Literature DB >> 29350469

In vitro to in vivo benchmark dose comparisons to inform risk assessment of quantum dot nanomaterials.

Brittany A Weldon1,2, William C Griffith1,2, Tomomi Workman1,2, David K Scoville2,3, Terrance J Kavanagh2,3, Elaine M Faustman1,2.   

Abstract

Engineered nanomaterials are currently under review for their potential toxicity; however, their use in consumer/commercial products has continued to outpace risk assessments. In vitro methods may be utilized as tools to improve the efficiency of risk assessment approaches. We propose a framework to compare relationships between previously published in vitro and in vivo toxicity assessments of cadmium-selenium containing quantum dots (QDs) using benchmark dose (BMD) and dosimetric assessment methods. Although data were limited this approach was useful for identifying sensitive assays and strains. In vitro studies assessed effects of QDs in three pulmonary cell types across two mouse strains. Significant dose-response effects were modeled and a standardized method of BMD analysis was performed as a function of both exposure dose and dosimetric dose. In vivo studies assessed pulmonary effects of QD exposure across eight mouse strains. BMD analysis served as a basis for relative comparison with in vitro studies. We found consistent responses in common endpoints between in vitro and in vivo studies. Strain sensitivity was consistent between in vitro and in vivo studies, showing A/J mice more sensitive to QDs. Cell types were found to differentially take up QDs. Dosimetric adjustments identified similar sensitivity among cell types. Thus, BMD analysis can be used as an effective tool to compare the sensitivity of different strains, cell types, and assays to QDs. These methods allow for in vitro assays to be used to predict in vivo responses, improve the efficiency of in vivo studies, and allow for prioritization of nanomaterial assessments. This article is categorized under: Toxicology and Regulatory Issues in Nanomedicine > Toxicology of Nanomaterials Toxicology and Regulatory Issues in Nanomedicine > Regulatory and Policy Issues in Nanomedicine.
© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  zzm321990in vitro extrapolation; benchmark dose; dosimetric assessment; engineered nanomaterials; genes x environment; nanotoxicology; quantum dots

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29350469      PMCID: PMC6002898          DOI: 10.1002/wnan.1507

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol        ISSN: 1939-0041


  30 in total

1.  Genetic polymorphisms among C57BL/6 mouse inbred strains.

Authors:  Esther Zurita; Mónica Chagoyen; Marta Cantero; Rosario Alonso; Anna González-Neira; Alejandro López-Jiménez; José Antonio López-Moreno; Carlisle P Landel; Javier Benítez; Florencio Pazos; Lluís Montoliu
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2010-05-27       Impact factor: 2.788

Review 2.  Toxic potential of materials at the nanolevel.

Authors:  Andre Nel; Tian Xia; Lutz Mädler; Ning Li
Journal:  Science       Date:  2006-02-03       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  An official American Thoracic Society clinical practice guideline: the clinical utility of bronchoalveolar lavage cellular analysis in interstitial lung disease.

Authors:  Keith C Meyer; Ganesh Raghu; Robert P Baughman; Kevin K Brown; Ulrich Costabel; Roland M du Bois; Marjolein Drent; Patricia L Haslam; Dong Soon Kim; Sonoko Nagai; Paola Rottoli; Cesare Saltini; Moisés Selman; Charlie Strange; Brent Wood
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2012-05-01       Impact factor: 21.405

4.  Protein corona modulation of hepatocyte uptake and molecular mechanisms of gold nanoparticle toxicity.

Authors:  Kyoungju Choi; Jim E Riviere; Nancy A Monteiro-Riviere
Journal:  Nanotoxicology       Date:  2016-12-14       Impact factor: 5.913

5.  Alveolar epithelial cell mesenchymal transition develops in vivo during pulmonary fibrosis and is regulated by the extracellular matrix.

Authors:  Kevin K Kim; Matthias C Kugler; Paul J Wolters; Liliane Robillard; Michael G Galvez; Alexis N Brumwell; Dean Sheppard; Harold A Chapman
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2006-08-21       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Protein binding modulates the cellular uptake of silver nanoparticles into human cells: implications for in vitro to in vivo extrapolations?

Authors:  Nancy A Monteiro-Riviere; Meghan E Samberg; Steven J Oldenburg; Jim E Riviere
Journal:  Toxicol Lett       Date:  2013-05-06       Impact factor: 4.372

Review 7.  Integrating mechanisms of pulmonary fibrosis.

Authors:  Thomas A Wynn
Journal:  J Exp Med       Date:  2011-07-04       Impact factor: 14.307

8.  The polymorphism architecture of mouse genetic resources elucidated using genome-wide resequencing data: implications for QTL discovery and systems genetics.

Authors:  Adam Roberts; Fernando Pardo-Manuel de Villena; Wei Wang; Leonard McMillan; David W Threadgill
Journal:  Mamm Genome       Date:  2007-08-03       Impact factor: 2.957

Review 9.  Dissolution and biodurability: Important parameters needed for risk assessment of nanomaterials.

Authors:  Wells Utembe; Kariska Potgieter; Aleksandr Byron Stefaniak; Mary Gulumian
Journal:  Part Fibre Toxicol       Date:  2015-04-28       Impact factor: 9.400

10.  Standardizing benchmark dose calculations to improve science-based decisions in human health assessments.

Authors:  Jessica A Wignall; Andrew J Shapiro; Fred A Wright; Tracey J Woodruff; Weihsueh A Chiu; Kathryn Z Guyton; Ivan Rusyn
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2014-02-25       Impact factor: 9.031

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.