Literature DB >> 29846006

The advantages of linear concentration-response curves for in vitro bioassays with environmental samples.

Beate I Escher1,2, Peta A Neale3, Daniel L Villeneuve4.   

Abstract

In vitro assays and high-throughput screening (HTS) tools are increasingly being employed as replacements for animal testing, but most concentration-response curves are still evaluated with models developed for animal testing. We argue that application of in vitro assays, particularly reporter gene assays, to environmental samples can benefit from a different approach to concentration-response modeling. First, cytotoxicity often occurs at higher concentrations, especially for weakly acting compounds and in complex environmental mixtures with many components. In these cases, specific effects can be masked by cytotoxicity. Second, for many HTS assays, low effect levels can be precisely quantified because of the low variability of controls in cell-based assays and the opportunity to run many concentrations and replicates when using high-density well-plate formats (e.g., 384 or more wells per plate). Hence, we recommend focusing concentration-response modeling on the lower portion of the concentration-response curve, which is approximately linear. Effect concentrations derived from low-effect level linear concentration-response models facilitate simple derivation of relative effect potencies and the correct application of mixture toxicity models in the calculation of bioanalytical equivalent concentrations. Environ Toxicol Chem 2018;37:2273-2280.
© 2018 SETAC. © 2018 SETAC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bioanalytical equivalent concentration; Dose-response modeling; Environmental toxicology; In vitro toxicology

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29846006      PMCID: PMC6150494          DOI: 10.1002/etc.4178

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Toxicol Chem        ISSN: 0730-7268            Impact factor:   3.742


  34 in total

1.  A general best-fit method for concentration-response curves and the estimation of low-effect concentrations.

Authors:  M Scholze; W Boedeker; M Faust; T Backhaus; R Altenburger; L H Grimme
Journal:  Environ Toxicol Chem       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 3.742

2.  Toward a unified approach to dose-response modeling in ecotoxicology.

Authors:  Christian Ritz
Journal:  Environ Toxicol Chem       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 3.742

3.  The statistical analysis of slope-ratio assays.

Authors:  D J FINNEY
Journal:  J Gen Microbiol       Date:  1951-05

4.  Benchmarking organic micropollutants in wastewater, recycled water and drinking water with in vitro bioassays.

Authors:  Beate I Escher; Mayumi Allinson; Rolf Altenburger; Peter A Bain; Patrick Balaguer; Wibke Busch; Jordan Crago; Nancy D Denslow; Elke Dopp; Klara Hilscherova; Andrew R Humpage; Anu Kumar; Marina Grimaldi; B Sumith Jayasinghe; Barbora Jarosova; Ai Jia; Sergei Makarov; Keith A Maruya; Alex Medvedev; Alvine C Mehinto; Jamie E Mendez; Anita Poulsen; Erik Prochazka; Jessica Richard; Andrea Schifferli; Daniel Schlenk; Stefan Scholz; Fujio Shiraishi; Shane Snyder; Guanyong Su; Janet Y M Tang; Bart van der Burg; Sander C van der Linden; Inge Werner; Sandy D Westerheide; Chris K C Wong; Min Yang; Bonnie H Y Yeung; Xiaowei Zhang; Frederic D L Leusch
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2013-12-26       Impact factor: 9.028

5.  Most oxidative stress response in water samples comes from unknown chemicals: the need for effect-based water quality trigger values.

Authors:  Beate I Escher; Charlotte van Daele; Mriga Dutt; Janet Y M Tang; Rolf Altenburger
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2013-03-14       Impact factor: 9.028

6.  Deriving bio-equivalents from in vitro bioassays: assessment of existing uncertainties and strategies to improve accuracy and reporting.

Authors:  Martin Wagner; Etiënne L M Vermeirssen; Sebastian Buchinger; Maximilian Behr; Axel Magdeburg; Jörg Oehlmann
Journal:  Environ Toxicol Chem       Date:  2013-06-25       Impact factor: 3.742

Review 7.  Don't be fooled-A no-observed-effect concentration is no substitute for a poor concentration-response experiment.

Authors:  David R Fox; Wayne G Landis
Journal:  Environ Toxicol Chem       Date:  2016-06-28       Impact factor: 3.742

Review 8.  Solid-phase extraction as sample preparation of water samples for cell-based and other in vitro bioassays.

Authors:  Peta A Neale; Werner Brack; Selim Aït-Aïssa; Wibke Busch; Juliane Hollender; Martin Krauss; Emmanuelle Maillot-Maréchal; Nicole A Munz; Rita Schlichting; Tobias Schulze; Bernadette Vogler; Beate I Escher
Journal:  Environ Sci Process Impacts       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 4.238

9.  Characterizing non-constant relative potency.

Authors:  Gregg E Dinse; David M Umbach
Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol       Date:  2011-05-13       Impact factor: 3.271

10.  Generalized concentration addition predicts joint effects of aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonists with partial agonists and competitive antagonists.

Authors:  Gregory J Howard; Jennifer J Schlezinger; Mark E Hahn; Thomas F Webster
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 9.031

View more
  10 in total

1.  Assessing the role of different dissolved organic carbon and bromide concentrations for disinfection by-product formation using chemical analysis and bioanalysis.

Authors:  Peta A Neale; Frederic D L Leusch
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2019-04-18       Impact factor: 4.223

Review 2.  Tracking complex mixtures of chemicals in our changing environment.

Authors:  Beate I Escher; Heather M Stapleton; Emma L Schymanski
Journal:  Science       Date:  2020-01-24       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  In vitro effects-based method and water quality screening model for use in pre- and post-distribution treated waters.

Authors:  Elizabeth Medlock Kakaley; Mary C Cardon; Nicola Evans; Luke R Iwanowicz; Joshua M Allen; Elizabeth Wagner; Katherine Bokenkamp; Susan D Richardson; Michael J Plewa; Paul M Bradley; Kristin M Romanok; Dana W Kolpin; Justin M Conley; L Earl Gray; Phillip C Hartig; Vickie S Wilson
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2021-01-23       Impact factor: 7.963

4.  Cytotoxicity Burst? Differentiating Specific from Nonspecific Effects in Tox21 in Vitro Reporter Gene Assays.

Authors:  Beate I Escher; Luise Henneberger; Maria König; Rita Schlichting; Fabian C Fischer
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2020-07-23       Impact factor: 9.031

5.  Potentials and pitfalls of transient in vitro reporter bioassays: interference by vector geometry and cytotoxicity in recombinant zebrafish cell lines.

Authors:  Sebastian Lungu-Mitea; Johan Lundqvist
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2020-05-23       Impact factor: 5.153

6.  A novel anti Candida albicans drug screening system based on high-throughput microfluidic chips.

Authors:  Le Qiang; Jing Guo; Yingkuan Han; Jianfeng Jiang; Xiaowen Su; Hong Liu; Qingguo Qi; Lin Han
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-05-30       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Inhibition of neurite outgrowth and enhanced effects compared to baseline toxicity in SH-SY5Y cells.

Authors:  Jungeun Lee; Beate I Escher; Stefan Scholz; Rita Schlichting
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2022-02-19       Impact factor: 5.153

8.  Andrographolide Derivatives Target the KEAP1/NRF2 Axis and Possess Potent Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Activity.

Authors:  Bianca Schulte; Maria König; Beate I Escher; Sophie Wittenburg; Matic Proj; Valentina Wolf; Carina Lemke; Gregor Schnakenburg; Izidor Sosič; Hendrik Streeck; Christa E Müller; Michael Gütschow; Christian Steinebach
Journal:  ChemMedChem       Date:  2022-01-31       Impact factor: 3.540

9.  Influence of Co-Dosed Lipids from Biota Extracts on the Availability of Chemicals in In Vitro Cell-Based Bioassays.

Authors:  Eva B Reiter; Annika Jahnke; Maria König; Ursula Siebert; Beate I Escher
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2020-03-16       Impact factor: 9.028

10.  Maternal paraben exposure triggers childhood overweight development.

Authors:  Beate Leppert; Sandra Strunz; Bettina Seiwert; Kristin M Junge; Thorsten Reemtsma; Irina Lehmann; Tobias Polte; Linda Schlittenbauer; Rita Schlichting; Christiane Pfeiffer; Stefan Röder; Mario Bauer; Michael Borte; Gabriele I Stangl; Torsten Schöneberg; Angela Schulz; Isabell Karkossa; Ulrike E Rolle-Kampczyk; Loreen Thürmann; Martin von Bergen; Beate I Escher
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2020-02-11       Impact factor: 14.919

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.