Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Environmental Health Perspectives logoLink to Environmental Health Perspectives
. 2006 Apr 18;114(9):1394–1400. doi: 10.1289/ehp.8805

Use of a Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Model for Rats to Study the Influence of Body Fat Mass and Induction of CYP1A2 on the Pharmacokinetics of TCDD

Claude Emond 1,2,3, Linda S Birnbaum 2, Michael J DeVito 2,✉
PMCID: PMC1570044  PMID: 16966094

Abstract

2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) is a highly lipophilic chemical that distributes into adipose tissue, especially at low doses. However, at high doses TCDD sequesters in liver because it induces cytochrome P450 1A2 (CYP1A2) that binds TCDD. A physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model was developed that included an inducible elimination rate of TCDD in the Sprague-Dawley rat. Objectives of this work were to characterize the influence of induction of CYP1A2 and adipose tissue mass fraction on the terminal elimination half-life (t1/2) of TCDD using this PBPK model. When the model assumes a fixed elimination of TCDD, t1/2 increases with dose, due to hepatic sequestration. Because experimental data indicate that the t1/2 of TCDD decreases with dose, the model was modified to include an inducible elimination rate. The PBPK model was then used to compare the t1/2 after an increase of adipose tissue mass fraction from 6.9 to 70%. The model suggests that at low exposures, increasing adipose tissue mass increases the terminal t1/2. However, at higher exposures, as CYP1A2 is induced, the relationship between adipose tissue mass and t1/2 reaches a plateau. This demonstrates that an inducible elimination rate is needed in a PBPK model in order to describe the pharmacokinetics of TCDD. At low exposures these models are more sensitive to parameters related to partitioning into adipose tissue.

Keywords: adipose tissue, AhR, aryl hydrocarbon receptor , dioxin, modeling, PBPK, pharmacokinetics, TCDD

2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) is a ubiquitous environmental contaminant that induces a wide spectrum of toxic responses (DeVito and Birnbaum 1995). A number of pharmacokinetic models for TCDD are available that incorporate various stages of sophistication, including classical pharmacokinetic models (Michalek et al. 2002; Pinsky and Lorber 1998), pseudophysiologic models (Aylward et al. 2005; Carrier et al. 1995a, 1995b), and more descriptive physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models (Andersen et al. 1993, 1997; Emond et al. 2004; Kohn et al. 1996; Maruyama et al. 2002; Wang et al. 1997, 2000). Some epidemiologic studies use classical pharmacokinetic models to describe and quantify TCDD exposures (Crump et al. 2003; Flesch-Janys et al. 1996; Salvan et al. 2001; Steenland et al. 2001). The potential use of pharmacokinetic models in risk assessment to understand the relationship between exposure and tissue concentrations underscores the importance of developing biologically accurate models of the pharmacokinetics of TCDD and related chemicals.

The most recent pharmacokinetic models for TCDD have a number of similarities. All these models describe the distribution of TCDD as diffusion limited (Andersen et al. 1993, 1997; Aylward et al. 2005; Carrier et al. 1995a, 1995b; Emond et al. 2004; Kohn et al. 1996; Maruyama et al. 2002; Wang et al. 1997, 2000). In addition, most of these models include an inducible TCDD-binding protein in hepatic tissue. Experimental evidence demonstrates that this protein is cytochrome P450 1A2 (CYP1A2) (Diliberto et al. 1999; Staskal et al. 2005), whose expression is regulated by the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR).

One major difference among these models is the description of the elimination of TCDD. Empirical models developed from epidemiologic data assume a first-order elimination rate with half-lives (t1/2) varying from 7 to 8.7 years (Aylward et al. 1996; Crump et al. 2003; Flesch-Janys et al. 1996; Steenland et al. 2001). The models of Wang et al. (2000), Maruyama et al. (2002), and Emond et al. (2004) also assume a constant hepatic clearance rate for TCDD. Andersen et al. (1993, 1997), Emond et al. (2005), and Kohn et al. (1996) assume that hepatic elimination of TCDD increases with dose. In the toxicokinetic model of van der Molen et al. (1998, 2000), the t1/2 of TCDD varies by body composition but not by dose. Aylward et al. (2005) extended the model of Carrier et al. (1995a, 1995b) by incorporating elimination due to lipid partitioning of TCDD from the blood into the large intestine based on published human data (Moser and McLachlan 2002). Despite these mechanistic differences, most models provide reasonable fits to the experimental data.

Dioxins are highly lipophilic and concentrate in adipose tissue. Recent studies suggest that body fat mass influences the elimination of TCDD (van der Molen et al. 1998, 2000). Michalek and Tripathi (1999) found that the TCDD t1/2 increases with body mass index (BMI) in humans. Increasing BMI alters the pharmacokinetics of lipophilic chemicals due to increased distribution into the adipose compartment and by altering xenobiotic metabolizing enzymes (Anzenbacher and Anzenbacherova 2001; Cheng and Morgan 2001).

TCDD metabolism, CYP1A2 induction, binding to CYP1A2, and BMI influence the elimination of TCDD (Olson et al. 1995). Thus, the objectives of this work were to characterize the influence of CYP1A2 induction and adipose tissue mass fraction on the terminal elimination t1/2 of TCDD using a rat PBPK model.

Materials and Methods

This work is an extension of the TCDD PBPK model for Sprague-Dawley rats of Emond et al. (2004) that consists of four compartments: liver, fat, placenta (activated during gestation), and rest of the body (Figure 1). The systemic circulation interconnects each compartment. The present analysis focuses on nonpregnant animals, so the placental compartment was inactive. The liver compartment includes AhR-mediated induction of CYP1A2 and binding of TCDD to both the AhR and CYP1A2. Oral absorption and urinary and hepatic elimination were described, and constants were fit to the experimental data of Santostefano et al. (1998) as previously described (Emond et al. 2004). The elimination constant was optimized to incorporate hepatic metabolism, enterohepatic recirculation, and biliary elimination of TCDD. All physiological, biochemical, and physicochemical parameters used in this model are from Emond et al. (2004) (Table 1). The PBPK model was developed with algebraic and differential equations using ACSL software (Advanced Continuous Simulation Language; Aegis Corp., Huntsville, AL; see Appendix for equations). The original Emond et al. (2004) model is designated the fixed elimination model.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Conceptual representation of PBPK model for rat exposed to TCDD. GI, gastrointestinal.

Table 1.

Physiologic parameters used in the PBPK models for rat.a

Parameter description Symbol Value
Body weight (g) BW 250
Cardiac output (mL/hr/kg) QCCAR 311.4
Tissue volumes (fraction of BW)
 Liver WLI0 0.036
 Fat WF0 0.069
 Rest of the body WRE0 0.729
 Blood WB0 0.076
Tissues blood volumes
 Liver (fraction of liver) WLIB0 0.266
 Fat (fraction of fat) WFB0 0.050
 Rest of the body (fraction of rest of the body) WREB0 0.030
Tissue blood flows (fraction of cardiac output)
 Liver QLIF 0.183
 Fat QFF 0.069
 Rest of the body QREF 0.748
Tissue permeability (fraction of tissue blood flow)
 Liver PALIF 0.3500
 Fat PAFF 0.0910
 Rest of the body PAREF 0.0298
Partition coefficient
 Liver PLI 6
 Fat PF 100
 Rest of the body PRE 1.5
Metabolism constants
 Urinary clearance elimination (mL/hr) CLURI 0.01
 Liver (biliary elimination and metabolism; hr−1) KBILE_LI Inducibleb
 Interspecies constant (hr−1) Kelv 0.15c
AhR
 Affinity constant in liver (nmol/mL) KDLI 0.0001
 Binding capacity in liver (nmol/mL) LIBMAX 0.00035
CYP1A2 induction parameters
 Dissociation constant CYP1A2 (nmol/mL) KDLI2 0.04
 Degradation process CYP1A2 (nmol/mL) CYP1A2_1OUTZ 1.6
 Dissociation constant during induction (nmol/mL) CYP1A2_1EC50 0.3
 Basal concentration of CYP1A2 (nmol/mL) CYP1A2_1A2 1.6
 First-order rate for degradation (hr−1) CYP1A2_1KOUT 0.1
 Time delay before induction process (hr) CYP1A2_1TAU 0.25
 Maximal induction of CYP1A2 (unitless) CYP1A2_1EMAX 600
Other constant
 Oral absorption constant (hr−1) KABS 0.48
 Gastric nonabsorption constant (hr−1) KST 0.36
Open in a new tab
a

From Emond et al. (2004), except as specified.

b

In the fixed elimination model this value is 2.2 hr−1 as presented by Emond et al. (2004). In the inducible elimination model this parameter varies with exposure as described in Equation 1.

c

Formal optimization followed the visual fitting.

Inducible elimination t1/2

A review of theexperimental estimates of the t1/2 of TCDD in rats suggests that the longest estimates of t1/2 are from studies using the lowest exposures (Table 2). This comparison includes data from different strains and sex of rats, and the influence of dose on the elimination of TCDD must be viewed cautiously. Most of the exposures were well above the median efffective dose (ED50) for enzyme induction (Santostefano et al. 1997). Data in mice and humans suggest that the elimination of TCDD is dose dependent (Abraham et al. 2002; Diliberto et al. 2001; Michalek et al. 2002).

Table 2.

Relation between dose and t1/2 calculated in experimental data in rats.a

Strain Sex Dose (μg/kg) t1/2 ± SD (days) Reference
Wistar F 0.3 16.6 ± 5.7 Abraham et al. 1988
Wistar M 0.01 45.2 ± 11.4 Lakshmanan et al. 1986
Wistar M 5.0 21.9 Pohjanvirta et al. 1990
Long Evans M 5.0 20.8 Pohjanvirta et al. 1990
Long Evans M 2 18.2 ± 2.6 Viluksela et al. 1996
Long Evans M 5.6 10.5 ± 2.8 Viluksela et al. 1996
Sprague-Dawley F 10 12 Wang et al. 1997
Sprague-Dawley M 1 31 ± 6 Rose et al. 1976
Sprague-Dawley M 9.25 16.3 ± 3 Weber et al. 1993
Sprague-Dawley M 50 17.4 ± 5.4 Piper et al. 1973
Sprague-Dawley M 50 14.5 ± 0.5 Allen et al. 1975
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: F, female, M, male.

a

All experimental paradigms used a single exposure.

The Emond et al. (2004) model was modified to include an inducible TCDD elimination that assumes the elimination increases proportionately to CYP1A2 induction:

graphic file with name ehp0114-001394e1.jpg

where KBILE_LI is the inducible elimination rate (hr−1), CYP1A2induced is the concentration of CYP1A2 induced (nmol/mL), CYP1A2basal is the basal concentration of CYP1A2 (nmol/mL), and Kelv is the interspecies constant adjustment for the elimination rate (hr−1). In the model, CYP1A2induced is always greater than CYP1A2basal, and the difference between these two values is always positive. Kelv was optimized to the data of Santostefano et al. (1998) using ACSL Optimize (ACSL Math, version 2.1) using a maximization of the log-likelihood function (Steiner et al. 1990).

Estimates of terminal elimination t1/2

The influence of KBILE_LI, BMI, CYP1A2 induction, and TCDD binding to CYP1A2 on the terminal elimination t1/2 of TCDD was examined using the fixed and inducible elimination models. The terminal elimination t1 / 2 of TCDD in blood was estimated between 300 and 900 hr from simulations of single oral exposures in a dose range from 10−3 to 103 μg TCDD/kg using PK Solutions (version 2.0; Summit Research Solutions, Ashland, OH).

Influence of CYP1A2 binding and BMI on the terminal elimination t1/2 of TCDD

The influence of CYP1A2 binding on the terminal elimination t1/2 of TCDD was examined by increasing the binding affinity of TCDD to CYP1A2 (KDLI2) from 0.04 to 10 6 nmol/mL. An increase in KDLI2 to 106 nmol/mL results in negligible TCDD binding to CYP1A2 and no hepatic sequestration while still allowing for the induction CYP1A2 and increased TCDD elimination.

The influence of BMI on the terminal elimination t1/2 of TCDD was examined by varying the size of the adipose tissue compartment from 6.9 to 70%. In order to maintain mass balance, the size of the rest of the body compartment decreases, which increases the size of the adipose compartment. Cardiac output and body weight (BW) remained constant as the adipose tissue compartment was increased.

Sensitivity of parameters for a fixed or an inducible terminal elimination t1/2

Sensitivity analysis was performed on all parameters in the fixed and inducible elimination models at exposures of 0.001 and 10 μg TCDD/kg BW for which blood concentrations at 900 hr postexposure were compared. Exposures of 0.001 μg/kg result in negligible induction of CYP1A2, whereas 10 μg/kg exposures result in maximal induction of CYP1A2 in rats. The variation in the blood concentrations between optimized parameters and parameters (±10%) was calculated as follows:

graphic file with name ehp0114-001394e2.jpg

where Cblood,op is the blood concentration obtained with the optimized parameter and Cblood(±10%) is the blood concentration obtained with the variation of the parameter.

Results

The influence of CYP1A2 induction and binding on the terminal elimination t1/2 of TCDD using a rat PBPK model

The PBPK model for rats predicts that the terminal elimination t1/2 is constant at exposures of ≤0.1 μg/kg and increases to approximately 10 days as dose increases from 0.1 to approximately 100 μg/kg in the fixed elimination model. At exposures > 100 μg TCDD/kg BW, the terminal elimination t1/2 begins to decrease with exposure. Although the fixed elimination model provides adequate prediction of several experimental data sets (Emond et al. 2004; Wang et al. 1997), the terminal elimination t1/2 of TCDD is predicted to increase with dose. When the binding affinity to CYP1A2 is increased more than 7 orders of magnitude, hepatic sequestration does not occur and the model predicts a constant terminal elimination t1/2 at all exposures, suggesting that the predicted increases in t1/2 at high doses are due to hepatic sequestration mediated by CYP1A2 binding (Figure 2A).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

The relationship between terminal elimination t1/2 and dose using (A) a fixed elimination rate with and without CYP1A2 sequestration and (B) an inducible elimination rate with and without CYP1A2 sequestration. Triangles in B represent the TCDD t1/2 values determined experimentally (see Table 2).

The PBPK model was modified to describe the hepatic elimination rate (Kelv) as a function of CYP1A2 induction as described in Equation 1. The model was fit to the data of Santostefano et al. (1998). After optimization, Kelv was estimated as 0.15 hr−1. The model assumes a maximum 40-fold induction of CYP1A2, resulting in estimates of KBILE_LI from 0.06 to 2.46 hr−1 at exposures from 10−3 to 103 μg/kg. Terminal elimination t1/2 estimates range from approximately 75 days at exposures of 10−3 μg/kg to approximately 10 days at the higher exposures. It should be noted that the experimental data range from 10 −2 to 102 μg TCDD/kg and that the model fits estimates of the t1/2 values relatively well, given the variability in the data (Figure 2B). Elimination of hepatic sequestration by CYP1A2 binding from the model decreases the terminal elimination t1/2 of TCDD at higher exposures.

The use of an inducible elimination provides better fits to the experimental data of Santostefano et al. (1998) compared with the fixed elimination model (Figure 3A,B). These two simulations were performed at exposures of 10 μg TCDD/kg, which is a maximally CYP1A2-inducing dose of TCDD. The fixed elimination rate model was optimized at exposures near maximal induction; thus, at high exposures, the KBILE_LI used in the fixed model is not very different from the KBILE_LI derived in the inducible elimination model.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Comparisons of model predictions to experimental data using a fixed elimination rate model with hepatic sequestration (A) and an inducible elimination rate model with (B) and without (C) hepatic sequestration. EXBL, experimental blood levels. Model predictions were compared with the data of Santostefano et al. (1998), where female rats were exposed to a single oral dose of 10 μg of TCDD/ kg BW. Error bars are ± SD.

Differences between the two models also occur with simulations of the data from Walker et al. (1999), who exposed female Sprague-Dawley rats biweekly to 50, 150, 500, or 1,750 ng TCDD/kg and determined hepatic TCDD concentrations after 30 weeks of exposure. The fixed elimination rate model underestimated hepatic TCDD concentrations by 2- to 5-fold at the two highest doses and approximately an order of magnitude at the two lowest doses (Figure 4A). The inducible elimination model estimates the TCDD liver concentrations within the experimental data at the two lowest doses and underestimates the tissue concentrations at the two highest doses by less than a factor of 2 (Figure 4B).

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Simulation of hepatic TCDD concentrations (ppb) during a chronic exposure to TCDD at 50, 150, 500, or 1,750 ng TCDD/kg BW (Walker et al. 1999) using the fixed elimination rate model (A) or the inducible elimination rate model at (B) compared with the experimental data measured at the end of the exposures. Solid lines represent model simulations.

Influence of CYP1A2 sequestration on the terminal elimination t1/2 of TCDD using an inducible elimination model

The data from Santostefano et al. (1998) were used to examine the influence of CYP1A2 sequestration on the disposition of TCDD. A single dose of 10 μg TCDD/kg produces a maximal induction of CYP1A2. The inclusion of CYP1A2 sequestration in the model results in higher TCDD blood concentrations and provides good fits to the experimental data (Figure 3B). Removal of CYP1A2 sequestration from the model results in decreased TCDD blood concentrations and underestimates blood concentrations by more than an order of magnitude at the longer time points (Figure 3C).

Influence of adipose tissue mass fraction on terminal elimination t1/2

In order to examine the role of adipose tissue in the terminal elimination t1/2 of TCDD, the adipose tissue compartment was varied from 6.9 to 70% in model simulations. In the fixed elimination rate model, there is a linear relationship between increases in the size of the adipose tissue compartment and the t1/2 of TCDD at low exposures (Figure 5A). The influence of the size of the adipose tissue compartment diminishes as TCDD exposure increases (Figure 5A). When the hepatic sequestration is removed from the model, the relationship between increases in the size of the adipose tissue compartment and t1/2 is linear and independent of TCDD exposure (Figure 5B). Using the inducible elimination rate model, the terminal elimination t1/2 increases with dose for models with and without hepatic sequestration (Figure 5C,D).

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

The influence of adipose tissue mass fraction on the predicted terminal elimination t1/2 after a single dose of 10 μg TCDD/kg. Simulations were performed with adipose tissue mass fraction ranging from 6.9 to 70% of body fat. Simulations using a fixed elimination model are presented with (A) and without (B) hepatic sequestration. Simulations using an inducible elimination model are presented with (C) and without (D) hepatic sequestrations.

Sensitivity of parameters for a fixed or an inducible elimination t1/2

Sensitivity analysis was performed on all parameters in the fixed and inducible elimination models for acute exposures of 0.001 μg/kg and 10 μg/kg. To simplify the presentation of the analysis, only parameters that resulted in a normalized sensitivity coefficient of ±2.0% are discussed. In the fixed elimination model, 15 parameters have normalized sensitivity coefficients greater than ±2% at the low dose, and 11 parameters at the high dose (Figure 6A,B). In the inducible elimination model, the sensitivity analysis indicates that 7 parameters have normalized sensitivity coefficients greater than ± 2% at the low dose, and 12 parameters at the high dose (Figure 6C,D). Six parameters were sensitive for both exposures and models. Two of the common parameters were related to absorption [gastric nonabsorption constant (KST) and intestinal absorption rate (KABS)], and two represent liver and adipose tissue volume fraction (WLI0 and WF0, respectively). Both models and exposure levels are sensitive to the fat partition coefficient (PF) and the degradation rate for CYP1A2 (CYP1A2_1OUTZ). The low-dose exposure in the fixed elimination model is uniquely sensitive to parameters related to the distribution of TCDD such as cardiac output, BW, blood flow, and partitioning to liver and fat. The high-dose exposures in both models are sensitive to parameters related to CYP1A2 induction, such as maximal induction of CYP1A2 (CYP1A2_1EMAX), dissociation constant during induction (CYP1A2_1EC50), and AhR binding capacity in hepatic tissue (LIBMAX). Both low- and high-dose exposures in the variable elimination model are uniquely sensitive to the basal CYP1A2 expression (CYP1A2_1A2).

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Open in a new tab

Sensitivity analysis was performed on the fixed elimination rate model (A and B) and the inducible elimination rate model (C and D). The analysis was performed at 0.001 μg/kg (A and C) and at 10 μg/kg (B and D). Abbreviations: BW_T0, body weight at time zero (other parameter symbols are defined in Table 1); var, variation. This sensitivity recorded the percentage of variation (≥ 2%) of TCDD concentrations in the blood compartment when parameters were varied by ±10%.

Discussion

The elimination of TCDD in mammals depends on diffusion into and out of adipose tissue, metabolism, hepatic sequestration, and hepatic elimination rate. The present study examined the relationship between these factors using a PBPK model. The Emond et al. (2004) PBPK model indicates that the t1/2 of TCDD increases with increasing exposure, which is inconsistent with some experimental (Table 2) and human data suggesting that the t1/2 decreases with exposure. Modification of the Emond et al. (2004) model to include inducible hepatic elimination better fits the experimental data of Santostefano et al. (1998) and Walker et al. (1999). With an inducible elimination, the t1/2 of TCDD varies from approximately 75 days to 10 days after exposures ranging from 10−3 to 103 μg TCDD/kg, respectively.

The inducible elimination model describes the elimination rate as a function of CYP1A2 induction. TCDD induces several xenobiotic-metabolizing enzymes, including CYP1A1, CYP1A2, and CYP1B1. The role of these enzymes in the metabolism of TCDD is not clear because of limited data on in vitro and in vivo metabolism of TCDD. The role of CYP1A in the metabolism of TCDD is inferred from in vitro metabolism of lesser chlorinated dioxins or 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-dibenzofuran (Olson et al. 1995; Shinkyo et al. 2003; Tai et al. 1993). In vivo studies examining biliary elimination of radioactivity in rats treated with [H3]TCDD have not been able to demonstrate inducible elimination of TCDD-derived radioactivity (Kedderis et al. 1991). Poiger and Schlatter (1985) observed a doubling of the biliary elimination of TCDD in dogs pretreated with TCDD, indicating a role for CYP1A in the elimination of TCDD.

One of the problems in quantifying the role of CYP1A2 in the metabolism and elimination of TCDD is that CYP1A2 both binds and metabolizes TCDD. TCDD inhibits rat and human CYP1A2 activity (Staskal et al. 2005). In CYP1A2 knockout mice, there is no hepatic sequestration of TCDD, adipose tissue TCDD concentrations are higher, and the levels of metabolites in urine and feces are lower compared with wild-type mice (Diliberto et al. 1999; Hakk and Diliberto 2002). These studies as a whole indicate that CYP1A2 and other CYPs are involved in the metabolism and elimination of TCDD.

The inducible elimination model predicts that the terminal elimination t1/2 of TCDD increases approximately 10-fold, whereas the elimination rate from hepatic tissue increases > 40-fold. One possible explanation for this discrepancy is that diffusion into and out of adipose tissue is the rate-limiting step in the elimination of TCDD at low exposures and that metabolic elimination is the rate-limiting step at high exposures. The model predicts that estimates of the t1/2 are more sensitive to changes in BMI at low exposures than at higher exposures. When significant induction of CYP1A2 occurs, there is an increase in hepatic sequestration and elimination, which dampens the effects of changes in BMI. These observations are consistent with experimental data in the CYP1A2 knockout mouse (Diliberto et al. 1999; Hakk and Diliberto 2002).

Pharmacokinetic models for TCDD describe its elimination in a variety of ways. The Andersen et al. (1993) model describes induction as a function of receptor occupancy multiplied by a species-specific adjustment factor designated as “fold.” For rats, this parameter was assigned a value of 1 (Andersen et al. 1993), resulting in a doubling of TCDD metabolism over the basal rate. Carrier et al. (1995a, 1995b) used a simple first-order elimination process that is a function of total hepatic TCDD concentrations. In the Carrier et al. model, hepatic concentrations increase with dose in a nonlinear manner because of hepatic sequestration. As the fraction of TCDD in the liver increases from 15 to 70%, there is a 5-fold maximum induction of the elimination rate in rats. For humans, the model estimates that the fraction of TCDD in the liver ranges from 1 to 70%, resulting in an approximately 70-fold induction of TCDD elimination at high exposures (Carrier et al. 1995a, 1995b). The Kohn et al. (1996) model uses Hill kinetics to describe the elimination of TCDD with a Hill exponent of greater than unity. The Kohn et al. (1996) model also includes a biliary elimination of TCDD that is a function of a TCDD-induced hepatic lytic rate (hepatotoxicity) and a measure of cumulative exposure. In the Kohn et al. (1996) model, once the cells die, the TCDD is eliminated through the bile into the gut with a linear rate, implying diffusion. The difference in the description of the elimination pathways between these models is based on the lack of known metabolic processes involved in the elimination of TCDD.

TCDD metabolism may not be the only route of elimination of TCDD. Aylward et al. (2005) extended the Carrier et al. (1995a, 1995b) model to include lipid partitioning of TCDD from circulation into the large intestine followed by fecal elimination, based on the work of Moser and McLachlan (2001). Although this pathway is not described in the present model, the elimination of TCDD from the blood into the intestines is indirectly accounted for in the optimized elimination rate. Our ability to discriminate between these different modeling approaches is diminished by our lack of understanding of the enzymes metabolizing TCDD and the role of lipid partitioning and hepato-toxicity in the pharmacokinetics of TCDD.

The dose-dependent elimination of dioxins can influence exposure assessments in epidemiologic studies assessing the potential adverse health effects of dioxins. Several of the epidemiologic studies examine the relationship between dioxin exposure and adverse health effects. Some of these analyses use a first-order elimination rate from present measured body burdens to back-calculate TCDD body burdens at the initial exposure (Crump et al. 2003; Steenland et al. 2001). Aylward et al. (2005) and Emond et al. (2005) suggest that using a pharmacokinetic model with dose-dependent elimination results in nonlinear relationships between measured body burdens and predicted peak body burdens. Applying PBPK models that include inducible elimination rates to the epidemiologic data may result in quantitatively different relationships between exposure and adverse health effects observed in these studies.

Appendix. Equations used in the PBPK model for adult rat.a

Body weight growth with age
graphic file with name ehp0114-001394e3.jpg
Cardiac output
graphic file with name ehp0114-001394e4.jpg
A factor of 60 corresponds to the conversion of minutes to hours, and 1,000 is conversion of BW from grams to kilograms.
Blood compartment
graphic file with name ehp0114-001394e5.jpg
Tissue compartment (fat, rest of the body)
Tissue blood subcompartment
graphic file with name ehp0114-001394e6.jpg
graphic file with name ehp0114-001394e7.jpg
Tissue cellular matrices
graphic file with name ehp0114-001394e8.jpg
graphic file with name ehp0114-001394e9.jpg
Liver tissue compartment
Tissue blood subcompartment
graphic file with name ehp0114-001394e10.jpg
Tissue cellular matrices
graphic file with name ehp0114-001394e11.jpg
graphic file with name ehp0114-001394e12.jpg
Free TCDD concentration in liver
graphic file with name ehp0114-001394e13.jpg
Concentration bound to AhR in hepatic tissue
graphic file with name ehp0114-001394e14.jpg
All others induction processes and equations have been described and presented by Wang et al. (1997).
Gastrointestinal absorption and distribution of TCDD to the portal lymphatic circulation
Amount of TCDD remaining in lumen cavity
graphic file with name ehp0114-001394e15.jpg
Lumen is the amount of TCDD remaining in the GI tract (nmol); intake is the rate of intake of TCDD during a subchronic exposure (nmol/hr).
Amount of TCDD eliminated in the feces
graphic file with name ehp0114-001394e16.jpg
Absorption rate of TCDD to the blood via the lymphatic circulation
graphic file with name ehp0114-001394e17.jpg
Absorption rate of TCDD by the liver via by portal circulation
graphic file with name ehp0114-001394e18.jpg
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations and parameter symbols: Ali, amount of chemical in liver cellular matrice subcompartment; Alib, amount of chemical in liver in hepatic tissue blood subcompartment; At, amount of chemical in tissue cellular matrice subcompartment; Atb, amount of chemical in tissue blood subcompartment; Ca, arterial concentration; Cb, blood systemic venous concentration; Cfb, adipose tissue blood subcompartment concentration; CLI, liver blood subcompartment concentration; Clib, liver tissue blood subcompartment concentration; Clifree, free chemical concentration in liver compartment; Creb, rest of the body blood subcompartment concentration; Ct, tissue concentration in cellular matrice; Ctb, tissue blood subcompartment concentration; dAli, variation of the amount of chemical in hepatic compartment with time; dAlib/dt, variation of the amount of chemical in hepatic blood compartment with time; dAtb/dt, variation of the amount of chemical in blood subcompartment with time; inputoral, rate of oral chemicals intakes; PALI, liver tissue permeability (PALIF × QLI); PAt, tissue permeability (PATF (tissue permeability) × Qt); Pt, partition coefficient in tissue compartment; Qc, cardiac output; Qf, adipose tissue blood flow (QFF × Qc); Qli, liver tissue blood flow (QLIF × Qc); Qre, rest of the body blood flow (QREF × Qc); Qt, blood flow in tissue compartment; WLI, volume of liver cellular matrice tissue subcompartment; Wt, volume of cellular matrice tissue subcompartment; Wtb, volume of tissue blood subcompartment.

a

For more information refer to Emond et al. (2004).

Footnotes

This document has been reviewed in accordance with U.S. EPA policy and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the content necessarily reflects the view and policies and the agency, nor does mention of the trade names or commercial products constitutes endorsement or recommendation for use.

This project was funded by in part by cooperative agreement CR828790 with the National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences.

References

  1. Abraham K, Geusau A, Tosun Y, Helge H, Bauer S, Brockmoller J. Severe 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) intoxication: insights into the measurement of hepatic cytochrome P450 1A2 induction. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2002;72:163–174. doi: 10.1067/mcp.2002.126408. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Abraham K, Krowke R, Neubert D. Pharmacokinetics and biological activity of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. 1: Dose-dependent tissue distribution and induction of hepatic ethoxyresorufin O-deethylase in rats following a single injection. Arch Toxicol. 1988;62(5):359–368. doi: 10.1007/BF00293624. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Allen JR, Van Miller JP, Norback DH. Tissue distribution, excretion and biological effects of [14C]tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in rats. Food Cosmet Toxicol. 1975;13:501–505. doi: 10.1016/0015-6264(75)90002-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Andersen ME, Birnbaum LS, Barton HA, Eklund C. Regional hepatic CTP1A1 and CYP1A2 induction with 2,3,7,8-tetra-chlorodibenzo-p-dioxin evaluated with a multicompartment geometric model of hepatic zonation. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1997;144:145–155. doi: 10.1006/taap.1996.8067. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Andersen ME, Mills JJ, Gargas ML, Kedderis L, Birnbaum LS, Neubert D, et al. Modeling receptor-mediated processes with dioxin: implications for pharmacokinetics and risk assessment. Risk Anal. 1993;13:25–36. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00726.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Anzenbacher P, Anzenbacherova E. Cytochromes P450 and metabolism of xenobiotics. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2001;58:737–747. doi: 10.1007/PL00000897. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Aylward LL, Brunet RC, Carrier G, Hays SM, Cushing CA, Needham LL, et al. Concentration-dependent TCDD elimination kinetics in humans: toxicokinetic modeling for moderately to highly exposed adults from Seveso, Italy, and Vienna, Austria, and impact on dose estimates for the NIOSH cohort. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol. 2005;15:51–65. doi: 10.1038/sj.jea.7500370. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Aylward LL, Hays SM, Karch NJ, Paustenbach DJ. Relative suceptibility of animals and humans to the cancer hazard posed by 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin using internal measures. Environ Sci Technol. 1996;30:3534–3543. [Google Scholar]
  9. Carrier G, Brunet RC, Brodeur J. Modeling of the toxicokinetics of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofuranes in mammalians, including humans. II: Kinetics of absorption and disposition of PCDDs/PCDFs. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1995a;131:267–276. doi: 10.1006/taap.1995.1069. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Carrier G, Brunet RC, Brodeur J. Modeling of the toxicokinetics of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans in mammalians, including humans. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1995b;131:253–266. doi: 10.1006/taap.1995.1068. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Cheng PY, Morgan ET. Hepatic cytochrome P450 regulation in disease states. Curr Drug Metab. 2001;2:165–183. doi: 10.2174/1389200013338676. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Crump KS, Canady R, Kogevinas M. Meta-analysis of dioxin cancer dose response for three occupational cohorts. Environ Health Perspect. 2003;111:681–687. doi: 10.1289/ehp.5831. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. DeVito MJ, Birnbaum LS. Dioxins: model chemicals for assessing receptor-mediated toxicity. Toxicology. 1995;102:115–123. doi: 10.1016/0300-483x(95)03040-m. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Diliberto JJ, Burgin DE, Birnbaum LS. Effects of CYP1A2 on disposition of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, 2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran, and 2,2’,4,4’,5,5’-hexachloro-biphenyl in CYP1A2 knockout and parental (C57BL/6N and 129/Sv) strains of mice. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1999;159:52–64. doi: 10.1006/taap.1999.8720. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Diliberto JJ, DeVito MJ, Ross DG, Birnbaum LS. Subchronic exposure of [3H]- 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) in female B6C3F1 mice: relationship of steady-state levels to disposition and metabolism. Toxicol Sci. 2001;61(2):241–255. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/61.2.241. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Emond C, Birnbaum LS, DeVito M. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for developmental exposures to TCDD in the rat. Toxicol Sci. 2004;80:115–133. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfh117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Emond C, Michalek JE, Birnbaum LS, Devito MJ. Comparison of the use of a physiologically based pharmacokinetic model and a classical pharmacokinetic model for dioxin exposure assessments. Environ Health Perspect. 2005;113:1666–1668. doi: 10.1289/ehp.8016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Flesch-Janys D, Becher H, Gurn P, Jung D, Konietzko J, Manz A, et al. Elimination of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans in occupationally exposed persons. J Toxicol Environ Health. 1996;47:363–378. doi: 10.1080/009841096161708. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Hakk H, Diliberto JJ. Comparison of overall metabolism of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in CYP1A2 (−/−) knockout and C57BL/6N parental strains on mice. Organohalogen Compounds. 2002;55:461–464. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kedderis LB, Diliberto JJ, Linko P, Goldstein JA, Birnbaum LS. Disposition of 2,3,7,8-tetrabromodibenzo-p-dioxin and 2,3,7,8,-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in the rat: biliary excretion and induction of cytochrome CYP1A1 and CYP1A2. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1991;111:163–172. doi: 10.1016/0041-008x(91)90145-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Kohn MC, Sewall CH, Lucier GW, Portier CJ. A mechanistic model of effects of dioxin on thyroid hormones in the rat. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1996;136:29–48. doi: 10.1006/taap.1996.0004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Lakshmanan MR, Campbell BS, Chirtel SJ, Ekarohita N, Ezekiel M. Studies on the mechanism of absorption and distribution of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in the rat. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1986;239:673–677. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Maruyama W, Yoshida K, Tanaka T, Nakanishi J. Possible range of dioxin concentration in human tissues: simulation with a physiologically based model. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2002;65:2053–2073. doi: 10.1080/00984100290071829. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Michalek JE, Pirkle JL, Needham LL, Patterson DG, Caudill SP, Tripathi RC, et al. Pharmacokinetics of 2,3,7,8-tetra-chlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in Seveso adults and veterans of operation Ranch Hand. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol. 2002;12:44–53. doi: 10.1038/sj.jea.7500201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Michalek JE, Tripathi RC. Pharmacokinetics of TCDD in veterans of Operation Ranch Hand: 15-year follow-up. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 1999;57:369–378. doi: 10.1080/009841099157584. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Moser GA, McLachlan MS. Partitioning of polychlorinated biphenyls and hexachlorobenzene into human faeces. Chemosphere. 2002;46:449–457. doi: 10.1016/s0045-6535(01)00100-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Olson JR, McGarrigle BP, Gigliotti PJ, Kumar S, McReynolds JH. Hepatic uptake and metabolism of 2,3,7,8-tetra-chlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1995;22:631–640. doi: 10.1006/faat.1994.1069. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Pinsky PF, Lorber MN. A model to evaluate past exposure to 2,3,7,8-TCDD. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol. 1998;8:187–206. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Piper WN, Rose JQ, Gehring PJ. Excretion and tissue distribution of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in the rat. Environ Health Perspect. 1973;5:241–244. doi: 10.1289/ehp.7305241. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Pohjanvirta R, Vartiainen T, Uusi-Rauva A, Monkkonen J, Tuomisto J. Tissue distribution, metabolism, and excretion of 14C-TCDD in a TCDD-susceptible and a TCDD-resistant rat strain. Pharmacol Toxicol. 1990;66:93–100. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0773.1990.tb00712.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Poiger H, Schlatter C. Influence of phenobarbital and TCDD on the hepatic metabolism of TCDD in the dog. Experientia. 1985;41:376–378. doi: 10.1007/BF02004514. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Rose JQ, Ramsey JC, Wentzler TH, Hummel RA, Gehring PJ. The fate of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin following single and repeated oral doses to the rat. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1976;36:209–226. doi: 10.1016/0041-008x(76)90001-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Salvan A, Thomaseth K, Bortot P, Sartori N. Use of a toxico-kinetic model in the analysis of cancer mortality in relation to the estimated absorbed dose of dioxin (2,3,7,8-tetra-chlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, TCDD) Sci Total Environ. 2001;274:21–35. doi: 10.1016/s0048-9697(01)00729-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Santostefano MJ, Ross DG, Savas U, Jefcoate CR, Birnbaum LS. Differential time-course and dose-response relationships of TCDD-induced CYP1B1, CYP1A1, and CYP1A2 proteins in rats. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1997;233(1):20–24. doi: 10.1006/bbrc.1997.6389. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Santostefano MJ, Wang F, Richardson VM, Ross DG, Devito MJ, Birnbaum LS. A pharmacodynamic analysis of TCDD-induced cytochrome P450 gene expression in multiple tissues: dose- and time-dependent effects. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1998;151:294–310. doi: 10.1006/taap.1998.8466. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Shinkyo R, Sakaki T, Ohta M, Inouye K. Metabolic pathways of dioxin by CYP1A1: species difference between rat and human CYP1A subfamily in the metabolism of dioxins. Arch Biochem Biophys. 2003;409:180–187. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9861(02)00366-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Staskal DF, Diliberto JJ, Devito MJ, Birnbaum LS. Inhibition of human and rat CYP1A2 by TCDD and dioxin-like chemicals. Toxicol Sci 2005. 2005;84:225–231. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfi090. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Steenland K, Deddens J, Piacitelli L. Risk Assessment for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) based on an epidemiologic study. Am J Epidemiol. 2001;154:451–458. doi: 10.1093/aje/154.5.451. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Steiner EC, Rey TD, McCroskey PS. 1990. Reference Guide for Simusolv. Midland, MI:Dow Chemical Co.
  40. Tai HL, McReynolds JH, Goldstein JA, Eugster HP, Sengstag C, Alworth WL, et al. Cytochrome P4501A1 mediates the metabolism of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran in the rat and human. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1993;123:34–42. doi: 10.1006/taap.1993.1218. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. van der Molen GW, Kooijman SA, Michalek JE, Slob W. The estimation of elimination rates of persistent compounds: a re-analysis of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin levels in Vietnam veterans. Chemosphere. 1998;37:1833–1844. doi: 10.1016/s0045-6535(98)00249-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. van der Molen GW, Kooijman BA, Wittsiepe J, Schrey P, Flesch-Janys D, Slob W. Estimation of dioxin and furan elimination rates with a pharmacokinetic model. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol. 2000;10:579–585. doi: 10.1038/sj.jea.7500140. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Viluksela M, Duong TV, Stahl BU, Li X, Tuomisto J, Rozman KK. Toxicokinetics of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) in two substrains of male Long-Evans rats after intravenous injection. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1996;31:184–191. doi: 10.1006/faat.1996.0090. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Walker NJ, Portier CJ, Lax SF, Crofts FG, Li Y, Lucier GW, et al. Characterization of the dose-response of CYP1B1, CYP1A1, and CYP1A2 in the liver of female Sprague-Dawley rats following chronic exposure to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1999;154:279–286. doi: 10.1006/taap.1998.8595. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Wang X, Santostefano MJ, Devito MJ, Birnbaum LS. Extrapolation of a PBPK model for dioxins across dosage regimen, gender, strain, and species. Toxicol Sci. 2000;56:49–60. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/56.1.49. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Wang X, Santostefano MJ, Evans MV, Richardson VM, Diliberto JJ, Birnbaum LS. Determination of parameters responsible for pharmacokinetic behavior of TCDD in female Sprague-Dawley rats. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1997;147:151–168. doi: 10.1006/taap.1997.8242. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Weber LW, Ernst SW, Stahl BU, Rozman K. Tissue distribution and toxicokinetics of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in rats after intravenous injection. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1993;21:523–534. doi: 10.1006/faat.1993.1129. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Environmental Health Perspectives are provided here courtesy of American Chemical Society

RESOURCES