Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Environmental Health Perspectives logoLink to Environmental Health Perspectives
. 1995 Sep;103(Suppl 6):147–151. doi: 10.1289/ehp.95103s6147

The concern for developmental neurotoxicology: is it justified and what is being done about it?

H A Tilson 1
PMCID: PMC1518918  PMID: 8549464

Abstract

In general, it is believed that the possibility of an adverse developmental outcome following conception is relatively high. In most cases, the cause of the defect is not clear, although exposure to chemical agents at a critical period during development has been proposed to play a significant role. Consequently, regulatory agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) have promulgated testing guidelines for assessing developmental neurotoxicity of chemicals in animal testing protocols. Concerns have been expressed about the use of behavioral tests to evaluate chemicals for developmental neurotoxicity, since some investigators believe that they lack predictive validity for human developmental neurotoxicity. Other investigators have indicated that results from such studies are difficult to interpret because of a lack of standardization and sensitivity of the tests. Furthermore, it has been argued that the developing organism is not especially sensitive to chemicals or, if effects are observed, the developing organism is capable of compensating for the deficit. Recent research, however, has adequately demonstrated that developing organisms are especially vulnerable to chemical agents if the exposure occurs at a critical period during development, while other studies have supported the assumption that functional or behavioral effects observed in animal models can be extrapolated to humans. These findings support the routine assessment of chemicals for developmental neurotoxicity using functional end points and suggest that currently available methods could be used to determine more precisely the mechanism of chemical-induced developmental defects.

Full text

PDF
147

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Agrawal A. K., Squibb R. E. Effects of acrylamide given during gestation on dopamine receptor binding in rat pups. Toxicol Lett. 1981 Jan;7(3):233–238. doi: 10.1016/0378-4274(81)90074-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Balduini W., Elsner J., Lombardelli G., Peruzzi G., Cattabeni F. Treatment with methylazoxymethanol at different gestational days: two-way shuttle box avoidance and residential maze activity in rat offspring. Neurotoxicology. 1991 Winter;12(4):677–686. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ewards P. M. The insensitivity of the developing rat foetus to the toxic effects of acrylamide. Chem Biol Interact. 1976 Jan;12(1):13–18. doi: 10.1016/0009-2797(76)90062-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Harry G. J., Tilson H. A. Postpartum exposure to triethyl tin produces long-term alterations in responsiveness to apomorphine. Neurotoxicology. 1982 Jul;3(1):64–71. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Harry G. J., Tilson H. A. The effects of postpartum exposure to triethyl tin on the neurobehavioral functioning of rats. Neurotoxicology. 1981 Oct;2(2):283–296. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Kimmel C. A. Current status of behavioral teratology: science and regulation. Crit Rev Toxicol. 1988;19(1):1–10. doi: 10.3109/10408448809040814. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Rees D. C., Francis E. Z., Kimmel C. A. Scientific and regulatory issues relevant to assessing risk for developmental neurotoxicity: an overview. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1990 May-Jun;12(3):175–181. doi: 10.1016/0892-0362(90)90089-u. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Rees D. C., Francis E. Z., Kimmel C. A. Scientific and regulatory issues relevant to assessing risk for developmental neurotoxicity: an overview. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1990 May-Jun;12(3):175–181. doi: 10.1016/0892-0362(90)90089-u. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Rice D. C. Delayed neurotoxicity in monkeys exposed developmentally to methylmercury. Neurotoxicology. 1989 Winter;10(4):645–650. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Rodier P. M. Critical periods for behavioral anomalies in mice. Environ Health Perspect. 1976 Dec;18:79–83. doi: 10.1289/ehp.761879. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Rodier P. M., Reynolds S. S., Roberts W. N. Behavioral consequences of interference with CNS development in the early fetal period. Teratology. 1979 Jun;19(3):327–336. doi: 10.1002/tera.1420190308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Schardein J. L., Keller K. A. Potential human developmental toxicants and the role of animal testing in their identification and characterization. Crit Rev Toxicol. 1989;19(3):251–339. doi: 10.3109/10408448909037473. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Shepard T. H. Human teratogenicity. Adv Pediatr. 1986;33:225–268. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Spencer P. S., Schaumburg H. H. A review of acrylamide neurotoxicity. Part I. Properties, uses and human exposure. Can J Neurol Sci. 1974 May;1(2):143–150. doi: 10.1017/s0317167100019739. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Spyker J. M. Assessing the impact of low level chemicals on development: behavioral and latent effects. Fed Proc. 1975 Aug;34(9):1835–1844. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Stanton M. E., Spear L. P. 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. 1990 May-Jun;12(3):261–267. doi: 10.1016/0892-0362(90)90097-v. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Wilcox A. J., Weinberg C. R., Wehmann R. E., Armstrong E. G., Canfield R. E., Nisula B. C. Measuring early pregnancy loss: laboratory and field methods. Fertil Steril. 1985 Sep;44(3):366–374. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Environmental Health Perspectives are provided here courtesy of National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

RESOURCES