):378-389, (2010).
Impact/Purpose:
Fish full life cycle (FFLC) tests are increasingly required in the ecotoxicological assessment of endocrine active substances. However, FFLC tests have not been internationally standardized or validated, and it is currently unclear how such tests should best be designed to provide statistically sound and ecologically relevant results. Using the logical framework of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), a comparative evaluation of FFLC test endpoints for assessing endocrine-active substances was conducted. The analysis was performed by three workshop groups with expertise in environmental regulation, statistics, fish ecology and aquatic toxicity testing. Each workgroup focused on one of three species: fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes) and zebrafish (Danio rerio). Test endpoints (e.g. fecundity, growth, gonadal histopathology) were scored for each species for various desirable features such as statistical power and ecological relevance, with the importance of these features determined by assigning weights to them. MCDA indicated relatively less preferred endpoints in fish life cycle tests. For example, intensive histopathology consistently ranked low, as did measurement of diagnostic biomarkers, such as vitellogenin, most likely due to the high costs of these methods and their limited ecological relevance. Life cycle tests typically do not focus on identifying toxic modes/mechanisms of action, but rather, single chemical concentration-response relationships for endpoints (e.g. survival, growth, reproduction) that can be translated into evaluation of risk. It is therefore likely to be an inefficient use of limited resources to measure these mechanism-specific endpoints in life cycle tests, unless the value of such endpoints for answering particular questions justifies their integration in specific case studies.
Description:
Fish full life cycle (FFLC) tests are increasingly required in the ecotoxicological assessment of endocrine active substances. However, FFLC tests have not been internationally standardized or validated, and it is currently unclear how such tests should best be designed to provide statistically sound and ecologically relevant results. Using the logical framework of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), a comparative evaluation of FFLC test endpoints for assessing endocrine-active substances was conducted. The analysis was performed by three workshop groups with expertise in environmental regulation, statistics, fish ecology and aquatic toxicity testing. Each workgroup focused on one of three species: fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes) and zebrafish (Danio rerio). Test endpoints (e.g. fecundity, growth, gonadal histopathology) were scored for each species for various desirable features such as statistical power and ecological relevance, with the importance of these features determined by assigning weights to them. MCDA indicated relatively less preferred endpoints in fish life cycle tests. For example, intensive histopathology consistently ranked low, as did measurement of diagnostic biomarkers, such as vitellogenin, most likely due to the high costs of these methods and their limited ecological relevance. Life cycle tests typically do not focus on identifying toxic modes/mechanisms of action, but rather, single chemical concentration-response relationships for endpoints (e.g. survival, growth, reproduction) that can be translated into evaluation of risk. It is therefore likely to be an inefficient use of limited resources to measure these mechanism-specific endpoints in life cycle tests, unless the value of such endpoints for answering particular questions justifies their integration in specific case studies.