Search

The superfamily of acid proteases has two catalytic aspartates for proteolysis of their peptide substrates. Here, we show a minimal structural scaffold, the structural catalytic core (SCC), which is conserved within each family of acid proteases, but varies between families, and thus can serve as a structural marker of four individual protease families. The SCC is a dimer of several structural blocks, such as the DD-link, D-loop, and G-loop, around two catalytic aspartates in each protease subunit or an individual chain. A dimer made of two (D-loop + DD-link) structural elements makes a DD-zone, and the D-loop + G-loop combination makes a psi-loop. These structural markers are useful for protein comparison, structure identification, protein family separation, and protein engineering. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many jurisdictions have regulatory frameworks that seek to reduce the effects of environmental exposures of anthropogenic chemicals on terrestrial wildlife (i.e., mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians). The frameworks apply for new and existing chemicals, including pesticides (prospective assessments), and to environmental contamination from releases (retrospective risk assessments). Relatively recently, there have been many scientific advances that could improve risk estimates for wildlife. Here, we briefly describe current regulations from North America (United States and Canada) and from Europe that include risk assessments for wildlife to ascertain whether they are conducive to the use of emerging science and new methods. We also provide examples where new and emerging science may be used to improve wildlife risk characterization and identify areas in need of future research. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:765–779. © 2024 His Majesty the King in Right of Canada and The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management © 2024 Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC). Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA. Key Points: New and recent advancements in toxicology, ecology, microbiology, and modeling provide greater opportunities to improve risk assessments for vertebrate terrestrial wildlife species.Many regulations where risk assessments to wildlife are concerned offer opportunities to include scientific advancements and reduce the use of assumptions.Increases in the availability of new tools for wildlife risk assessments will require practitioners and regulators that are up to date with these advancements and comfortable with their application.Increased use of new science in risk assessment may also require new decision criteria accompanied by sound risk communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Model species (e.g., granivorous gamebirds, waterfowl, passerines, domesticated rodents) have been used for decades in guideline laboratory tests to generate survival, growth, and reproductive data for prospective ecological risk assessments (ERAs) for birds and mammals, while officially adopted risk assessment schemes for amphibians and reptiles do not exist. There are recognized shortcomings of current in vivo methods as well as uncertainty around the extent to which species with different life histories (e.g., terrestrial amphibians, reptiles, bats) than these commonly used models are protected by existing ERA frameworks. Approaches other than validating additional animal models for testing are being developed, but the incorporation of such new approach methodologies (NAMs) into risk assessment frameworks will require robust validations against in vivo responses. This takes time, and the ability to extrapolate findings from nonanimal studies to organism‐ and population‐level effects in terrestrial wildlife remains weak. Failure to adequately anticipate and predict hazards could have economic and potentially even legal consequences for regulators and product registrants. In order to be able to use fewer animals or replace them altogether in the long term, vertebrate use and whole organism data will be needed to provide data for NAM validation in the short term. Therefore, it is worth investing resources for potential updates to existing standard test guidelines used in the laboratory as well as addressing the need for clear guidance on the conduct of field studies. Herein, we review the potential for improving standard in vivo test methods and for advancing the use of field studies in wildlife risk assessment, as these tools will be needed in the foreseeable future. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:699–724. © 2023 His Majesty the King in Right of Canada and The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC). Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA. Key Points: Improving current approaches for laboratory animal and field effects assessment methods and simultaneously evaluating how to efficiently reduce the numbers of test subjects for the long term are worthy investments of resources.As in vivo animal testing will be required in some form in the near future, it is worth revisiting updates to standard test guidelines to address shortcomings.Clear regulatory guidance is required for field study design and conduct.It is important to fill critical knowledge gaps on the sensitivity of terrestrial amphibians, reptiles, and bats to environmental contaminants compared to current animal models and if necessary validate alternative methods for toxicological effects assesment pertaining to these taxa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Problem formulation (PF) is a critical initial step in planning risk assessments for chemical exposures to wildlife, used either explicitly or implicitly in various jurisdictions to include registration of new pesticides, evaluation of new and existing chemicals released to the environment, and characterization of impact when chemical releases have occurred. Despite improvements in our understanding of the environment, ecology, and biological sciences, few risk assessments have used this information to enhance their value and predictive capabilities. In addition to advances in organism‐level mechanisms and methods, there have been substantive developments that focus on population‐ and systems‐level processes. Although most of the advances have been recognized as being state‐of‐the‐science for two decades or more, there is scant evidence that they have been incorporated into wildlife risk assessment or risk assessment in general. In this article, we identify opportunities to consider elevating the relevance of wildlife risk assessments by focusing on elements of the PF stage of risk assessment, especially in the construction of conceptual models and selection of assessment endpoints that target population‐ and system‐level endpoints. Doing so will remain consistent with four established steps of existing guidance: (1) establish clear protection goals early in the process; (2) consider how data collection using new methods will affect decisions, given all possibilities, and develop a decision plan a priori; (3) engage all relevant stakeholders in creating a robust, holistic conceptual model that incorporates plausible stressors that could affect the targets defined in the protection goals; and (4) embrace the need for iteration throughout the PF steps (recognizing that multiple passes may be required before agreeing on a feasible plan for the rest of the risk assessment). Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:658–673. © 2022 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC). This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA. Key Points: Emerging science in various disciplines can greatly improve risk assessments for wildlife.Data collected from the use of new methods (e.g., adverse outcome pathways, "omics" technologies, models, etc.) must be considered in a range of outcomes, and it should be determined how such data can be used within current problem formulation (PF) frameworks.Examples and considerations of how scientific advances are incorporated into PF in risk assessments for wildlife are provided considering a range of jurisdictional requirements and current policies in North America and Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]