101
|
de Leeuw VC, Hessel EVS, Piersma AH. Look-alikes may not act alike: Gene expression regulation and cell-type-specific responses of three valproic acid analogues in the neural embryonic stem cell test (ESTn). Toxicol Lett 2018; 303:28-37. [PMID: 30578912 DOI: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2018.12.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/22/2018] [Revised: 12/07/2018] [Accepted: 12/13/2018] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
In vitro assays to assess developmental neurotoxicity of chemicals are highly desirable. The murine neural embryonic stem cell test (ESTn) can mimic parts of early differentiation of embryonic brain and may therefore be useful for this purpose. The aim of this study was to investigate whether this test is able to rank the toxic potencies of three valproic acid analogues and to study their mode of action by investigating their individual effects on four cell types: stem cells, neurons, astrocytes and neural crest cells. Using immunocytochemical read-outs and qPCR for cell type-specific genes, the effects of valproic acid (VPA), 2-ethylhexanoic acid (EHA) and 2-ethyl-4-methylpentanoic (EMPA) were assessed. VPA and EHA but not EMPA downregulated cell type-specific differentiation makers and upregulated stem cell related markers (Fut4, Cdh1) at different time points during differentiation. Expression of Gfap, a marker for astrocytes, was dramatically downregulated by VPA and EHA, but not by EMPA. This finding was verified using immunostainings. Based on the number and extent of genes regulated by the three compounds, relative potencies were determined as VPA > EHA > EMPA, which is consistent with in vivo developmental toxicity potency ranking of these compounds. Thus, ESTn using a combination of morphology, gene and protein expression readouts, may provide a medium-throughput system for monitoring the effects of compounds on differentiation of cell types in early brain development.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Victoria C de Leeuw
- Center for Health Protection, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, the Netherlands; Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences (IRAS), Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
| | - Ellen V S Hessel
- Center for Health Protection, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, the Netherlands
| | - Aldert H Piersma
- Center for Health Protection, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, the Netherlands; Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences (IRAS), Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
102
|
Bal-Price A, Pistollato F, Sachana M, Bopp SK, Munn S, Worth A. Strategies to improve the regulatory assessment of developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) using in vitro methods. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2018; 354:7-18. [PMID: 29476865 PMCID: PMC6095942 DOI: 10.1016/j.taap.2018.02.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 101] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/14/2017] [Revised: 02/05/2018] [Accepted: 02/13/2018] [Indexed: 01/23/2023]
Abstract
Currently, the identification of chemicals that have the potential to induce developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) is based on animal testing. Since at the regulatory level, systematic testing of DNT is not a standard requirement within the EU or USA chemical legislation safety assessment, DNT testing is only performed in higher tiered testing triggered based on chemical structure activity relationships or evidence of neurotoxicity in systemic acute or repeated dose toxicity studies. However, these triggers are rarely used and, in addition, do not always serve as reliable indicators of DNT, as they are generally based on observations in adult rodents. Therefore, there is a pressing need for developing alternative methodologies that can reliably support identification of DNT triggers, and more rapidly and cost-effectively support the identification and characterization of chemicals with DNT potential. We propose to incorporate mechanistic knowledge and data derived from in vitro studies to support various regulatory applications including: (a) the identification of potential DNT triggers, (b) initial chemical screening and prioritization, (c) hazard identification and characterization, (d) chemical biological grouping, and (e) assessment of exposure to chemical mixtures. Ideally, currently available cellular neuronal/glial models derived from human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) should be used as they allow evaluation of chemical impacts on key neurodevelopmental processes, by reproducing different windows of exposure during human brain development. A battery of DNT in vitro test methods derived from hiPSCs could generate valuable mechanistic data, speeding up the evaluation of thousands of compounds present in industrial, agricultural and consumer products that lack safety data on DNT potential.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anna Bal-Price
- European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy.
| | | | - Magdalini Sachana
- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2 rue André Pascal, 75775 Paris, Cedex 16, France
| | | | - Sharon Munn
- European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy
| | - Andrew Worth
- European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
103
|
Fritsche E, Grandjean P, Crofton KM, Aschner M, Goldberg A, Heinonen T, Hessel EVS, Hogberg HT, Bennekou SH, Lein PJ, Leist M, Mundy WR, Paparella M, Piersma AH, Sachana M, Schmuck G, Solecki R, Terron A, Monnet-Tschudi F, Wilks MF, Witters H, Zurich MG, Bal-Price A. Consensus statement on the need for innovation, transition and implementation of developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) testing for regulatory purposes. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2018; 354:3-6. [PMID: 29447839 PMCID: PMC6097873 DOI: 10.1016/j.taap.2018.02.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 89] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/02/2018] [Revised: 02/09/2018] [Accepted: 02/10/2018] [Indexed: 01/15/2023]
Abstract
This consensus statement voices the agreement of scientific stakeholders from regulatory agencies, academia and industry that a new framework needs adopting for assessment of chemicals with the potential to disrupt brain development. An increased prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders in children has been observed that cannot solely be explained by genetics and recently pre- and postnatal exposure to environmental chemicals has been suspected as a causal factor. There is only very limited information on neurodevelopmental toxicity, leaving thousands of chemicals, that are present in the environment, with high uncertainty concerning their developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) potential. Closing this data gap with the current test guideline approach is not feasible, because the in vivo bioassays are far too resource-intensive concerning time, money and number of animals. A variety of in vitro methods are now available, that have the potential to close this data gap by permitting mode-of-action-based DNT testing employing human stem cells-derived neuronal/glial models. In vitro DNT data together with in silico approaches will in the future allow development of predictive models for DNT effects. The ultimate application goals of these new approach methods for DNT testing are their usage for different regulatory purposes. An increased prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders in children is observed. There is very limited information on neurodevelopmental toxicity (DNT) induced by environmental chemicals. A new framework is required for assessment of chemicals with the potential to disrupt brain development. In vitro DNT data together with in silico approaches should be used for regulatory purposes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ellen Fritsche
- IUF - Leibniz Research Institute for Environmental Medicine, Duesseldorf, Germany
| | - Philippe Grandjean
- University of Southern Denmark, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, USA
| | | | | | - Alan Goldberg
- Bloomberg School of Public Health, Founding Director (Emeritus) of Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA; Global Food Ethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
| | - Tuula Heinonen
- Finnish Centre for Alternative Methods (FICAM), University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland
| | - Ellen V S Hessel
- National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, RIVM Center for Health Protection, Bilthoven, Netherlands
| | - Helena T Hogberg
- Centre for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
| | | | - Pamela J Lein
- Department of Molecular Biosciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California Davis, Davis, USA
| | - Marcel Leist
- CAAT - Centre for Alternatives to Animal Testing, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany
| | | | | | - Aldert H Piersma
- RIVM Center for Health Protection, Bilthoven and Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Magdalini Sachana
- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris, France
| | | | - Roland Solecki
- Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany
| | | | | | - Martin F Wilks
- SCAHT - Swiss Centre for Applied Human Toxicology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Hilda Witters
- VITO, Flemish Institute for Technological Research, Unit Environmental Risk and Health, Belgium
| | | | - Anna Bal-Price
- European Commission -DG Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
104
|
Smirnova L, Kleinstreuer N, Corvi R, Levchenko A, Fitzpatrick SC, Hartung T. 3S - Systematic, systemic, and systems biology and toxicology. ALTEX 2018; 35:139-162. [PMID: 29677694 PMCID: PMC6696989 DOI: 10.14573/altex.1804051] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/06/2018] [Accepted: 04/06/2018] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
A biological system is more than the sum of its parts - it accomplishes many functions via synergy. Deconstructing the system down to the molecular mechanism level necessitates the complement of reconstructing functions on all levels, i.e., in our conceptualization of biology and its perturbations, our experimental models and computer modelling. Toxicology contains the somewhat arbitrary subclass "systemic toxicities"; however, there is no relevant toxic insult or general disease that is not systemic. At least inflammation and repair are involved that require coordinated signaling mechanisms across the organism. However, the more body components involved, the greater the challenge to reca-pitulate such toxicities using non-animal models. Here, the shortcomings of current systemic testing and the development of alternative approaches are summarized. We argue that we need a systematic approach to integrating existing knowledge as exemplified by systematic reviews and other evidence-based approaches. Such knowledge can guide us in modelling these systems using bioengineering and virtual computer models, i.e., via systems biology or systems toxicology approaches. Experimental multi-organ-on-chip and microphysiological systems (MPS) provide a more physiological view of the organism, facilitating more comprehensive coverage of systemic toxicities, i.e., the perturbation on organism level, without using substitute organisms (animals). The next challenge is to establish disease models, i.e., micropathophysiological systems (MPPS), to expand their utility to encompass biomedicine. Combining computational and experimental systems approaches and the chal-lenges of validating them are discussed. The suggested 3S approach promises to leverage 21st century technology and systematic thinking to achieve a paradigm change in studying systemic effects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lena Smirnova
- Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), Baltimore, MD, USA
| | | | - Raffaella Corvi
- European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), EU Reference Laboratory for Alternatives to Animal Testing (EURL ECVAM), Ispra, (VA), Italy
| | - Andre Levchenko
- Yale Systems Biology Institute and Biomedical Engineering Department, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
| | - Suzanne C Fitzpatrick
- Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, College Park, MD, USA
| | - Thomas Hartung
- Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), Baltimore, MD, USA.
- CAAT-Europe, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
105
|
Legradi JB, Di Paolo C, Kraak MHS, van der Geest HG, Schymanski EL, Williams AJ, Dingemans MML, Massei R, Brack W, Cousin X, Begout ML, van der Oost R, Carion A, Suarez-Ulloa V, Silvestre F, Escher BI, Engwall M, Nilén G, Keiter SH, Pollet D, Waldmann P, Kienle C, Werner I, Haigis AC, Knapen D, Vergauwen L, Spehr M, Schulz W, Busch W, Leuthold D, Scholz S, vom Berg CM, Basu N, Murphy CA, Lampert A, Kuckelkorn J, Grummt T, Hollert H. An ecotoxicological view on neurotoxicity assessment. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES EUROPE 2018; 30:46. [PMID: 30595996 PMCID: PMC6292971 DOI: 10.1186/s12302-018-0173-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 161] [Impact Index Per Article: 23.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2018] [Accepted: 10/31/2018] [Indexed: 05/04/2023]
Abstract
The numbers of potential neurotoxicants in the environment are raising and pose a great risk for humans and the environment. Currently neurotoxicity assessment is mostly performed to predict and prevent harm to human populations. Despite all the efforts invested in the last years in developing novel in vitro or in silico test systems, in vivo tests with rodents are still the only accepted test for neurotoxicity risk assessment in Europe. Despite an increasing number of reports of species showing altered behaviour, neurotoxicity assessment for species in the environment is not required and therefore mostly not performed. Considering the increasing numbers of environmental contaminants with potential neurotoxic potential, eco-neurotoxicity should be also considered in risk assessment. In order to do so novel test systems are needed that can cope with species differences within ecosystems. In the field, online-biomonitoring systems using behavioural information could be used to detect neurotoxic effects and effect-directed analyses could be applied to identify the neurotoxicants causing the effect. Additionally, toxic pressure calculations in combination with mixture modelling could use environmental chemical monitoring data to predict adverse effects and prioritize pollutants for laboratory testing. Cheminformatics based on computational toxicological data from in vitro and in vivo studies could help to identify potential neurotoxicants. An array of in vitro assays covering different modes of action could be applied to screen compounds for neurotoxicity. The selection of in vitro assays could be guided by AOPs relevant for eco-neurotoxicity. In order to be able to perform risk assessment for eco-neurotoxicity, methods need to focus on the most sensitive species in an ecosystem. A test battery using species from different trophic levels might be the best approach. To implement eco-neurotoxicity assessment into European risk assessment, cheminformatics and in vitro screening tests could be used as first approach to identify eco-neurotoxic pollutants. In a second step, a small species test battery could be applied to assess the risks of ecosystems.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J. B. Legradi
- Institute for Environmental Research, Department of Ecosystem Analysis, ABBt–Aachen Biology and Biotechnology, RWTH Aachen University, Worringerweg 1, 52074 Aachen, Germany
- Environment and Health, VU University, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - C. Di Paolo
- Institute for Environmental Research, Department of Ecosystem Analysis, ABBt–Aachen Biology and Biotechnology, RWTH Aachen University, Worringerweg 1, 52074 Aachen, Germany
| | - M. H. S. Kraak
- FAME-Freshwater and Marine Ecology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 94248, 1090 GE Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - H. G. van der Geest
- FAME-Freshwater and Marine Ecology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 94248, 1090 GE Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - E. L. Schymanski
- Luxembourg Centre for Systems Biomedicine (LCSB), University of Luxembourg, 6 Avenue du Swing, 4367 Belvaux, Luxembourg
| | - A. J. Williams
- National Center for Computational Toxicology, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 USA
| | - M. M. L. Dingemans
- KWR Watercycle Research Institute, Groningenhaven 7, 3433 PE Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
| | - R. Massei
- Department Effect-Directed Analysis, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Permoserstr. 15, Leipzig, Germany
| | - W. Brack
- Department Effect-Directed Analysis, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Permoserstr. 15, Leipzig, Germany
| | - X. Cousin
- Ifremer, UMR MARBEC, Laboratoire Adaptation et Adaptabilités des Animaux et des Systèmes, Route de Maguelone, 34250 Palavas-les-Flots, France
- INRA, UMR GABI, INRA, AgroParisTech, Domaine de Vilvert, Batiment 231, 78350 Jouy-en-Josas, France
| | - M.-L. Begout
- Ifremer, Laboratoire Ressources Halieutiques, Place Gaby Coll, 17137 L’Houmeau, France
| | - R. van der Oost
- Department of Technology, Research and Engineering, Waternet Institute for the Urban Water Cycle, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - A. Carion
- Laboratory of Evolutionary and Adaptive Physiology, Institute of Life, Earth and Environment, University of Namur, 5000 Namur, Belgium
| | - V. Suarez-Ulloa
- Laboratory of Evolutionary and Adaptive Physiology, Institute of Life, Earth and Environment, University of Namur, 5000 Namur, Belgium
| | - F. Silvestre
- Laboratory of Evolutionary and Adaptive Physiology, Institute of Life, Earth and Environment, University of Namur, 5000 Namur, Belgium
| | - B. I. Escher
- Department of Cell Toxicology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Permoserstr. 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany
- Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Environmental Toxicology, Center for Applied Geosciences, 72074 Tübingen, Germany
| | - M. Engwall
- MTM Research Centre, School of Science and Technology, Örebro University, Fakultetsgatan 1, 70182 Örebro, Sweden
| | - G. Nilén
- MTM Research Centre, School of Science and Technology, Örebro University, Fakultetsgatan 1, 70182 Örebro, Sweden
| | - S. H. Keiter
- MTM Research Centre, School of Science and Technology, Örebro University, Fakultetsgatan 1, 70182 Örebro, Sweden
| | - D. Pollet
- Faculty of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, University of Applied Sciences Darmstadt, Stephanstrasse 7, 64295 Darmstadt, Germany
| | - P. Waldmann
- Faculty of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, University of Applied Sciences Darmstadt, Stephanstrasse 7, 64295 Darmstadt, Germany
| | - C. Kienle
- Swiss Centre for Applied Ecotoxicology Eawag-EPFL, Überlandstrasse 133, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland
| | - I. Werner
- Swiss Centre for Applied Ecotoxicology Eawag-EPFL, Überlandstrasse 133, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland
| | - A.-C. Haigis
- Institute for Environmental Research, Department of Ecosystem Analysis, ABBt–Aachen Biology and Biotechnology, RWTH Aachen University, Worringerweg 1, 52074 Aachen, Germany
| | - D. Knapen
- Zebrafishlab, Veterinary Physiology and Biochemistry, University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, Belgium
| | - L. Vergauwen
- Zebrafishlab, Veterinary Physiology and Biochemistry, University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, Belgium
| | - M. Spehr
- Institute for Biology II, Department of Chemosensation, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
| | - W. Schulz
- Zweckverband Landeswasserversorgung, Langenau, Germany
| | - W. Busch
- Department of Bioanalytical Ecotoxicology, UFZ–Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, Germany
| | - D. Leuthold
- Department of Bioanalytical Ecotoxicology, UFZ–Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, Germany
| | - S. Scholz
- Department of Bioanalytical Ecotoxicology, UFZ–Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, Germany
| | - C. M. vom Berg
- Department of Environmental Toxicology, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Eawag, Dübendorf, 8600 Switzerland
| | - N. Basu
- Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
| | - C. A. Murphy
- Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA
| | - A. Lampert
- Institute of Physiology (Neurophysiology), Aachen, Germany
| | - J. Kuckelkorn
- Section Toxicology of Drinking Water and Swimming Pool Water, Federal Environment Agency (UBA), Heinrich-Heine-Str. 12, 08645 Bad Elster, Germany
| | - T. Grummt
- Section Toxicology of Drinking Water and Swimming Pool Water, Federal Environment Agency (UBA), Heinrich-Heine-Str. 12, 08645 Bad Elster, Germany
| | - H. Hollert
- Institute for Environmental Research, Department of Ecosystem Analysis, ABBt–Aachen Biology and Biotechnology, RWTH Aachen University, Worringerweg 1, 52074 Aachen, Germany
| |
Collapse
|