| Literature DB >> 33037899 |
Emma E J Kasteel1, Sandra M Nijmeijer1, Keyvin Darney2, Leonie S Lautz2, Jean Lou C M Dorne3, Nynke I Kramer1, Remco H S Westerink4.
Abstract
In chemical risk assessment, default uncertainty factors are used to account for interspecies and interindividual differences, and differences in toxicokinetics and toxicodynamics herein. However, these default factors come with little scientific support. Therefore, our aim was to develop an in vitro method, using acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibition as a proof of principle, to assess both interspecies and interindividual differences in toxicodynamics. Electric eel enzyme and human blood of 20 different donors (12 men/8 women) were exposed to eight different compounds (chlorpyrifos, chlorpyrifos-oxon, phosmet, phosmet-oxon, diazinon, diazinon-oxon, pirimicarb, rivastigmine) and inhibition of AChE was measured using the Ellman method. The organophosphate parent compounds, chlorpyrifos, phosmet and diazinon, did not show inhibition of AChE. All other compounds showed concentration-dependent inhibition of AChE, with IC50s in human blood ranging from 0.2-29 µM and IC20s ranging from 0.1-18 µM, indicating that AChE is inhibited at concentrations relevant to the in vivo human situation. The oxon analogues were more potent inhibitors of electric eel AChE compared to human AChE. The opposite was true for carbamates, pointing towards interspecies differences for AChE inhibition. Human interindividual variability was low and ranged from 5-25%, depending on the concentration. This study provides a reliable in vitro method for assessing human variability in AChE toxicodynamics. The data suggest that the default uncertainty factor of ~ 3.16 may overestimate human variability for this toxicity endpoint, implying that specific toxicodynamic-related adjustment factors can support quantitative in vitro to in vivo extrapolations that link kinetic and dynamic data to improve chemical risk assessment.Entities:
Keywords: Acetylcholinesterase; Human variability; In vitro toxicodynamics; Pesticides; Uncertainty factor
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33037899 PMCID: PMC7655571 DOI: 10.1007/s00204-020-02927-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Arch Toxicol ISSN: 0340-5761 Impact factor: 5.153
Fig. 1Schematic overview of the default uncertainty factors used to allow for interspecies and intraspecies differences in toxicokinetics and toxicodynamics
Fig. 2Concentration–response curves of AChE activity following exposure to eight different compounds in electric eel. a The OP parent compounds (CPF, DZN, PM; open symbols) do not show any AChE inhibition. The oxon metabolites of the OPs (CPO, DZO, PMO; closed symbols) show inhibition of AChE. b The two carbamates (PI and RI) also show inhibition of AChE. Data are presented as mean ± SD of 3–4 independent experiments
Fig. 3Concentration–response curves of AChE activity following exposure to eight different compounds for one human donor. a The OP parent compounds (CPF, DZN, PM; open symbols) do not show any AChE inhibition. The oxon metabolites of the OPs (CPO, DZO, PMO; closed symbols) show inhibition of AChE. b The two carbamates (PI and RI) also show inhibition of AChE. Data are presented as mean ± SD of three technical replicates of one donor for CPO, DZO, PMO, PI and RI and 1 technical replicate is depicted for CPF, DZN and PM
Fig. 4Concentration–response curves of AChE activity following exposure to the five inhibiting compounds for all (20) donors: chlorpyrifos-oxon (CPO; a), phosmet-oxon (PMO; b), diazinon-oxon (DZO; c), pirimicarb (PI; d), rivastigmine (RI; e). Each symbol-colour combination represents one donor. Data are presented for each donor as the percentage of vehicle control AChE activity for that donor (mean ± SD of three technical replicates)
Summary of interspecies and interindividual differences in AChE inhibition
| Chemical | Inhibitory constants | Coefficient of variation (CV) | Human uncertainty factor (UF) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IC50 | IC20 | IC50 | IC20 | C0 | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | UF97.5 | |
| Electric eel | Human | |||||||||||
| CPO | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.27 | 0.17 | 4.8 | 5.5 | 6.0 | 99 | NA | NA | 2.2 [1.9–2.7] | |
| PMO | 0.07 | 0.04 | 1.8 | 0.67 | 6.5 | 5.8 | 5.9 | 5.6 | 6.1 | 7 | 1.6 [1.4–1.8] | |
| DZO | 1.03 | 0.41 | 2.5 | 1.2 | 4.7 | 5.9 | 5.7 | 6.8 | 8.5 | 25 | 1.4 [1.2–1.6] | |
| PI | 61 | 9.9 | 20 | 7.1 | 4.1 | 5.8 | 6.0 | 5.7 | 5.8 | 6.6 | 1.8 [1.5–2.1] | |
| RI | 53 | 16 | 9.9 | 5.1 | 6.0 | 5.5 | 6.0 | 5.8 | 25 | 300 | 2.0 [1.7–2.4] | |
Inhibition constants derived from the concentration–response curves for electric eel and the average of 20 human donors are depicted in µM (IC50 and IC20 values) for the five compounds that showed inhibition of AChE: chlorpyrifos-oxon (CPO), phosmet-oxon (PMO), diazinon-oxon (DZO), pirimicarb (PI) and rivastigmine (RI). Moreover, coefficients of variation (CV, in %) for each concentration are depicted to indicate human variability in AChE inhibition. The associated uncertainty factor (UF97.5) for interindividual differences with the 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the concentration closest to the IC20 (in bold) is illustrated. NA: not estimated; C0-6: concentration level from 0 (C0) to the highest concentration (C6), the corresponding concentrations for each chemical are depicted in Supplementary Table S2
Comparison of inhibition constants (IC50s) from this study and IC50s reported in literature
| Electric eel | Human | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chemical | IC50 Value | References | Source | IC50 Value | Reference | In vivo concentration | Reference |
| CPO | ≤ 0.06 | Eyer et al. ( | |||||
| 0.03 | Čolović et al. ( | Recombinant enzyme | 0.35 | Sipes et al. ( | ≤ 0.02 | Heilmair et al. ( | |
| 0.01 | Jett et al. ( | Recombinant enzyme | 0.014 | Li et al. ( | |||
| 0.01 | Meijer et al. ( | ||||||
| PMO | |||||||
| DZO | |||||||
| 0.05 | Čolović et al. ( | Recombinant enzyme | 1.3 | Li et al. ( | |||
| PI | ≤ 300 | Hoffmann et al. ( | |||||
| RI | ≤ 0.34 | Lefèvre et al. ( | |||||
| 11 | Uysal et al. ( | Neocortex | 9.1 | (Jackisch et al. | ~ 0.1 | Hossain et al. ( | |
| 11 | Tehrani et al. ( | ||||||
| 56 | (Kratky et al. | ||||||
| 501 | (Imramovsky et al. | ||||||
| CPF | ≤ 10 | Buratti et al. ( | |||||
| 4.5 | Čolović et al. ( | Blood | 0.12 | Das et al. ( | ≤ 5 | Huen et al. ( | |
| 0.03 | (Assis et al. | Red blood cells | 200 | (Ajilore et al. | ≤ 5 | Eyer et al. ( | |
| PM | ≤ 50 | Santori et al. ( | |||||
| Recombinant enzyme | Inactive | (Li et al. | |||||
| DZN | ≤ 10 | Buratti et al. ( | |||||
| > 200 | Čolović et al. ( | Recombinant enzyme | 38 | Li et al. ( | |||
| 0.3 | Assis et al. ( | ||||||
IC50s for both electric eel and human (average of all donors) are depicted for all compounds tested in this study: chlorpyrifos-oxon (CPO), phosmet-oxon (PMO), diazinon-oxon (DZO), pirimicarb (PI), rivastigmine (RI), chlorpyrifos (CPF), phosmet (PM), diazinon (DZN). For human values, the source of the enzyme is depicted. The values derived in the current study are indicated in italic and all concentrations are in µM. In vivo concentrations depict concentrations as measured or estimated in plasma following human exposure