2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Towards better prediction of xenobiotic genotoxicity: CometChip technology coupled with a 3D model of HepaRG human liver cells

      ,
      Archives of Toxicology
      Springer Science and Business Media LLC

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          <p class="first" id="d4582103e69">Toxicology is facing a major change in the way toxicity testing is conducted by moving away from animal experimentation towards animal-free methods. To improve the in vitro genotoxicity assessment of chemical and physical compounds, there is an urgent need to accelerate the development of 3D cell models in high-throughput DNA damage detection platforms. Among the alternative methods, hepatic cell lines are a relevant in vitro model for studying the functions of the liver. 3D HepaRG spheroids show improved hepatocyte differentiation, longevity, and functionality compared with 2D HepaRG cultures and are therefore a relevant model for predicting in vivo responses. Recently, the comet assay was developed on 3D HepaRG cells. However, this approach is still low throughput and does not meet the challenge of evaluating the toxicity and risk to humans of tens of thousands of compounds. In this study, we evaluated the performance of the high-throughput in vitro CometChip assay on 2D and 3D HepaRG cells. HepaRG cells were exposed for 48 h to several compounds (methyl methanesulfonate, etoposide, benzo[a]pyrene, cyclophosphamide, 7,12-dimethylbenz[a]anthracene, 2-acetylaminofluorene, and acrylamide) known to have different genotoxic modes of action. The resulting dose responses were quantified using benchmark dose modelling. DNA damage was observed for all compounds except 2-AAF in 2D HepaRG cells and etoposide in 3D HepaRG cells. Results indicate that the platform is capable of reliably identifying genotoxicants in 3D HepaRG cells, and provide further insights regarding specific responses of 2D and 3D models. </p>

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Toward a Global Understanding of Chemical Pollution: A First Comprehensive Analysis of National and Regional Chemical Inventories

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Acrylamide is formed in the Maillard reaction.

            Reports of the presence of acrylamide in a range of fried and oven-cooked foods have caused worldwide concern because this compound has been classified as probably carcinogenic in humans. Here we show how acrylamide can be generated from food components during heat treatment as a result of the Maillard reaction between amino acids and reducing sugars. We find that asparagine, a major amino acid in potatoes and cereals, is a crucial participant in the production of acrylamide by this pathway.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Update: use of the benchmark dose approach in risk assessment

              Abstract The Scientific Committee (SC) reconfirms that the benchmark dose (BMD) approach is a scientifically more advanced method compared to the NOAEL approach for deriving a Reference Point (RP). Most of the modifications made to the SC guidance of 2009 concern the section providing guidance on how to apply the BMD approach. Model averaging is recommended as the preferred method for calculating the BMD confidence interval, while acknowledging that the respective tools are still under development and may not be easily accessible to all. Therefore, selecting or rejecting models is still considered as a suboptimal alternative. The set of default models to be used for BMD analysis has been reviewed, and the Akaike information criterion (AIC) has been introduced instead of the log‐likelihood to characterise the goodness of fit of different mathematical models to a dose–response data set. A flowchart has also been inserted in this update to guide the reader step‐by‐step when performing a BMD analysis, as well as a chapter on the distributional part of dose–response models and a template for reporting a BMD analysis in a complete and transparent manner. Finally, it is recommended to always report the BMD confidence interval rather than the value of the BMD. The lower bound (BMDL) is needed as a potential RP, and the upper bound (BMDU) is needed for establishing the BMDU/BMDL per ratio reflecting the uncertainty in the BMD estimate. This updated guidance does not call for a general re‐evaluation of previous assessments where the NOAEL approach or the BMD approach as described in the 2009 SC guidance was used, in particular when the exposure is clearly smaller (e.g. more than one order of magnitude) than the health‐based guidance value. Finally, the SC firmly reiterates to reconsider test guidelines given the expected wide application of the BMD approach.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Archives of Toxicology
                Arch Toxicol
                Springer Science and Business Media LLC
                0340-5761
                1432-0738
                July 2022
                April 13 2022
                July 2022
                : 96
                : 7
                : 2087-2095
                Article
                10.1007/s00204-022-03292-4
                35419617
                911b5af9-ffcd-4954-a791-4006c2c8ddd8
                © 2022

                https://www.springer.com/tdm

                https://www.springer.com/tdm

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article