Groothuis Floris A, Heringa Minne B, Nicol Beate, Hermens Joop L M, Blaauboer Bas J, Kramer Nynke I
Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, PO Box 80177, 3508 TD Utrecht, The Netherlands.
National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), PO Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Toxicology. 2015 Jun 5;332:30-40. doi: 10.1016/j.tox.2013.08.012. Epub 2013 Aug 23.
Challenges to improve toxicological risk assessment to meet the demands of the EU chemical's legislation, REACH, and the EU 7th Amendment of the Cosmetics Directive have accelerated the development of non-animal based methods. Unfortunately, uncertainties remain surrounding the power of alternative methods such as in vitro assays to predict in vivo dose-response relationships, which impedes their use in regulatory toxicology. One issue reviewed here, is the lack of a well-defined dose metric for use in concentration-effect relationships obtained from in vitro cell assays. Traditionally, the nominal concentration has been used to define in vitro concentration-effect relationships. However, chemicals may differentially and non-specifically bind to medium constituents, well plate plastic and cells. They may also evaporate, degrade or be metabolized over the exposure period at different rates. Studies have shown that these processes may reduce the bioavailable and biologically effective dose of test chemicals in in vitro assays to levels far below their nominal concentration. This subsequently hampers the interpretation of in vitro data to predict and compare the true toxic potency of test chemicals. Therefore, this review discusses a number of dose metrics and their dependency on in vitro assay setup. Recommendations are given on when to consider alternative dose metrics instead of nominal concentrations, in order to reduce effect concentration variability between in vitro assays and between in vitro and in vivo assays in toxicology.
为满足欧盟化学品法规《化学品注册、评估、授权和限制》(REACH)以及欧盟化妆品指令第七次修订案的要求,改进毒理学风险评估面临的挑战加速了非动物实验方法的发展。不幸的是,诸如体外试验等替代方法在预测体内剂量反应关系方面的效能仍存在不确定性,这阻碍了它们在监管毒理学中的应用。本文所探讨的一个问题是,在从体外细胞试验获得的浓度效应关系中,缺乏一个定义明确的剂量指标。传统上,名义浓度一直被用于定义体外浓度效应关系。然而,化学物质可能会以不同方式且非特异性地与培养基成分、微孔板塑料和细胞结合。它们也可能在暴露期间以不同速率蒸发、降解或代谢。研究表明,这些过程可能会将体外试验中受试化学物质的生物可利用剂量和生物有效剂量降低到远低于其名义浓度的水平。这随后妨碍了对体外数据的解读,从而无法预测和比较受试化学物质的真正毒性效力。因此,本综述讨论了一些剂量指标及其对体外试验设置的依赖性。文中给出了何时应考虑使用替代剂量指标而非名义浓度的建议,以便减少毒理学中体外试验之间以及体外试验与体内试验之间效应浓度的变异性。