Dose-response relationships Tjalling Jager Theoretical Biology.

Post on 20-Dec-2015

219 views 4 download

Tags:

Transcript of Dose-response relationships Tjalling Jager Theoretical Biology.

Dose-response relationships

Tjalling Jager

Theoretical Biology

Dose-response analysis

This morning:

1. Introduction in effects assessment

2. Analysis of survival data

3. Analysis of continuous data

4. Problems with these methods

5. An alternative approach

Why effects assessment?

How toxic is chemical X?– for RA of the production or use of X– for ranking chemicals (compare X to Y)– for environmental quality standards

Need measure of toxicity that is:– good indicator for environment– comparable between chemicals

Test organisms (aquatic)

Standardisation

Toxicity tests are highly standardised (OECD, ISO, etc.):– species– exposure time– endpoints– test medium, temperature etc.

Types of tests

‘Acute’ – short-term– usually mortality or immobility– quantal or discrete response

‘Chronic’– long-term– usually sub-lethal endpoint– graded or continuous response

Standard test set-up

Survival test

Survival test

After 2 days …

Reproduction test

Reproduction test

After 21 days …

Range of Concentrations

Plot response vs. doseR

esp

on

se

log concentration

What pattern to expect?What pattern to expect?

Linear?R

esp

on

se

log concentration

Threshold, linear?R

esp

on

se

log concentration

Threshold, curve?R

esp

on

se

log concentration

S-shape?R

esp

on

se

log concentration

Hormesis?R

esp

on

se

log concentration

Essential chemical?R

esp

on

se

log concentration

Contr.

Standard approaches

NOEC

Res

po

nse

log concentration

LOEC

*

assumes threshold

1. Statistical testing2. Curve fitting

Standard approaches

EC50

Res

po

nse

log concentration

usually no threshold

1. Statistical testing2. Curve fitting

Standard summary statistics

NOEC highest tested concentration where effect is

not significantly different from control

EC50 or LC50 the estimated concentration for 50% effect,

compared to control

Dose-response analysis

This morning:

1. Introduction in effects assessment

2. Analysis of survival data

3. Analysis of continuous data

4. Problems with these methods

5. An alternative approach

Available data

Number of live animals after fixed exposure period Example: Daphnia exposed to nonylphenol

mg/L 0 h 24 h 48 h

0.004 20 20 20

0.032 20 20 20

0.056 20 20 20

0.100 20 20 20

0.180 20 20 16

0.320 20 13 2

0.560 20 2 0

Plot dose-response curve

Procedure– plot fraction survival after 48 h– concentration on log scale

Objective– derive LC50– (seldom NOEC)

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1

concentration (mg/L)

su

rviv

al

(%)

first: parametric analysisfirst: parametric analysis

What model?

Requirements– start at 100% and decrease to zero– inverse cumulative distribution?

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1

concentration (mg/L)

su

rviv

al

(%)

Cumulative distributions

E.g. the normal distribution …

prob

abili

ty d

ens

ity

cum

ulat

ive

den

sity

1

Distribution of what?

Assumptions– animal dies instantly when exposure exceeds ‘threshold’– threshold varies between individuals– spread of distribution indicates individual variation

pro

bab

ility

de

nsity

cum

ulat

ive

de

nsity

1

pro

bab

ility

de

nsity

pro

bab

ility

de

nsity

cum

ulat

ive

de

nsity

1

cum

ulat

ive

de

nsity

cum

ulat

ive

de

nsity

1

Concept of “tolerance”

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1

concentration (mg/L)

su

rviv

al

(%)

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1

concentration (mg/L)

su

rviv

al

(%)

1

cum

ulat

ive

dens

itycu

mul

ativ

e de

nsity

1

pro

bab

ility

de

nsity

pro

bab

ility

de

nsity

20% mortality

20% mortality

What is the LC50?

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1

concentration (mg/L)

su

rviv

al

(%)

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1

concentration (mg/L)

su

rviv

al

(%)

1

cum

ulat

ive

dens

itycu

mul

ativ

e de

nsity

1

pro

bab

ility

de

nsity

pro

bab

ility

de

nsity

50% mortality

50% mortality

?

Graphical method

Probit transformation

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9probits

std. normal distribution + 5

Linear regression on probits versus log concentration

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1

concentration (mg/L)

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1

data

mo

rta

lity

(%

)

Fit model, least squares?

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1

concentration (mg/L)

surv

ival

(%

)

Error is not normal:– discrete numbers of survivors– response must be between 0-100%

Error is not normal:– discrete numbers of survivors– response must be between 0-100%

How to fit the model

Result at each concentration as binomial trial Probability to survive is p, to die 1-p Predicted p = f(c) Estimate parameters of the model f

– maximum likelihood estimation– weighted least-squares … – chi-square for goodness of fit …

11

Fit model, least squares?

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1

concentration (mg/L)

surv

ival

(%

)

Max. likelihood estimation

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1

concentration (mg/L)

surv

ival

(%

)

Which distribution?

Popular distributions– log-normal (probit)– log-logistic (logit)– Weibull

ISO/OECD guidance document

A statistical regression model itself does not have any meaning, and the choice of the

model is largely arbitrary.

A statistical regression model itself does not have any meaning, and the choice of the

model is largely arbitrary.

Resulting fits: close-up

10-1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

concentration

fra

ctio

n s

urv

ivin

g

datalog-logisticlog-normalWeibullgamma

LC50 -log lik.

Log-logistic 0.225 16.681

Log-normal 0.226 16.541

Weibull 0.242 16.876

Gamma 0.230 16.582

Non-parametric analysis

Spearman-Kärber: wted. average of midpoints

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1

log concentration (mg/L)

surv

ival

(%

)

weights is number of deaths in interval

only for symmetrical distributions

weights is number of deaths in interval

only for symmetrical distributions

“Trimmed” Spearman-Kärber

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1

log concentration (mg/L)

surv

ival

(%

)

Interpolate at 95%

Interpolate at 5%

Summary: survival

Survival data are quantal data, reported as fraction responding individuals

Analysis types– parametric (tolerance distribution)– non-parametric (trimmed Spearman-Kärber)

Model hardly affects LC50

Error is ‘multinomial’

Dose-response analysis

This morning:

1. Introduction in effects assessment

2. Analysis of survival data

3. Analysis of continuous data

4. Problems with these methods

5. An alternative approach

Difference graded-quantal

Quantal: fraction of animals responding– e.g. 8 out of 20 = 0.4– always between 0% and 100%– no standard deviations

Graded: degree of response of the animal– e.g. 85 eggs or body weight of 23 g– usually between 0 and infinite– standard deviations when >1 animal

Analysis of continuous data

Endpoints– In ecotoxicology, usually growth (fish) and

reproduction (Daphnia)

Two approaches– NOEC and LOEC (statistical testing)– ECx (regression modelling)

Derive NOEC

NOEC

Res

po

nse

log concentration

Contr.

LOEC

*

Derivation NOEC

ANOVA: are responses in all groups equal? H0: R(1) = R(2) = R(3) …

Post test: multiple comparisons to control, e.g.:– t-test with e.g. Bonferroni correction– Dunnett’s test– Fisher’s exact test with correction– Mann-Whitney test with correction

Trend tests – stepwise: remove highest dose until no sign. trend is left

What’s wrong?

Inefficient use of data (most data are ignored) No statistically significant effect does not

mean no effect– large effects (>50%) may occur at the NOEC– large variability leads to high NOECs

However, NOEC is still used!

NOECNOEC

Re

sp

on

se

log concentration

Contr.Contr.

LOEC

*LOECLOEC

*

See e.g., Laskowski (1995), Crane & Newman (2000)

Regression modelling

Select model– log-logistic (ecotoxicology)– anything that fits (mainly toxicology)

• straight line• exponential curve• polynomial

Re

sp

on

se

log concentration

Re

sp

on

se

log concentration

Least-squares estimation

concentration (mg/L)

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1

rep

rod

uct

ion

(#e

gg

s)

n

iii estRmeasRSSQ

1

2.)(.)(

n

iii estRmeasRSSQ

1

2.)(.)(

Note: lsq is equivalent to max. likelihood, assuming normally-distributed errors

Note: lsq is equivalent to max. likelihood, assuming normally-distributed errors

Example: Daphnia repro test

Standard protocol– take juveniles <24 h old– expose to chemical for 21 days– count number of offspring daily– use total number of offspring after 21 days– calculate NOEC and EC50

Example: Daphnia and Cd

NOEC is (probably) zero

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 20

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

concentration

# ju

v./f

emal

e

Example: Daphnia repro

Put data on log-scale and fit sigmoid curve

10-2

10-1

100

101

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

concentration

# ju

v./f

emal

eEC10

0.13 mM(0.077-0.19)

EC50 0.41 mM

(0.33-0.49)

Regression modelling

Advantage– use more of the data– ECx is estimated with confidence interval– poor data lead to large confidence intervals

Model is purely empirical– no understanding of the process– extrapolation is dangerous!

10-2

10-1

100

101

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

concentration

# ju

v./f

em

ale

10-2

10-1

100

101

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

concentration

# ju

v./f

em

ale

EC100.13 mM

(0.077-0.19)

EC100.13 mM

(0.077-0.19)

EC500.41 mM

(0.33-0.49)

EC500.41 mM

(0.33-0.49)

Summary: continuous data

Repro/growth data are ‘graded’ responses– look at average response of animals– not fraction of animals responding!

Thus: no ‘tolerance distribution’!

Analysis types– statistical testing (e.g., ANOVA) NOEC– regression (e.g., log-logistic) ECx

Dose-response analysis

This morning:

1. Introduction in effects assessment

2. Analysis of survival data

3. Analysis of continuous data

4. Problems with these methods

5. An alternative approach

Problems

Dilemma of risk assessment

Protection goalAvailable data

• different exposure time • different temperature• different species• time-variable conditions• limiting food supplies• interactions between species• …

Extrapolation?

single time pointsingle endpoint

Available data Assessment factor

Three LC50s 1000

One NOEC 100

Two NOECs 50

Three NOECs 10

‘Safe’ level for field system

LC50ECx

NOECRes

po

nse

log concentration

Where’s the science?

No attempt to understand process of toxicity Dose-response approaches are descriptive Extrapolation through arbitrary ‘assessment factors’ Ignores that LC50/ECx/NOEC change in time

10Three NOECs

50Two NOECs

100One NOEC

1000Three LC50s

Assessment factor

Available data

10Three NOECs

50Two NOECs

100One NOEC

1000Three LC50s

Assessment factor

Available data

LC50ECx

NOECRes

po

nse

log concentration

LC50ECx

NOECRes

po

nse

log concentration

Res

po

nse

log concentration

Effects change in time

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.70

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

concentration

fra

cti

on

su

rviv

ing

24 hours

48 hours

LC50 s.d. tolerance

24 hours 0.370 0.306

48 hours 0.226 0.267

Toxicokinetics

Why does LC50 decrease in time? Partly:– effects are related to internal concentrations– accumulation takes time

time

inte

rna

l c

on

ce

ntr

ati

on

time

inte

rna

l c

on

ce

ntr

ati

on

chemical A

chemical B

chemical C

small fish

large fish

Daphnia

Change in timedepends on1. chemical2. test species

Change in timedepends on1. chemical2. test species

Chronic tests

With time, control response increases and all parameters may change …

10-2

10-1

100

101

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

concentration

# ju

v./f

emal

eincreasing time (t = 9-21d)

EC10 in time

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0 5 10 15 200

survival

body length

cumul. reproductioncarbendazim

Alda Álvarez et al. (2006)

time (days)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

pentachlorobenzene

time (days)

Toxicity is a process in time

Effects change in time, how depends on:– endpoint chosen– species tested– chemical tested

Ignored by standardising exposure time

No such thing as the ECx/LC50/NOEC– difficult to compare chemicals, species, endpoints

Dose-response analysis

This morning:

1. Introduction in effects assessment

2. Analysis of survival data

3. Analysis of continuous data

4. Problems with these methods

5. An alternative approach

Biology-based modelling

Make explicit (but simple) assumptions on mechanisms of toxicity

toxico-kinetics

toxico-dynamics

internalconcentration

in timeexternal

concentration(in time)

effectsin time

Toxicokinetics

Simplest form: 1-compartment model More detail in Module 2 …

time

inte

rnal

co

nce

ntr

atio

n

elim

inatio

n ra

te

?

Why do animals die?

Instant death at certain threshold?

Newman & McCloskey (2000)

lethalexposure

lethalexposure

?

Hazard modelling

Chemical increases probability to die

internal concentration

haza

rd r

ate

internal concentration

hazard rate

survival in time

Effect depends on internal concentration

1 comp.kinetics

blank value

NEC

Example DEBtox

Results

Parameters are • time-independent• comparable between species and chemicals

Use parameters to predict effects• on different time-scale• of time-varying exposure• of different size animals• of different chemicals• …

Sub-lethal effects

Sub-lethal effects

toxicant

Sub-lethal effects

Sub-lethal effects

Dynamic Energy Budgets

growth

reproduction

assimilation

maintenance

growth and repro in time

DEBtox basics

internal concentration

DE

B p

aram

eter

NEC

blank value

internal concentration

DE

B p

aram

eter

NEC

blank value

DEB

toxicokinetics

Effect depends on internal concentration Chemical changes parameter in DEB model

Example DEBtox

Results

Parameters are • time-independent• comparable between species and chemicals

Use parameters to predict effects• on different time-scale• of time-varying exposure• of different size animals• at population level• …

Life-cycle data

Follow growth/repro/survival over large part of the life cycle

Alda Álvarez et al. (2006)

Example:– nematode Acrobeloides nanus– exposed to cadmium in agar for

35 days– body size, eggs and survival

determined regularly

Example: A. nanus and Cd

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

20

30

40

50

60

time

bo

dy

len

gth

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

20

30

40

50

60

time

bo

dy

len

gth

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 350

100

200

300

timec

um

ula

tiv

e o

ffs

pri

ng

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 350

100

200

300

timec

um

ula

tiv

e o

ffs

pri

ng

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 350

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

time

fra

cti

on

su

rviv

ing

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 350

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

time

fra

cti

on

su

rviv

ing

Alda Álvarez et al. (2006)

Mode of action: costs for growthParameters:

7 for basic life history7 for chemical behaviour

Mode of action: costs for growthParameters:

7 for basic life history7 for chemical behaviour

Alternative approach

Biology-based methods (DEBtox)– make explicit assumptions on processes– analyse all data in time– parameters do not change in time– basis for extrapolations

toxico-kinetics

toxico-dynamics

internalconcentration

in timeexternal

concentration(in time)

effectsin time

externalconcentration

(in time)

effectsin time

Summary

Remember

Survival Usually acute

Growth / repro Usually (sub)chronic

Remember

Survival Usually acute Quantal response (dead

or alive)

Growth / repro Usually (sub)chronic Graded response

(#eggs, size)

Remember

Survival Usually acute Quantal response (dead

or alive) Needs at least 10

animals per dose

Growth / repro Usually (sub)chronic Graded response

(#eggs, size) Needs 1 animal per

dose (more for NOEC)

Remember

Survival Usually acute Quantal response (dead

or alive) Needs at least 10

animals per dose Analyse by finding

tolerance distribution or non-parametric

Growth / repro Usually (sub)chronic Graded response

(#eggs, size) Needs 1 animal per

dose (more for NOEC) Analyse by standard

regression techniques (curve fitting)

Remember

Survival Usually acute Quantal response (dead

or alive) Needs at least 10

animals per dose Analyse by finding

tolerance distribution or non-parametric

LC50, EC50 …

Growth / repro Usually (sub)chronic Graded response

(#eggs, size) Needs 1 animal per

dose (more for NOEC) Analyse by standard

regression techniques (curve fitting)

NOEC, EC50, EC10 …

Watch out!

Problems with standard analyses– descriptive, no understanding of process– statistics depend on exposure time

Alternative: biology-based– make assumptions on mechanisms– analyse effects data in time

Standard analysis may have role in risk assessment but …

Science needs BB methods

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

Cd concentration (mg/L)

tota

l ju

ven

iles

afte

r 15

d

high food

low food

EC50

Data Heugens et al. (2006)

Does food limitation increase effect of cadmium?

Food limitation

growth

reproduction

assimilation

maintenance

ad libitum

5%

Food limitation

growth

reproduction

assimilation

limiting

maintenance

50%

Electronic DEB laboratory

DEBtox– Windows version 2.0.2. (2007)– data from standard tests

Free downloads fromhttp://www.bio.vu.nl/thb/deb/deblab/

DEBtool– open source (Octave, MatLab)– full range of DEB research – advanced DEBtox applications