"Weight of Evidence" (WoE) approaches are often used to critically examine, prioritize, and integrate results from different types of studies to reach general conclusions. For assessing hormonally active agents, WoE evaluations are necessary to assess screening assays that identify potential interactions with components of the endocrine system, long-term reproductive and developmental toxicity tests that define adverse effects, mode of action studies aimed at identifying toxicological pathways underlying adverse effects, and toxicity, exposure and pharmacokinetic data to characterize potential risks. We describe a hypothesis-driven WoE approach for hormonally active agents and illustrate the approach by constructing hypotheses for testing the premise that a substance interacts as an agonist or antagonist with components of estrogen, androgen, or thyroid pathways or with components of the aromatase or steroidogenic enzyme systems for evaluating data within the US EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. Published recommendations are used to evaluate data validity for testing each hypothesis and quantitative weightings are proposed to reflect two data parameters. Relevance weightings should be derived for each endpoint to reflect the degree to which it probes each specific hypothesis. Response weightings should be derived based on assay results from the test substance compared to the range of responses produced in the assay by the appropriate prototype hormone and positive and negative controls. Overall WoE scores should be derived based on response and relevance weightings and a WoE narrative developed to clearly describe the final determinations.

An immunohistochemical assay for proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) identifies cells in all active phases of the cell cycle. In this study, PCNA methodology, which was developed primarily for mammalian tissues, was adapted to three small fish species, medaka (Oryzias latipes), guppy (Poecilia reticulata), and western mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) that are used in carcinogenesis bioassays and environmental sentinel studies. Our study showed that PCNA can be identified in routinely processed, paraffin embedded specimens of these fishes. Optimum staining conditions were dependent on fixative, primary antibody, antigen retrieval processing, and protein blocking reagent. Best results were achieved using 10% neutral buffered formalin as the fixative, clone PC10 as the primary antibody, and a combination of powdered milk and bovine serum albumin as a protein block. Except for medaka specimens, antigen retrieval was not required for specimens preserved in 10% neutral buffered formalin, but was required for the other fixatives tested. In whole fish specimens, PCNA marked cells in normally proliferating tissues such as testis, ovary, primary filament epithelium of the gill, hematopoietic tissues, thymus, retina and alimentary tract. The study demonstrated the successful application of mammalian-based PCNA technology to these aquatic species. Further applications of the assay will aid in understanding the role of cell proliferation in normal, diseased, and toxicant-affected tissues of aquatic animals.

Weight of evidence (WoE) approaches are recommended for interpreting various toxicological data, but few systematic and transparent procedures exist. A hypothesis-based WoE framework was recently published focusing on the U.S. EPA's Tier 1 Endocrine Screening Battery (ESB) as an example. The framework recommends weighting each experimental endpoint according to its relevance for deciding eight hypotheses addressed by the ESB. Here we present detailed rationale for weighting the ESB endpoints according to three rank ordered categories and an interpretive process for using the rankings to reach WoE determinations. Rank 1 was assigned to in vivo endpoints that characterize the fundamental physiological actions for androgen, estrogen, and thyroid activities. Rank 1 endpoints are specific and sensitive for the hypothesis, interpretable without ancillary data, and rarely confounded by artifacts or nonspecific activity. Rank 2 endpoints are specific and interpretable for the hypothesis but less informative than Rank 1, often due to oversensitivity, inclusion of narrowly context-dependent components of the hormonal system (e.g., in vitro endpoints), or confounding by nonspecific activity. Rank 3 endpoints are relevant for the hypothesis but only corroborative of Ranks 1 and 2 endpoints. Rank 3 includes many apical in vivo endpoints that can be affected by systemic toxicity and nonhormonal activity. Although these relevance weight rankings (W REL ) necessarily involve professional judgment, their a priori derivation enhances transparency and renders WoE determinations amenable to methodological scrutiny according to basic scientific premises, characteristics that cannot be assured by processes in which the rationale for decisions is provided post hoc.