Judson Richard, Houck Keith, Martin Matt, Richard Ann M, Knudsen Thomas B, Shah Imran, Little Stephen, Wambaugh John, Woodrow Setzer R, Kothiya Parth, Phuong Jimmy, Filer Dayne, Smith Doris, Reif David, Rotroff Daniel, Kleinstreuer Nicole, Sipes Nisha, Xia Menghang, Huang Ruili, Crofton Kevin, Thomas Russell S
*U.S. EPA, National Center for Computational Toxicology, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina;
Contractor to the U.S. EPA National Center for Computational Toxicology, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina;
Toxicol Sci. 2016 Aug;152(2):323-39. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfw092. Epub 2016 May 20.
Chemical toxicity can arise from disruption of specific biomolecular functions or through more generalized cell stress and cytotoxicity-mediated processes. Here, responses of 1060 chemicals including pharmaceuticals, natural products, pesticidals, consumer, and industrial chemicals across a battery of 815 in vitro assay endpoints from 7 high-throughput assay technology platforms were analyzed in order to distinguish between these types of activities. Both cell-based and cell-free assays showed a rapid increase in the frequency of responses at concentrations where cell stress/cytotoxicity responses were observed in cell-based assays. Chemicals that were positive on at least 2 viability/cytotoxicity assays within the concentration range tested (typically up to 100 μM) activated a median of 12% of assay endpoints whereas those that were not cytotoxic in this concentration range activated 1.3% of the assays endpoints. The results suggest that activity can be broadly divided into: (1) specific biomolecular interactions against one or more targets (eg, receptors or enzymes) at concentrations below which overt cytotoxicity-associated activity is observed; and (2) activity associated with cell stress or cytotoxicity, which may result from triggering specific cell stress pathways, chemical reactivity, physico-chemical disruption of proteins or membranes, or broad low-affinity non-covalent interactions. Chemicals showing a greater number of specific biomolecular interactions are generally designed to be bioactive (pharmaceuticals or pesticidal active ingredients), whereas intentional food-use chemicals tended to show the fewest specific interactions. The analyses presented here provide context for use of these data in ongoing studies to predict in vivo toxicity from chemicals lacking extensive hazard assessment.
化学毒性可能源于特定生物分子功能的破坏,或通过更普遍的细胞应激和细胞毒性介导的过程产生。在此,我们分析了1060种化学物质(包括药物、天然产物、农药、消费品和工业化学品)在来自7个高通量检测技术平台的815个体外检测终点的一系列检测中的反应,以区分这些类型的活性。基于细胞和无细胞的检测均显示,在基于细胞的检测中观察到细胞应激/细胞毒性反应的浓度下,反应频率迅速增加。在测试浓度范围内(通常高达100μM)至少在2种活力/细胞毒性检测中呈阳性的化学物质激活了中位数为12%的检测终点,而在该浓度范围内无细胞毒性的化学物质激活了1.3%的检测终点。结果表明,活性可大致分为:(1)在观察到明显细胞毒性相关活性的浓度以下,针对一个或多个靶点(如受体或酶)的特定生物分子相互作用;(2)与细胞应激或细胞毒性相关的活性,这可能是由于触发特定的细胞应激途径、化学反应性、蛋白质或膜的物理化学破坏或广泛的低亲和力非共价相互作用所致。显示出更多特定生物分子相互作用的化学物质通常被设计为具有生物活性(药物或农药活性成分),而有意用于食品的化学物质往往显示出最少的特定相互作用。本文所呈现的分析为在缺乏广泛危害评估的化学物质的体内毒性预测的正在进行的研究中使用这些数据提供了背景。