The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has issued a directive to reduce mammalian studies to 30% by 2025. The application of new approach methodologies is being implemented to provide information on chemical hazard and risk assessment. In vitro methods, such as the MucilAir™ assay, are used to detect airway damage and acute irritation potential in agrochemicals.
Materials and Methods:
Four agrochemicals, including Adepidyn™ and two developmental chemicals (DC 1 and 2), were evaluated using the MucilAir assay to determine the need for future in vivo inhalation studies. Chlorothalonil (CTN), which exhibits irritant properties in mucous membranes in vivo was assessed in the MucilAir assay to inform chronic inhalation risk. Evaluation of irritation potential and tissue damage were determined through transepithelial electrical resistance (TEER), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) release, resazurin reduction, or histology. Each agrochemical was applied to the MucilAir for 24 hours at six concentrations (Adepidyn: 0.005–0.5 mg/L; chemicals no. 1–2: 31–317 mg/L) and 10 concentrations (CTN, 2–200 mg/L). As controls, vehicle, positive (sodium dodecyl sulfate, 4 mM) and untreated air–liquid interface groups were tested in parallel.
Results:
The control treatments confirmed correct assay functioning for each endpoint. Exposure to Adepidyn or DC 1 and 2 did not cause a change in TEER or LDH release. There was no change in resazurin reduction. Altogether, the irritation potential panel and histological evaluation indicated no evidence of toxicity. A benchmark dose (BMD) level of 0.00730 mg/cm2 was derived for CTN based on TEER, LDH release, and resazurin endpoints.
Discussion:
A good concordance of response across endpoints and human tissue donors was observed. A wide range of concentrations were tested to derive points of departure for risk assessment through BMD modeling.
Conclusion:
The MucilAir assay evaluating chemically induced airway cytotoxicity is fit for purpose for respiratory tract hazard screening and refining inhalation risk assessment of agrochemicals.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
TörnqvistE, AnnasA, GranathB, et al.Strategic focus on 3R principles reveals major reductions in the use of animals in pharmaceutical toxicity testing. PLoS One, 2014; 9:e101638.
2.
BurdenN, MahonyC, MüllerBP, et al.Aligning the 3Rs with new paradigms in the safety assessment of chemicals. Toxicology, 2015:330; 62–66.
3.
KavlockRJ, BahadoriT, Barton-MaclarenTS, et al.Accelerating the pace of chemical risk assessment. Chem Res Toxicol, 2018:31; 287–290.
4.
JudsonR, HouckK, MartinM, et al.In vitro and modelling approaches to risk assessment from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ToxCast programme. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol, 2014:115; 69–76.
5.
DongZ, LiuY, DuanL, et al.Uncertainties in human health risk assessment of environmental contaminants: A review and perspective. Environ Int, 2015:85; 120–132.
6.
European Parliament and Councul of the EuropeanUnion. Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning theRegistration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European ChemicalsAgency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC. 2006. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2006/1907/oj (last accessed February8, 2021).
7.
European Chemical Agency. New Approach Methodologies in Regulatory Science. Paper presented at: ECHA Topical Scientific Workshop; April 19–20, 2016, 2016; Helsinki, Finland.
ParishST, AschnerM, CaseyW, et al.An evaluation framework for new approach methodologies (NAMs) for human health safety assessment. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2020:112; 104592.
StrikwoldM, SpenkelinkB, WoutersenRA, et al.Combining in vitro embryotoxicity data with physiologically based kinetic (PBK) modelling to define in vivo dose-response curves for developmental toxicity of phenol in rat and human. Arch Toxicol, 2013:87; 1709–1723.
13.
LouisseJ, BosgraS, BlaauboerBJ, et al.Prediction of in vivo developmental toxicity of all-trans-retinoic acid based on in vitro toxicity data and in silico physiologically based kinetic modeling. Arch Toxicol, 2015:89; 1135–1148.
14.
AbdullahR, AlhusainyW, WoutersenJ, et al.Predicting points of departure for risk assessment based on in vitro cytotoxicity data and physiologically based kinetic (PBK) modeling: The case of kidney toxicity induced by aristolochic acid I. Food Chem Toxicol, 2016:92; 104–116.
15.
SirenkoO, CromwellEF, CrittendenC, et al.Assessment of beating parameters in human induced pluripotent stem cells enables quantitative in vitro screening for cardiotoxicity. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol, 2013:273; 500–507.
16.
Soeteman-HernándezLG, FellowsMD, JohnsonGE, et al.Correlation of in vivo versus in vitro benchmark doses (BMDs) derived from micronucleus test data: a proof of concept study. Toxicol Sci, 2015:148; 355–367.
17.
WignallJA, ShapiroAJ, WrightFA, et al.Standardizing benchmark dose calculations to improve science-based decisions in human health assessments. Environ Health Perspect, 2014:122; 499–505.
ChamanzaR, WrightJA. A review of the comparative anatomy, histology, physiology and pathology of the nasal cavity of rats, mice, dogs and non-human primates. Relevance to inhalation toxicology and human health risk assessment. J Comp Pathol, 2015:153; 287–314.
21.
RockJR, RandellSH, HoganBL. Airway basal stem cells: A perspective on their roles in epithelial homeostasis and remodeling. Dis Models mech, 2010:3; 545–556.
22.
ShresthaJ, Razavi BazazS, Aboulkheyr EsH, et al.Lung-on-a-chip: The future of respiratory disease models and pharmacological studies. Crit Rev Biotechnol, 2020:40; 213–230.
23.
BhowmickR, Gappa-FahlenkampH. Cells and culture systems used to model the small airway epithelium. Lung, 2016:194; 419–428.
Balogh SivarsK, SivarsU, HornbergE, et al.A 3D human airway model enables prediction of respiratory toxicity of inhaled drugs in vitro. Toxicol Sci, 2017:162; 301–308.
26.
TapparelC, SoboK, ConstantS, et al.Growth and characterization of different human rhinovirus C types in three-dimensional human airway epithelia reconstituted in vitro. Virology, 2013:446; 1–8.
27.
HoffmanW, GradinaruJ, FarcalL, et al.Establishment of a human 3D tissue-based assay for upper respiratory tract absorption. Appl In Vitro Toxicol, 2018:4; 139–148.
28.
DickieA, RoperC, ConstantS, et al.MucilAir ™, a New Human Airway Model, Evaluated for Use in Toxicity Studies. Edinburgh, UK: Scottish Universities Life Sciences Alliance; 2012.
SauerUG, VogelS, HessA, et al.In vivo-in vitro comparison of acute respiratory tract toxicity using human 3D airway epithelial models and human A549 and murine 3T3 monolayer cell systems. Toxicol In Vitro, 2013:27; 174–190.
36.
WilloughbyJ.Predicting respiratory toxicity using a human 3D airway (EpiAirway™) model combined with multiple parametric analysis. Appl In Vitro Toxicol, 2015:1; 55–65.
37.
IskandarAR, MartinF, TalikkaM, et al.Systems approaches evaluating the perturbation of xenobiotic metabolism in response to cigarette smoke exposure in nasal and bronchial tissues. BioMed Res Int, 2013:2013; 512086.
38.
RenneR, BrixA, HarkemaJ, et al.Proliferative and nonproliferative lesions of the rat and mouse respiratory tract. Toxicol Pathol, 2009:37(7Suppl.);5s–73s.
39.
DormanDC, StruveMF, GrossEA, et al.Respiratory tract toxicity of inhaled hydrogen sulfide in Fischer-344 rats, Sprague–Dawley rats, and B6C3F1 mice following subchronic (90-day) exposure. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol, 2004:198; 29–39.
40.
OhtsukaR, ShutoY, FujieH, et al.Response of respiratory epithelium of BN and F344 rats to formaldehyde inhalation. Exp Animals, 1997:46; 279–286.
41.
TakigawaT, EndoY. Effects of glutaraldehyde exposure on human health. J Occup Health, 2006:48; 75–87.
42.
HesterSD, BarryWT, ZouF, et al.Transcriptomic analysis of F344 rat nasal epithelium suggests that the lack of carcinogenic response to glutaraldehyde is due to its greater toxicity compared to formaldehyde. Toxicol Pathol, 2005:33; 415–424.
43.
WoutersenRA, AppelmanLM, WilmerJW, et al.Subchronic (13-week) inhalation toxicity study of formaldehyde in rats. J Appl Toxicol, 1987:7; 43–49.
44.
PerkinsMW, WongB, TresslerJ, et al.Assessment of inhaled acute ammonia-induced lung injury in rats. Inhal Toxicol, 2016:28; 71–79.
45.
PerkinsMW, WongB, TresslerJ, et al.Adverse respiratory effects in rats following inhalation exposure to ammonia: Respiratory dynamics and histopathology. Inhal Toxicol, 2017:29; 32–41.
46.
van BirgelenAP, ChouBJ, RenneRA, et al.Effects of glutaraldehyde in a 2-year inhalation study in rats and mice. Toxicol Sci, 2000:55; 195–205.
47.
GiechaskielB, AlföldyB, DrossinosY. A metric for health effects studies of diesel exhaust particles. J Aerosol Sci, 2009:40; 639–651.
48.
SchlosserPM, LillyPD, ConollyRB, et al.Benchmark dose risk assessment for formaldehyde using airflow modeling and a single-compartment, DNA-protein cross-link dosimetry model to estimate human equivalent doses. Risk Anal, 2003:23; 473–487.
49.
CollinsJF, AlexeeffGV, LewisDC, et al.Development of acute inhalation reference exposure levels (RELs) to protect the public from predictable excursions of airborne toxicants. J Appl Toxicol, 2004:24; 155–166.
50.
DoursonML, Kohrman-VincentMJ, et al.Dose response assessment for effects of acute exposure to methyl isothiocyanate (MITC). Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2010:58; 181–188.
51.
FowlesJR, AlexeeffGV, DodgeD. The use of benchmark dose methodology with acute inhalation lethality data. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 1999:29; 262–278.
