Communities across the U.S. are discovering drinking water contaminated by perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and determining appropriate actions. There are currently no federal PFAS drinking water standards despite widespread drinking water contamination, ubiquitous population-level exposure, and toxicological and epidemiological evidence of adverse health effects. Absent federal PFAS standards, multiple U.S. states have developed their own health-based water guideline levels to guide decisions about contaminated site cleanup and drinking water surveillance and treatment. We examined perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) water guideline levels developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state agencies to protect people drinking the water, and summarized how and why these levels differ. We referenced documents and tables released in June 2018 by the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) to identify states that have drinking water and groundwater guideline levels for PFOA and/or PFOS that differ from EPA’s health advisories (HAs). We also gathered assessment documents from state websites and contacted state environmental and health agencies to identify and confirm current guidelines. Seven states have developed their own water guideline levels for PFOA and/or PFOS ranging from 13 to 1000 ng/L, compared to EPA’s HA of 70 ng/L for both compounds individually or combined. We find that the development of PFAS guideline levels via exposure and hazard assessment decisions is influenced by multiple scientific, technical, and social factors, including managing scientific uncertainty, technical decisions and capacity, and social, political, and economic influences from involved stakeholders. Assessments by multiple states and academic scientists suggest that EPA’s HA is not sufficiently protective. The ability of states to develop their own guideline levels and standards provides diverse risk assessment approaches as models for other state and federal regulators, while a sufficiently protective, scientifically sound, and enforceable federal standard would provide more consistent protection.

A human brain cDNA clone coding for a novel PDZ-domain protein of 124 amino acids was previously isolated in our laboratory. The protein was termed glutaminase-interacting protein (GIP), because it interacts with the C-terminal region of the human L-type glutaminase (LGA). The pattern of expression and functions of GIP in brain are completely unknown, so its significance remains undefined. Here we describe the expression of GIP mRNA and protein in mammalian brain. Northern blot analysis revealed that GIP mRNA was ubiquitous in most regions of human brain but was particularly abundant in spinal cord. The presence of the protein in rat and monkey brain was studied at the regional, cellular, and subcellular level by immunocytochemistry. The protein was found to be present in both neurons and astrocytes, with a cytosolic and mitochondrial subcellular localization. Double immunofluorescence labeling with anti-GIP and anti-LGA antibodies using confocal microscopy revealed colocalization of both proteins in astrocyte cell processes and their perivascular end feet. Electron microscopy of rat brain neurons revealed GIP immunoreactivity concentrated also in the nuclear envelope and the plasma membrane. The multiple locations for GIP in mammalian brain are in agreement with known protein interaction partners reported for this PDZ protein. The findings presented here support a role of GIP as an important scaffold in both astrocytes and neurons and point toward astrocytic processes and perivascular end feet as plausible anatomical substrates for interaction with glutaminase.

No abstract