Harry G J, Billingsley M, Bruinink A, Campbell I L, Classen W, Dorman D C, Galli C, Ray D, Smith R A, Tilson H A
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Environ Health Perspect. 1998 Feb;106 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):131-58. doi: 10.1289/ehp.98106s1131.
Risk assessment is a process often divided into the following steps: a) hazard identification, b) dose-response assessment, c) exposure assessment, and d) risk characterization. Regulatory toxicity studies usually are aimed at providing data for the first two steps. Human case reports, environmental research, and in vitro studies may also be used to identify or to further characterize a toxic hazard. In this report the strengths and limitations of in vitro techniques are discussed in light of their usefulness to identify neurotoxic hazards, as well as for the subsequent dose-response assessment. Because of the complexity of the nervous system, multiple functions of individual cells, and our limited knowledge of biochemical processes involved in neurotoxicity, it is not known how well any in vitro system would recapitulate the in vivo system. Thus, it would be difficult to design an in vitro test battery to replace in vivo test systems. In vitro systems are well suited to the study of biological processes in a more isolated context and have been most successfully used to elucidate mechanisms of toxicity, identify target cells of neurotoxicity, and delineate the development and intricate cellular changes induced by neurotoxicants. Both biochemical and morphological end points can be used, but many of the end points used can be altered by pharmacological actions as well as toxicity. Therefore, for many of these end points it is difficult or impossible to set a criterion that allows one to differentiate between a pharmacological and a neurotoxic effect. For the process of risk assessment such a discrimination is central. Therefore, end points used to determine potential neurotoxicity of a compound have to be carefully selected and evaluated with respect to their potential to discriminate between an adverse neurotoxic effect and a pharmacologic effect. It is obvious that for in vitro neurotoxicity studies the primary end points that can be used are those affected through specific mechanisms of neurotoxicity. For example, in vitro systems may be useful for certain structurally defined compounds and mechanisms of toxicity, such as organophosphorus compounds and delayed neuropathy, for which target cells and the biochemical processes involved in the neurotoxicity are well known. For other compounds and the different types of neurotoxicity, a mechanism of toxicity needs to be identified first. Once identified, by either in vivo or in vitro methods, a system can be developed to detect and to evaluate predictive ability for the type of in vivo neurotoxicity produced. Therefore, in vitro tests have their greatest potential in providing information on basic mechanistic processes in order to refine specific experimental questions to be addressed in the whole animal.
a)危害识别;b)剂量反应评估;c)暴露评估;d)风险特征描述。监管毒性研究通常旨在为前两个步骤提供数据。人类病例报告、环境研究和体外研究也可用于识别或进一步描述毒性危害。在本报告中,将根据体外技术在识别神经毒性危害以及后续剂量反应评估方面的有用性,讨论其优势和局限性。由于神经系统的复杂性、单个细胞的多种功能以及我们对神经毒性所涉及的生化过程的有限了解,尚不清楚任何体外系统能在多大程度上重现体内系统。因此,设计一套体外试验组合来替代体内试验系统将很困难。体外系统非常适合在更孤立的环境中研究生物过程,并且已最成功地用于阐明毒性机制、识别神经毒性的靶细胞以及描绘神经毒物诱导的发育和复杂的细胞变化。生化和形态学终点均可使用,但所使用的许多终点可能会因药理作用以及毒性而改变。因此,对于许多这些终点而言,很难或不可能设定一个标准来区分药理作用和神经毒性作用。对于风险评估过程而言,这种区分至关重要。因此,用于确定化合物潜在神经毒性的终点必须根据其区分不良神经毒性作用和药理作用的潜力进行仔细选择和评估。显然,对于体外神经毒性研究,可使用的主要终点是那些通过特定神经毒性机制受到影响的终点。例如,体外系统可能对某些结构明确的化合物和毒性机制有用,如有机磷化合物和迟发性神经病,其靶细胞和神经毒性所涉及的生化过程是众所周知的。对于其他化合物和不同类型的神经毒性,需要首先确定毒性机制。一旦通过体内或体外方法确定了毒性机制,就可以开发一个系统来检测并评估其对所产生的体内神经毒性类型的预测能力。因此,体外试验在提供有关基本机制过程的信息以完善在整体动物中要解决的特定实验问题方面具有最大潜力。