Literature DB >> 8365588

Risk assessment in immunotoxicology. II. Relationships between immune and host resistance tests.

M I Luster1, C Portier, D G Pait, G J Rosenthal, D R Germolec, E Corsini, B L Blaylock, P Pollock, Y Kouchi, W Craig.   

Abstract

We have reported on the design and content of a screening battery using a "tier" approach for detecting potential immunotoxic compounds in mice (Luster et al., Fundam. Appl. Toxicol., 10, 2-19, 1988). The data base generated from these studies, which consists of over 50 selected compounds, has been collected and analyzed in an attempt to improve future testing strategies and provide information to aid in developing future quantitative risk assessment for immunotoxicity. In a recent study it was shown that as few as two or three immune parameters were needed to predict immunotoxicants in mice (Luster et al., Fundam. Appl. Toxicol., 18, 200-210, 1992). In particular, enumeration of lymphocyte populations and quantitation of the T-dependent antibody response were particularly beneficial. Furthermore, commonly employed apical measures (e.g., leukocyte counts, lymphoid organ weights) were fairly insensitive. The present analyses focus on the use of this data base to develop statistical models that examine the qualitative and quantitative relationship(s) between the immune function and host resistance tests. The conclusion derived from these analyses are: (1) A good correlation exists between changes in the immune tests and altered host resistance in that there were no instances where host resistance was altered without affecting an immune test(s). However, in some instances immune changes occurred without corresponding changes in host resistance. (2) No single immune test could be identified which was fully predictive for altered host resistance, although most assays were relatively good indicators (i.e., > 70%). Several others, such as proliferative response to lipopolysaccharide and leukocyte counts, were found to be relatively poor indicators for host resistance changes. (3) The ability to resist infectious agent challenge is dependent upon the degrees of immunosuppression and the quantity of infectious agent administered. (4) Logistic and standard regression modeling using one extensive chemical data set from the immunosuppressive agent, cyclophosphamide, indicated that most immune function-host resistance relationships followed linear rather than linear-quadratic (threshold-like) models. For most of the relationships this could not be confirmed using a large chemical data set and, thus, a more mechanistically based approach for modeling will need to be developed. (5) Using this limited data set, methods were developed for modeling the precise quantitative relationships between changes in selected immune tests and host resistance tests.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8365588     DOI: 10.1006/faat.1993.1074

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fundam Appl Toxicol        ISSN: 0272-0590


  34 in total

1.  Density-dependent competition and selection on immune function in genetic lizard morphs.

Authors:  E Svensson; B Sinervo; T Comendant
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2001-10-09       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Machine learning analysis of the relationship between changes in immunological parameters and changes in resistance to Listeria monocytogenes: a new approach for risk assessment and systems immunology.

Authors:  Zhifa Liu; Changhe Yuan; Stephen B Pruett
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2012-06-13       Impact factor: 4.849

3.  Work, obesity, and occupational safety and health.

Authors:  Paul A Schulte; Gregory R Wagner; Aleck Ostry; Laura A Blanciforti; Robert G Cutlip; Kristine M Krajnak; Michael Luster; Albert E Munson; James P O'Callaghan; Christine G Parks; Petia P Simeonova; Diane B Miller
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2007-01-31       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 4.  Chemical compounds from anthropogenic environment and immune evasion mechanisms: potential interactions.

Authors:  Julia Kravchenko; Emanuela Corsini; Marc A Williams; William Decker; Masoud H Manjili; Takemi Otsuki; Neetu Singh; Faha Al-Mulla; Rabeah Al-Temaimi; Amedeo Amedei; Anna Maria Colacci; Monica Vaccari; Chiara Mondello; A Ivana Scovassi; Jayadev Raju; Roslida A Hamid; Lorenzo Memeo; Stefano Forte; Rabindra Roy; Jordan Woodrick; Hosni K Salem; Elizabeth P Ryan; Dustin G Brown; William H Bisson; Leroy Lowe; H Kim Lyerly
Journal:  Carcinogenesis       Date:  2015-05-22       Impact factor: 4.944

5.  Effects of environmentally-relevant levels of perfluorooctane sulfonate on clinical parameters and immunological functions in B6C3F1 mice.

Authors:  Patricia A Fair; Erin Driscoll; Meagan A M Mollenhauer; Sarah G Bradshaw; Se Hun Yun; Kurunthachalam Kannan; Gregory D Bossart; Deborah E Keil; Margie M Peden-Adams
Journal:  J Immunotoxicol       Date:  2011-01-24       Impact factor: 3.000

Review 6.  Perfluorinated compounds: emerging POPs with potential immunotoxicity.

Authors:  Emanuela Corsini; Robert W Luebke; Dori R Germolec; Jamie C DeWitt
Journal:  Toxicol Lett       Date:  2014-02-03       Impact factor: 4.372

7.  Anaemia, hypothyroidism and immune suppression associated with polychlorinated biphenyl exposure in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus).

Authors:  Lori H Schwacke; Eric S Zolman; Brian C Balmer; Sylvain De Guise; R Clay George; Jennifer Hoguet; Aleta A Hohn; John R Kucklick; Steve Lamb; Milton Levin; Jenny A Litz; Wayne E McFee; Ned J Place; Forrest I Townsend; Randall S Wells; Teresa K Rowles
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2011-05-25       Impact factor: 5.349

8.  Evaluation of neurobehavioral abnormalities and immunotoxicity in response to oral imidacloprid exposure in domestic chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus).

Authors:  Dana Franzen-Klein; Mark Jankowski; Charlotte L Roy; Hoa Nguyen-Phuc; Da Chen; Lorin Neuman-Lee; Patrick Redig; Julia Ponder
Journal:  J Toxicol Environ Health A       Date:  2020-02-05

Review 9.  Safety and immunotoxicity assessment of immunomodulatory monoclonal antibodies.

Authors:  Frank R Brennan; Laura Dill Morton; Sebastian Spindeldreher; Andrea Kiessling; Roy Allenspach; Adam Hey; Patrick Y Muller; Werner Frings; Jennifer Sims
Journal:  MAbs       Date:  2010-05-23       Impact factor: 5.857

10.  Immunomodulatory effects of domoic acid differ between in vivo and in vitro exposure in mice.

Authors:  Milton Levin; Heather Leibrecht; James Ryan; Frances Van Dolah; Sylvain De Guise
Journal:  Mar Drugs       Date:  2008-12-22       Impact factor: 5.118

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.