In vitro assays are increasingly used in the toxicological testing of chemicals. These use high concentrations and the only criteria to set an upper concentration are related to solubility and cytotoxicity or by a predefined concentration as a default. However, the top concentrations in vitro should also consider the equivalent dose in vivo. A concentration causing an effect in vitro that exceeds the internal concentration at a maximum external dose in vivo may not be relevant for toxicological assessment since the cellular effect observed in vitro cannot occur in vivo.
Materials and Methods:
To avoid this, we propose the use of measured or modelled toxicokinetic data to extrapolate the top dose in vivo to an upper concentration in vitro. This in vivo to in vitro dose extrapolation (IVIVE) uses pharmacokinetic/toxicokinetic modelling to yield an in vitro concentration (cmaxIVIVE) which reflects the internal dose at the maximum external dose in vivo.
Results:
The cmaxIVIVE can be used to (1) define a relevant upper concentration for the in vitro testing (integrated approach) and (2) interpret the results of an in vitro test, even if the top concentration exceeds the cmaxIVIVE (post hoc approach). We describe a workflow which uses solubility and cytotoxicity data, as well as in vivo and in vitro toxicokinetic data, to derive cmaxvivo or cmaxIVIVE to optimize the setting of the top concentration of a test substance in an in vitro test system. Finally, we demonstrate the benefit of using this approach using the herbicide, Dicamba, as an example.
Conclusion:
A workflow based on solubility and cytotoxicity data, as well as in vivo and in vitro toxicokinetic data, can be used to set the top concentration of a test substance in an in vitro test.
OECD. Test No. 492: Reconstructed human Cornea-like Epithelium (RhCE) test method for identifying chemicals not requiring classification and labelling for eye irritation or serious eye damage. 2023. Available from: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/publication/9789264242548-en [Last accessed: November1, 2023].
EC. Regulation (EU) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC. 2009.
16.
EscherSE, KampH, BennekouSH, et al.Towards grouping concepts based on new approach methodologies in chemical hazard assessment: the read-across approach of the EU-ToxRisk project. Arch Toxicol, 2019; 93(12):3643–3667; doi: 10.1007/s00204-019-02591-7
17.
ParishST, AschnerM, CaseyW, et al.An evaluation framework for new approach methodologies (NAMs) for human health safety assessment. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2020; 112:104592; doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2020.104592
18.
NiemannL, ChoiJ, KneuerC, et al.Traditional and novel approaches to derive health-based guidance values for pesticides. Curr Opin Food Sci, 2023; 54:101091; doi: 10.1016/j.cofs.2023.101091
JudsonR, HouckK, MartinM, et al.Editor's highlight: Analysis of the effects of cell stress and cytotoxicity on in vitro assay activity across a diverse chemical and assay space. Toxicol Sci, 2016; 152(2):323–339; doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfw092
21.
DentMP, VaillancourtE, ThomasRS, et al.Paving the way for application of next generation risk assessment to safety decision-making for cosmetic ingredients. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2021; 125:105026; doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2021.105026
22.
OuedraogoG, Alexander-WhiteC, BuryD, et al.Read-across and new approach methodologies applied in a 10-step framework for cosmetics safety assessment—A case study with parabens. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2022; 132:105161; doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2022.105161
23.
Ma-HockL, SauerUG, RuggieroE, et al.The use of nanomaterial in vivo organ burden data for in vitro dose setting. Small, 2021; 17(15):e2005725; doi: 10.1002/smll.202005725
24.
SchulzeC, SchulzeC, KrollA, et al.Not ready to use—Overcoming pitfalls when dispersing nanoparticles in physiological media. Nanotoxicology, 2008; 2(2):51–61; doi: 10.1080/17435390802018378
25.
DeLoidG, CohenJM, DarrahT, et al.Estimating the effective density of engineered nanomaterials for in vitro dosimetry. Nat Commun, 2014; 5(1):3514; doi: 10.1038/ncomms4514
26.
ColeT, Fortaner TorrentS. Solubility Determination of Chemicals by Nephelometry, editor(s), EUR 31447 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, JRC132585: 2023.
27.
KrebsA, NyffelerJ, KarremanC, et al.Determination of benchmark concentrations and their statistical uncertainty for cytotoxicity test data and functional in vitro assays. Altex, 2020; 37(1):155–163; doi: 10.14573/altex.1912021
28.
VinkenM. The adverse outcome pathway concept: A pragmatic tool in toxicology. Toxicology, 2013; 312:158–165; doi: 10.1016/j.tox.2013.08.011
29.
DeJonghJ, ForsbyA, HoustonJB, et al.An integrated approach to the prediction of systemic toxicity using computer-based biokinetic models and biological in vitro test methods: Overview of a Prevalidation Study Based on the ECITTS11ECITTS = ERGATT/CFN Integrated Toxicity Testing Scheme; ERGATT = European Research Group for Alternatives in Toxicity Testing; CFN = Swedish Board for Laboratory Animals. Project Toxicol In Vitro, 1999; 13(4):549–554; doi: 10.1016/S0887-2333(99)00030-2
30.
BlaauboerBJ. The necessity of biokinetic information in the interpretation of in vitro toxicity data. Alternat Lab Anim, 2002; 30(2 Suppl.):85–91; doi: 10.1177/026119290203002s13
31.
LouisseJ, BeekmannK, RietjensIMCM. Use of physiologically based kinetic modeling-based reverse dosimetry to predict in vivo toxicity from in vitro data. Chem Res Toxicol, 2017; 30(1):114–125; doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.6b00302
32.
LiH, YuanH, MiddletonA, et al.Next generation risk assessment (NGRA): Bridging in vitro points-of-departure to human safety assessment using physiologically-based kinetic (PBK) modelling—A case study of doxorubicin with dose metrics considerations. Toxicol In Vitro, 2021; 74:105171; doi: 10.1016/j.tiv.2021.105171
33.
FabianE, GomesC, BirkB, et al.In vitro-to-in vivo extrapolation (IVIVE) by PBTK modeling for animal-free risk assessment approaches of potential endocrine-disrupting compounds. Arch Toxicol, 2019; 93(2):401–416; doi: 10.1007/s00204-018-2372-z
34.
KisituJ, Hougaard BennekouS, LeistM. Chemical concentrations in cell culture compartments (C5)—Concentration definitions. Altex, 2019; 36(1):154–160; doi: 10.14573/altex.1901031
35.
SagerJE, YuJ, Ragueneau-MajlessiI, et al.Physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling and simulation approaches: A systematic review of published models, applications, and model verification. Drug Metab Dispos, 2015; 43(11):1823–1837; doi: 10.1124/dmd.115.065920
36.
UptonRN, FosterDJ, AbuhelwaAY. An introduction to physiologically-based pharmacokinetic models. Paediatr Anaesth, 2016; 26(11):1036–1046; doi: 10.1111/pan.12995
37.
OECD. Guidance document on the characterisation, validation and reporting of Physiologically Based Kinetic (PBK) models for regulatory purposes, OECD Series on Testing and Assessment, No. 331, Environment, Health and Safety, Environment Directorate, OECD; 2021.
ChangX, KleinstreuerN, CegerP, et al.Application of reverse dosimetry to compare in vitro and in vivo estrogen receptor activity. Appl In Vitro Toxicol, 2015; 1:33–44; doi: 10.1089/aivt.2014.0005
40.
BessemsJG, LoizouG, KrishnanK, et al.PBTK modelling platforms and parameter estimation tools to enable animal-free risk assessment: Recommendations from a joint EPAA—EURL ECVAM ADME workshop. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2014; 68(1):119–139; doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2013.11.008
41.
CoeckeS, PelkonenO, LeiteSB, et al.Toxicokinetics as a key to the integrated toxicity risk assessment based primarily on non-animal approaches. Toxicol In Vitro, 2013; 27(5):1570–1577; doi: 10.1016/j.tiv.2012.06.012
42.
PuntA, LouisseJ, BeekmannK, et al.Predictive performance of next generation human physiologically based kinetic (PBK) models based on in vitro and in silico input data. Altex, 2022; 39(2):221–234; doi: 10.14573/altex.2108301
43.
PuntA, LouisseJ, PinckaersN, et al.Predictive performance of next generation physiologically based kinetic (PBK) model predictions in rats based on in vitro and in silico input data. Toxicol Sci, 2022; 186(1):18–28; doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfab150
44.
WambaughJF, WetmoreBA, PearceR, et al.Toxicokinetic triage for environmental chemicals. Toxicol Sci, 2015; 147(1):55–67; doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfv118
45.
Paul FriedmanK, FosterMJ, PhamLL, et al.Reproducibility of organ-level effects in repeat dose animal studies. Comput Toxicol, 2023; 28:100287; doi: 10.1016/j.comtox.2023.100287
46.
PhamLL, WatfordSM, PradeepP, et al.Variability in in vivo studies: Defining the upper limit of performance for predictions of systemic effect levels. Comput Toxicol, 2020; 15:100126; doi: 10.1016/j.comtox.2020.100126
47.
GabbertS, MatheaM, KolleSN, et al.Accounting for precision uncertainty of toxicity testing: Methods to define borderline ranges and implications for hazard assessment of chemicals. Risk Analysis, 2022; 42(2):224–238; doi: 10.1111/risa.13648
48.
MaertensA, GoldenE, LuechtefeldTH, et al.Probabilistic risk assessment—The keystone for the future of toxicology. ALTEX Altern Animal Exp, 2022; 39(1):3–29; doi: 10.14573/altex.2201081
49.
SauerUG, HillEH, CurrenRD, et al.Local tolerance testing under REACH: Accepted non-animal methods are not on equal footing with animal tests. Altern Lab Anim, 2016; 44(3):281–299; doi: 10.1177/026119291604400311
50.
CaloniF, De AngelisI, HartungT. Replacement of animal testing by integrated approaches to testing and assessment (IATA): A call for in vivitrosi. Arch Toxicol, 2022; 96(7):1935–1950; doi: 10.1007/s00204-022-03299-x
51.
European ChemicalAgency, CentreEFSAwttsotJR, AnderssonN, et al.Guidance for the identification of endocrine disruptors in the context of Regulations (EU) No 528/2012 and (EC) No 1107/2009. EFSA J, 2018; 16(6):e05311; doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5311
52.
BaltazarMT, CableS, CarmichaelPL, et al.A next-generation risk assessment case study for coumarin in cosmetic products. Toxicol Sci, 2020; 176(1):236–252; doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfaa048
53.
van BerloD, WoutersenM, MullerA, et al.10% Body weight (gain) change as criterion for the maximum tolerated dose: A critical analysis. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2022; 134:105235; doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2022.105235
54.
ArtsJHE, HumfreyCD, SloterED. Letter to the Editors regarding “10% body weight (gain) change as criterion for the maximum tolerated dose: A critical analysis.”. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2023; 143:105440; doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2023.105440
KatayamaR, YamaguchiN, YamashitaT, et al.Calculation of glomerular filtration rate in conscious rats by the use of a bolus injection of iodixanol and a single blood sample. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods, 2010; 61(1):59–64; doi: 10.1016/j.vascn.2009.10.002
60.
SadickM, AttenbergerU, KraenzlinB, et al.Two non-invasive GFR-estimation methods in rat models of polycystic kidney disease: 3.0 Tesla dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and optical imaging. Nephrol Dial Transplant, 2011; 26(10):3101–3108; doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfr148
61.
WetmoreBA, WambaughJF, FergusonSS, et al.Relative impact of incorporating pharmacokinetics on predicting in vivo hazard and mode of action from high-throughput in vitro toxicity assays. Toxicol Sci, 2013; 132(2):327–346; doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kft012
62.
LeiboldE. 14C-Dicamba—Study of the plasma kinetics in rats. Unpublished report No. 1998/10553 from BASF AG, Ludwigshafen/Rhein, Germany. Submitted to WHO by BASF Corporation. 1998. WHO report available at https://apps.who.int/pesticide-residues-jmpr-database/Document/86
63.
KisituJ, HollertH, FisherC, et al.Chemical concentrations in cell culture compartments (C5)—Free concentrations. Altex, 2020; 37(4):693–708; doi: 10.14573/altex.2008251
64.
van TongerenTCA, CarmichaelPL, RietjensI, et al.Next generation risk assessment of the anti-androgen flutamide including the contribution of its active metabolite hydroxyflutamide. Front Toxicol, 2022; 4:881235; doi: 10.3389/ftox.2022.881235
65.
ArmitageJM, WaniaF, ArnotJA. Application of mass balance models and the chemical activity concept to facilitate the use of in vitro toxicity data for risk assessment. Environ Sci Technol, 2014; 48(16):9770–9779; doi: 10.1021/es501955g
66.
KramerNI, Di ConsiglioE, BlaauboerBJ, et al.Biokinetics in repeated-dosing in vitro drug toxicity studies. Toxicol In Vitro, 2015; 30(1 Pt A):217–224; doi: 10.1016/j.tiv.2015.09.005
67.
KramerNI, KrismartinaM, Rico-RicoA, et al.Quantifying processes determining the free concentration of phenanthrene in Basal cytotoxicity assays. Chem Res Toxicol, 2012; 25(2):436–445; doi: 10.1021/tx200479k
68.
BealMA, AudebertM, Barton-MaclarenT, et al.Quantitative in vitro to in vivo extrapolation of genotoxicity data provides protective estimates of in vivo dose. Environ Mol Mutagen, 2023; 64(2):105–122; doi: 10.1002/em.22521
