![About the NTP About the NTP](/images/template/subMastHead_aboutTheNTP.gif)
Advisory Board & Committees
Advisory Board & Committees
Home » About the NTP » Advisory Board & Committees » NTP Board of Scientific Counselors » Meetings & Minutes » Transcript - December 6, 2007 BSC meeting
This transcript was generated automatically and has not been reviewed. Typically, automated transcripts will contain words that were not recognized properly by the software.
Event Started: 12/06/2007 8:19:26 AM ET
Thank you very much. The motion is to be voted on is whether or not this should be moved toward. All those in favor raise your hand. The vote is unanimous for approval. That you very much.
The next compound is pentathlete at Simeon.
One things as I've read this that I would like to at least say is the take-home message for me is that the focus is cancer risk for this one. In the discussion we had about comparing the DEP, we should keep that in mind. Having said that, I think that this program has a clear rationale and is largely based on the recent findings that was published in 2007. The results had an uncertainty over the role--Carcinogenic potential and mice. I think that coupled with the idea that there are critical exposure windows and development there is a rationale for moving forward and understanding the risk of exposure in developing animals. The first hypophysis influence of developmental a on treatment of DEHP on cancer risk. I think that that's certainly makes sense. I like the concept of comparing in utero versus adult onset of treatment. That design is very appropriate. I am not familiar with previous discussions--Based on the information in the proposal, I would wonder why why a [ indiscernible ] rat might not be appropriate. This kind of the study needs to be carefully designed with additional endpoints and time points that get at exactly what the mechanisms are that we wish to examine and understand as it applies to the developmental window since we do not know what will happen. The second hypophysis is that [ indiscernible ] is developmentally regulated and in the absence we tend to support other mechanistic considerations. I think that it harkens back to the first hypophysis and the approach that we need to make sure that we consider all potential mechanisms and that kind of study. There is a good fit there. My only question is I would like more detail on the strategy for investigating the expression. As you know, there might be very small sum population perhaps that could be responsible for mediating. With out a variety of approaches to studying the expression of this receptor, and I might add, considering looking at other with PPRL and Delta theta at the same time would be a good way to look at this. The third hypophysis looks at the mixture question. I guess I agree with many of the statements about understanding exposure. That is really going to be a very important part. I struggled a little bit with how you pick the end points for calculating the toxic equivalency factors. If you say, for instance, you are going to measure ACP, you are picking a and what that does not have Revlon's. For what ever equivalency factors you have a disconnect there. That one, I think will be a real challenge, to get the right equivalency factors. The other question I have is a vista of the phthalates that were included as a representative examples. I am wondering how many degrees of freedom you will ultimately have for a long-term study. Based on the references I was checking in the proposal, it looks like two of those phthalate were associated with liver tumors and only phthalate were associated with the risk of [ indiscernible ] tumors. There might be other information that I am not privy to or have Miss Somehow that would inform that. At the beginning, you can almost tell which phthalates you will use in that long term study. I am wondering what the other ones add at this point in terms of toxic equivalency factors. I am going to make a few general comments. I think this issue of cancer risk is fairly important. It goes back again to the importance of PPR Alfa and if there are any other [ indiscernible ] mechanisms involved. I think there would be some real body and expanding the [ indiscernible ] to go look at the knock out mice. Part of the reason is that there are non-Phthalate products that do mediate their carcinogenic effects. That is predicted data to that effect. The question is, can we go back and understand more about what happened and really use that and characterized effects of not only DEHP but [ indiscernible ] would be another candidate to consider. There is another model which is the knock out and mouse in which the human receptor has been expressed and. I think if we want to see how this transitions, we might see if that model is available to be used. One think about these models that I really think provides a good opportunity for the NTP to provide some value is the general robust nature in which these studies will be conducted, everything from the genetic background of the animals to the conduct of the study to the evaluation of the end points. I think that there is an opportunity here to provide a lot of high-value information for discussing cancer risk. I think the relevance of phthalates, I do not think we need to say too much. We have already heard a lot about that. In terms of priority, I consider this a high priority. What the mechanism has a significant impact on the use of this information for assessing human health risk. I indicated areas where I think the proposal can be modified.
Thank you. The next is Dr. [ indiscernible ].
We have 22nds on the motion proposed. --I have two seconds on the motion.
We are not scheduled to have the technical reports subcommittee. This is an action item for the board. We are running behind schedule. We will go forward with this piece of it and then take a break. We will take a very short break. We need to get everyone where they need to be this afternoon. This will be an action item with a vote taken at the end whether or not to approve or disapprove the report. I need to call to the committee's attention that there was no one compound left out of the initial minutes. There was a report on that. I believe in the sample was left out of the Minutes.
Web page last updated on December 27, 2007
The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences is one of the National Institutes of Health within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The National Toxicology Program is headquartered on the NIEHS campus in Research Triangle Park, NC.