[00:00:00] “Decompose” Theme Music

[00:00:05] Anne Chappelle: We’ve been doing Adverse Reactions, and this is what our 

[00:00:08] David Faulkner: Fourth

[00:00:09] Anne Chappelle: Fourth

[00:00:09] David Faulkner: Season

[00:00:10] Anne Chappelle: Season

[00:00:11] David Faulkner: Amazing. 

[00:00:11] Anne Chappelle: So, David, do we have a theme? 

[00:00:13] David Faulkner: Everything is so much more complicated and interesting and more interconnected than we ever think it’s going to be. 

[00:00:22] Anne Chappelle: We’ve really kind of strayed from traditional toxicology in this season.

[00:00:28] David Faulkner: It’s true. We have been expanding the reach of what most people think of as toxicology because one of the things I love about this discipline is that it is a necessarily applied science and that means it touches basically everything—all the other sciences.

[00:00:45] Anne Chappelle: Have a listen. 

[00:00:46] “Decompose” Theme Music

[00:00:52] Anne Chappelle: Next, on Adverse Reactions. 

[00:00:55] David Faulkner: Snow Big Deal? Similar Exposures, Different Outcomes 

[00:00:59] Anne Chappelle: with Sam Snow. 

[00:01:01] Sam Snow: We developed what’s called an evidence map where you can look at all the literature that’s out there and then see where the gaps are in the literature, and so one of our disproportionately affected population groups that we tagged for were sexual minorities. Think we had something like—don’t quote me on this—but something like 800 papers that we tagged that looked at cardiovascular effects following environmental exposures or psychosocial stressors, and of those, there were only 15 that looked at any kind of effect in sexual minorities. It was one of the very obvious data gap right off the bat. That’s just reinforcing the point that you’re trying to make that there’s just not a lot of studies that are really focused on that population at all.

[00:01:39] “Decompose” Theme Music

[00:01:43] Anne Chappelle: Welcome to Adverse Reactions, Sam Snow.

[00:01:46] David Faulkner: PhD. DABT. Many other letters as well. Summa Cum Laude.

[00:01:50] Sam Snow: Ah, it’s great to be here. Thank you, all, for having me.

[00:01:52] Anne Chappelle: My mom often listens—is one of the biggest listeners, actually—and if you met my mom at a party, what would you say to her about what you do?

[00:02:02] Sam Snow: Oh, that’s a great question. I would consider myself an environmental toxicologist, and I help government agencies figure out how to regulate chemicals in different media like drinking water or the air or just determine if there are any hazards associated with environmental chemicals. 

[00:02:19] David Faulkner: But when you say environmental chemicals, there’s a lot of things that could encompass. So, are we talking about pollution? Are we talking about trash? What does that contain?

[00:02:30] Sam Snow: I guess anything that could enter the environment so probably the whole plethora of everything out there. So, right now, I work for a consulting agency, ICF, where our main clients are different government agencies, and so, it really depends on what our client’s focus is. We have some contracts with the EPA where they’re focused on specific chemicals within the drinking water or the air. We have other clients such as the Veterans Affairs, so they’re interested in chemicals that military personnel are exposed to during their service. 

[00:03:00] David Faulkner: So, what is the difference between jet fuel and the gas that someone would put in their car, and why does that matter for someone who’s being exposed?

[00:03:06] Sam Snow: There’s lots of health effects associated with both gasoline and jet fuels, but I think with jet fuels, it’s more like the amount of exposure one is getting during a military service. Being present on the airbase and fueling planes maybe more frequently than one would imagine. So, when we were looking at the health effects of jet fuel exposure, we tried to find all the studies that were done on military personnel, but we also included any occupational studies for civilians that were exposed on regular airbases. 

[00:03:32] Anne Chappelle: So, you have to have a pretty good knowledge of interpreting epi studies. There’s a special skill set, really, for looking at epi studies to see if they’re well-conducted, to looking at some of the monitoring studies as well because there’s no real good guidelines a lot of times for how many samples you collect or what to even ask the people that were exposed. And, there’s so many other contributing factors, how do you learn to pick apart some of these exposure assessments?

[00:04:00] Sam Snow: That’s a great question, and the answer is I surround myself with smarter people than me. 

[00:04:06] Anne Chappelle: Good strategy. 

[00:04:07] Sam Snow: Exactly. We have a lot of epidemiologists on staff that focused on that evidence stream. They’re trained epidemiologists, both at the PhD and master’s level. And we do a lot of systematic review type of task, and during the study quality evaluation process, there’s a set guideline, depending on which guidelines you’re following, but that are used to evaluate the quality of the study before you draw any of the conclusions. And so I’ve picked up a few things from my epi colleagues, but they definitely handle that information. I’m the tech lead for the overall project and the direction of the project, but they’re doing the hands-on work.

[00:04:38] Anne Chappelle: So, when I look at your CV and some of the other things that you provided… personally, I never felt like I was very good in a lab. I felt that I always tripped over myself. I just was very insecure in a lab. I was always much better at taking other people’s data and assembling it and looking at your job titles and the kinds of things you’ve been doing, that also seems to be your love. How did you get there?

[00:05:02] Sam Snow: I think being in the lab really set me up nicely for this career as a risk assessor. I mentioned that a big part of what we do is systematic reviews, and one of those main steps is to do study quality evaluation on these animal tox studies that I’ve helped with. And so, I like to describe study quality as journal club by yourself. You have these domain questions you’re answering, and you’re reviewing the paper and you’re like, “Did they randomize and tell you how they did it and you give all these ratings?” But I think if I wasn’t in the lab and conducting those animal studies, it would be harder for me to visualize, “Oh, you know what they probably missed. They didn’t do this because I know when I was in lab, I had to make sure that animals cages were cleaned every so often.” So, I think being in the lab and doing those studies really set me up nicely to do that part of the risk assessment kind of job. 

[00:05:47] David Faulkner: I see that you’re working on PFOA and PFAS.

[00:05:50] Sam Snow: Little bit. So, our company helped the EPA Office of Water develop the toxicity assessments for PFOA, PFOS, which are two of the legacy PFAS chemicals, and this was a pretty long process. I think back in 2020, they decided that they wanted to regulate these two chemicals and then over the next few years that involved going out and identifying all the relevant research, the epi and the animal and mechanistic research that was out there, and updating previous assessment that they had done in 2016 and identifying what health effects were associated with exposure to these two chemicals. That went through several rounds of internal and external review, an internal science advisory board by the EPA, and then there was public comment period that was pretty long and intense, and then, the rule was just published in April of this year to regulate not only PFOA and PFOS but for other PFAS chemicals in drinking water. And what’s really cool is that’s the first time that PFAS chemicals have ever been regulated at the national level. Exciting to, like, work on something that was so widespread.

[00:06:49] Anne Chappelle: Are we behind when it comes to regulating these chemicals compared to Europe or Australia or others. I know that there’s different news cycles and different things in different countries that are of extreme interest.

[00:07:05] Sam Snow: Yeah, that’s a good question. I’m not as familiar with the actual regulations in other parts of the world. I do know that there are a couple of states—I think California was one of them and Massachusetts, but don’t quote me on that—that have regulated some of the PFAS chemicals prior to it being done at the national level. So, I guess we’re a little behind in that sense, but having worked on one of these assessments and this rulemaking proposal, it is time consuming to do really good science especially with these two chemicals. It is the opposite of data poor. There was a lot of information out there for these two chemicals, so to narrow down the health effects, it took a lot of woman and man power for sure.

[00:07:40] Anne Chappelle: I used to be responsible for some chemicals that were everywhere, and they’re classic sensitizers. So, whenever somebody had a new assay, they throw my chemicals in there, and then, you’d have to figure out, “What am I supposed to do with this data now?”

So understanding when you’re systematic reviews is this really a relevant route of exposure? Is this a valid model even to use? And that can be really difficult. Sometimes they’re like, “Oh, you’re discounting all these studies.” You were discounting these studies because we don’t think that they’re relevant necessarily for the risk. You said, “You’re cherry picking your data.” No, not exactly. And that’s a hard fight. 

[00:08:16] Sam Snow: Yeah. I think really defining upright what you’re scoping your problem and then really developing a really good PICO statement—or for those that aren’t aware of that PICO is what your population is, what your exposure is, if it has a comparator group, and then what your outcome of interest is. So, really defining that early on and making sure, You’re following that throughout the whole process is pretty clutch. So, as long as you can explain your methods and be very upfront about what would be included and excluded, it makes the job a little easier, but you definitely have to do that a priori. That way, it hopefully eliminates those cherry-picker comments.

[00:08:51] David Faulkner: Well, I mean, yeah, you’re always going to get criticism about why didn’t you include this? That does get an interesting question though is, there’s this huge push towards alternative assays right now, right? And a moving away from animal models, moving towards computational stuff, moving towards high-throughput stuff. How do you think about these NAMs (new approach methodologies) or computational, tools. Are these already a big part of your evaluation or process, or are they going to be a big part of it? Where are we at in that continuum right now?

[00:09:21] Sam Snow: So, we have some projects that are ongoing that are trying to compare toxicity reference values that you would obtain from traditional animal data and compare them to what you would obtain if you were to use these NAMS types of data. And so, it’s trying to make these regulatory agencies more comfortable with using the NAMS data.

So, I think you definitely see the shift across the board with them moving towards that direction. I think the comfort level is increasing. I don’t think it’s quite there yet. But I know EPA just came out with their ETAP system (that EPA Transcriptomic Assessment Product), so they’re trying to use the NAMs for data-poor chemicals and really try to generate some data to be used by other agencies or other parts of their own agency. So, I think it’s definitely getting more recognized in the field.

[00:10:06] David Faulkner: That’s an interesting point, though. I’m wondering about that. Since I was in grad school, which was too long ago, there was so many different alternatives programs and things like that and like these funding things that were, “Hey, we should push towards this.” And there’s been this big push, so on one hand, you have them pushing for these new approach methodologies, but on the other hand, you have them saying, “Oh, but we don’t recognize them.” And so it’s like, what/how do you square that circle? What is going on there?

[00:10:30] Sam Snow: They’re, like, trying to recognize ’em, but it’s hard to be first. So, if you’re the first group within an agency that uses the NAMS data to set a regulation, you’re gonna get a lot of pushback from whoever doesn’t like the fact that you’re regulating that chemical, but once that precedent is set, then, the other parts of the agency or themselves can just keep referring back to like, “As seen in this, rule…” You know, you can easily use NAMS data. It’s definitely hard to be the first.

[00:10:56] David Faulkner: That raises an interesting question, too, about I think the power of precedence, both in government and in science in general. Do you ever encounter situations when you’re reviewing data where it’s one of these things like, “Oh, well, everyone knows that this causes this,” and then, you’re looking through all of these giant studies and you’re like, “Actually, I don’t know that I see that.”

[00:11:17] Sam Snow: Most of the time when we do the systematic reviews, we may be looking for the review articles or secondary data sources, trying to get an idea of what’s out there, but we’re relying on all primary data. Luckily, I think we’re going to the initial source to make our own conclusions. 

[00:11:31] Anne Chappelle: I worked with isocyanates for a long time, and they would say, “Isocyanates are the worst and most pressing issue for sensitization in the workplace.” And you’re like, “Maybe 25 years ago but not now.” It’s got a new narrative because of the product stewardship efforts through the government and nonprofit, all these other agencies to say no and so we’ve cut that risk. We’ve mitigated that particular risk. And so, writing that new narrative can be really hard.

[00:11:59] Sam Snow: I think there is also a push to trying to use NAMS data to also use class-based approaches to regulate different types of classes. So, I think that’s another area of the field that there wants to be more support and there’s trying to be more support and it’s getting there, but it’s also a very tough problem to solve: If you have any data on one chemical of a class, how can you stretch that out across the other chemicals of that class?

And then, the other thing is in addition to working with really smart epidemiologists, I work with really smart exposure scientists, and we also play a really good role in. The epi and tox folks might be identifying the hazards, but they’re identifying how much exposure you’re actually getting to that chemical. And so, maybe it was relevant 25 years ago and maybe now the data is saying that chemical is not really around, so the risk overall might be going down.

[00:12:43] Anne Chappelle: That is a shift because traditionally we’ve seen, I think the US especially with safety data sheets, let’s say, there’s a big difference between the inherent toxicity of a chemical and then the risk. Really understanding risk and being able to characterize risk being that hazard times the exposure. You’re right. I don’t always think of exposure science as different from epidemiology, but I see where it is. 

[00:13:10] Sam Snow: Oh yeah, we have people that are trained exposure scientists that wouldn’t know how to necessarily evaluate an epi paper if they tried, but at the same time, our epidemiologists couldn’t do what our exposure scientists do. That’s why it’s a benefit for us to have each of them there.

So, it’s a really integrated multidisciplinary team that we have here at ICF to answer these bigger, tough questions that are provided and definitely couldn’t do it without. I could not do what the exposure scientists do—definitely right over the head. 

[00:13:36] David Faulkner: So, switching gears a little bit. You’ve been a frequent participator in SOT things, over the years, working for OTA, working for WIT, you were a postdoc Chair—that’s how we met initially—and so could you talk a little bit about how you started getting involved in more things in SOT? Why get so involved?

[00:13:58] Sam Snow: It started in grad school when I volunteered just to meet people outside of my little circle of labs that are just down my hall and then in my curriculum and really enjoyed it and kept up through my very long postdoc. And I think the benefits, they only just kept expanding. So, I got to meet people that I would never have otherwise met. Like grad students across the country that were also a part of the GSLC (the Graduate Student Leadership Committee), and you got to interact with them. And then being a graduate student and postdoc and being on these committees as a representative, as a trainee, and then interacting with these people that were already so established in their fields and then realizing how easy it was for me to actually ask them a question and they would answer it and they were just so polite. And as I kept volunteering as a young scientist, I let the graduate students and the postdoc reps know that I was always around to help out ’cause I wanted to pay it forward. But I think the biggest benefit is just meeting all these people.

I know when I go to SOT meetings—I always ask for consent—but I’m a big hugger. I get a lot of hugs at SOT just from volunteering over the years, which I really like.

[00:15:02] David Faulkner: Yeah, it’s true. Every SOT is a little bit like a family reunion. Can you talk about some of the specialty groups that you’ve been a part of?

[00:15:08] Sam Snow: I think the one I’m most proud of is—you mentioned it before—is OTA (so Out Toxicologists and Allies). I’m a proud lesbian, and so when I was a graduate student and postdoc, going up through the meetings, we realized there were other specialty groups that were available, like Women in Tox that I was a part of, but there was nothing for us. And I remember specifically having some conversations, other people I had met through GSLC and some other places, where we were like, “You know what would be awesome is if there was a Special Interest Group for us to hang around.” And so we had that conversation as graduate students and we were like, “That’s a nice pipe dream.” And then, every year we got together and we’re like, “It’d be cool is if we had this organization for us.” And then six years ago or so now, we had another, one of those conversations over drinks, and they were like, “Wait a minute. We’re actually … we can do this now.” So, we just went around to some of the SOT Council members and asked what the process was. And it, all it required was to get 50 signatures and some interest, which was fairly easy. And then we got it established. So, I was one of the founding members of OTA and then eventually came on as VP-Elect and went all the way through the presidential chain. I just rolled off in May. 

[00:16:15] David Faulkner: Into the sunset. 

[00:16:17] Sam Snow: Into the sunset, so it’s in good hands now. I’ll still volunteer. I think, one of my favorite parts of OTA is our Annual Meeting reception. I like to think that we throw the best parties, and everyone is definitely invited. We’re trying to increase our membership since we’re a fairly new Special Interest Group. We keep it open. We provide drinks and food and camaraderie. And, this last year, it was really special: We had a lot of SOT Council members join us. And it’s a good time.

[00:16:43] David Faulkner: That’s really cool. Honestly, there’s something inspirational about just, “We should do this. Wait, we can do this.” And then, you just did it. 

[00:16:50] Sam Snow: Yeah, it took like a decade, but we got it. We eventually did it.

[00:16:53] Anne Chappelle: In some of our other interviews that we’ve done, too, recognizing the fact that people in the queer community may have different health needs, different potential exposures, when you think of the hormone therapy, the other just drug trials, and such, you need to make sure that everyone is represented. And having that as a mission to promote that it isn’t just about a party either, it’s about showing that there are different needs of some of these different groups.

[00:17:20] Sam Snow: Yeah, for sure. So I actually, at this last SOT meeting, I presented a presentation for some of our DTT clients. That’s the Division of Translational Toxicology at the NIEHS. The topic of that was to look at the effects of environmental exposures and psychosocial stressors on cardiovascular outcomes in disproportionately affected populations. So, that could be anyone from different races or different socioeconomic status, something like that. And we developed what’s called an evidence map where you can look at all the literature that’s out there and then see where the gaps are in the literature, and so one of our disproportionately affected population groups that we tagged for were sexual minorities. Think we had something like—don’t quote me on this—but something like 800 papers that we tagged that looked at cardiovascular effects following environmental exposures or psychosocial stressors, and of those, there were only 15 that looked at any kind of effect in sexual minorities. It was one of the very obvious data gap right off the bat. That’s just reinforcing the point that you’re trying to make that there’s just not a lot of studies that are really focused on that population at all.

[00:18:25] Anne Chappelle: I would even say that the military is its own special population in a certain way as well. Would you agree?

[00:18:31] Sam Snow: Oh, yeah, definitely agree. And from doing the jet fuel project back with the VA, going back to that earlier conversation, the epi studies that were relevant to our PICO statement, it was like under 30 papers. And we had no date limit and that included occupational exposures, right? And civilian populations. It’s a very understudied population for sure. 

[00:18:50] David Faulkner: So, you have this really interesting publication, “Social Isolation Exacerbates Acute Ozone Inhalation-Induced Pulmonary and Systemic Health Outcomes.” You mentioned sexual minority groups, but this idea of social isolation affecting a toxic health outcome, can you talk a little bit more about that because that is fascinating?

[00:19:09] Sam Snow: It was in my postdoc, which was done at the EPA with my advisor, Urmila Kodavanti, and so, we were interested in looking at the interaction between chemical and non-chemical stressors. And so, we used ozone as our chemical stressor and for our non-chemical stressor, we had two different groups. We were using rats as our rodent model, and rats are very social animals. So, they like to be at least double housed, have a buddy to hang out with. So, we either had them double house like normal or some of the animals were single house. And then, there were groups of them that were exposed, if you will, to the non-chemical stressors. And so, we had five different randomized treatments, if you will, where one of them was we put them in a room with predator odor to try to induce a fear. Their cage was tilted at 45 degrees, so they couldn’t stand on a flat surface so they would get like annoyed. They would be put on a rotator that shifted back and forth to, again, annoy them. Psychologically.

[00:20:01] David Faulkner: I’m getting anxiety just thinking about these things. 

[00:20:04] Sam Snow: Right? The other one was we put them in a room with randomized noise that, so it beeped randomized extended periods of time and at random times. 

[00:20:13] Anne Chappelle: So, like, their smoke detector was constantly going off at weird times.

[00:20:17] Sam Snow: Yeah, it was a loud, noise, and then, it would go off and then startle and then go off. There was another one but I’m blanking on what the fifth one was. But anyway, we exposed these animals that were given the non-chemical stressors that were either socially isolated or together and then expose them to ozone and then looked at the normal things we would look at after an ozone exposure. And we were expecting non-chemical stressors to really cause the ozone effects to be exacerbated. And what we surprisingly found was that the biggest effect with or without the ozone exposure were the rats that were just isolated by themselves that were socially isolated. So, if they were single house, they had these effects that you would not expect without ozone exposure. And then when they were exposed to ozone, that’s when the exacerbation happened. It wasn’t even if they didn’t necessarily have those other, non-chemical stressors added to them. So, it was just being isolated and being alone. I guess caused some sort of psychological stress that just did not work for them for sure. And we found that ozone exposure works through a neuroendocrine response, so it causes these stress response changes in the body, like increased glucose levels and increased stress hormones. You can measure it in the rat. And then, obviously if you’re psychologically stressed, you’re working along those same pathways. So, it makes a lot of sense. We weren’t expecting it, but it makes more sense now that they were exacerbated.

[00:21:35] David Faulkner: That is so interesting. It comes full circle with this idea of having OTA as this way of not feeling alone, of feeling community, of feeling that connection, professionally speaking, because we spend most of our lives at work. And so, feeling like you have a buddy, that you have friends, it’s just really important. And so, I think it’s interesting that you can show like, “Yeah, scientifically, it’s important to have friends and to have people that you recognize as peers and that you feel connected to.” 

[00:22:02] Anne Chappelle: So much of what you’re doing right now is really focused on government-type reports. Is consulting something that you thought about? You said you did a long postdoc. You were with the EPA for your postdoc, so you had a taste of what your life might be like if you continue down this path. So, can you talk a little bit about that?

[00:22:22] Sam Snow: I had a pretty long postdoc, as you mentioned, it was for six-and-a-half years, which I loved every second of it. I had a wonderful mentor, Urmila Kodavanti. I can’t say enough good things about her, and I enjoyed many aspects of it, but I think one of it was she was collaborative within the EPA and without that, I got to experience lot more than I did in grad school. So, in grad school, I did some in vitro models and actually move into in vivo and doing rodent studies and then collaborating with all these different groups within the EPA where over here they’re doing repro developmental and over there they’re doing exercise studies and I got to see what it was out there and what found interesting. And it turns out, I thought all of it was very interesting. I think that was actually really helpful. Jumping ahead, doing something, consulting, where our clients will come to us with all these different problems—maybe over here, they’re looking at the neurodevelopmental effects of chemical X and this other one, they’re looking at hepatic toxicity because of exposure to chemical Y. Having that curiosity, for all those different topics and finding interest in all those different topics and not being the jack of all trades, master of none kind of thing. It was really helpful. 

But anyway, going back to my postdoc and being at the EPA, it was viable option for me to try to get my own lab. I thought about it. I think (1) it’s really hard to get a government position. A lot of it deals with timing. It’s not like they could just expand if they wanted to. They’re working off a congressional budget. So, it’s really, is there any space available? And if there is, it’s going to be very competitive. And then (2) I enjoyed the lab, and I was—pat myself on the own back—was pretty decent in the lab. I was good at experiments, but I don’t know if I had that scientific curiosity to have my own lab and come up with my own projects. I don’t know if that’s what drove me.

I would go to these career workshops, and they would have that as a panel or something, and I always found it very interesting. And then, I helped put on those career panels, and I would volunteer for the consulting one, so I would get to speak to everybody, and I was like, “This is definitely what I want to do.”

[00:24:17] Anne Chappelle: We always ask our guests a couple of questions. Since this show is called Adverse Reactions, what was your biggest adverse reaction you’ve ever had? 

[00:24:26] Sam Snow: I think mine might have been in grad school. I was trying to make a little bit of extra money on the side, living off that grad student salary. I would do yard work for locals because I really enjoy yard work. And so I was helping clean up this couple’s yard. And they were like, “Can you pull all that English ivy?” And so, I got in my hands, and I’d wrap the ivy around my hands and pull it out and do all that. And then, anyway, it turns out that was poison ivy, not English ivy. And so, my entire fingers, I had blisters all on the inside of my fingers. And, so I live in North Carolina, and now, I have these pussy fingers that were wrapped, and we decided to go rock climbing. I’ve never gone climbing before, but we went rock climbing with some friends. I’m putting my hand in a crevice to hoist up, but because the wrapping was around my fingers, the wrapping got stuck and so I pulled my hand out of the crevice and pops off my blister. My blister just totally popped off.

[00:25:18] Anne Chappelle: Oh, no.

[00:25:19] Sam Snow: Luckily, one of the girls that was with us was an EMT, so she hooked me up, but…

[00:25:22] Anne Chappelle: Oh, that’s bad.

[00:25:23] David Faulkner: That is incredibly bold of you to be like, “Yeah, my hands are totally ruined, but I’m gonna do one of the most damaging things I can do to them and go rock climbing.” Yeah, that’s grad school energy where you’re just like, “It’ll be fine.”

[00:25:36] Anne Chappelle: I’m young and resilient!

[00:25:38] David Faulkner: Sam, thank you so much for coming on the show and talking with us today. This has been so fun. It’s been great. Thank you for coming. 

[00:25:43] Sam Snow: I know.

[00:25:44] Anne Chappelle: And I’m glad it wasn’t the worst thing that could have happened to you today.

[00:25:48] Sam Snow: Thoroughly enjoyed it.

[00:25:49] Anne Chappelle: Thank you so much.

[00:25:51] “Decompose” Theme Music

[00:25:54] Anne Chappelle: Next, on Adverse Reactions,

[00:25:56] David Faulkner: “Pipping the Scales with Zebrafish,”

[00:25:59] Anne Chappelle: with Dr. Lisa Truong from Oregon State University. 

[00:26:02] Lisa Truong: We did some research with understanding how micronutrients is also important to our behavior and also the health of their next generation. If you’ve supplemented or you remove certain vitamins out of the zebrafish diet, you find that certain like either zinc or vitamin E the lack of or excess of it can cause deleterious effects in the offspring—lots of different gene changes—and looking at the microbiome, they also has those impacts.

[00:26:26] “Decompose” Theme Music

[00:26:31] Anne Chappelle: Thank you, all, for joining us for this episode of Adverse Reactions, presented by the Society of Toxicology.

[00:26:37] David Faulkner: And thank you to Dave Leve at Ma3stro Studios,

[00:26:40] Anne Chappelle: that’s Ma3stro with a three, not an E,

[00:26:43] David Faulkner: who created and produced all the music for Adverse Reactions, including the theme song, “Decompose.”

[00:26:49] Anne Chappelle: The viewpoints and information presented in Adverse Reactions represent those of the participating individuals. Although the Society of Toxicology holds the copyright to this production, it has,

[00:27:01] David Faulkner: definitely, 

[00:27:02] Anne Chappelle: not vetted or reviewed the information presented herein,

[00:27:06] David Faulkner: nor does presenting and distributing this podcast represent any proposal or endorsement of any position by the Society.

[00:27:12] Anne Chappelle: You can find out more information about the show at adversereactionspodcast.com

[00:27:18] David Faulkner: and more information about the Society of Toxicology on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and Twitter.

[00:27:24] Anne Chappelle: I’m Anne Chappelle, 

[00:27:25] David Faulkner: and I’m David Faulkner. 

[00:27:26] Anne Chappelle: This podcast was approved by Anne’s mom. 

[00:27:30] “Decompose” Theme Music

[00:27:37] End of Episode