4.5 Article

Mechanistic Toxicity Tests Based on an Adverse Outcome Pathway Network for Hepatic Steatosis

Journal

TOXICOLOGICAL SCIENCES
Volume 159, Issue 1, Pages 159-169

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfx121

Keywords

adverse outcome pathway; chemical risk assessment; high-throughput toxicity testing; mechanistic toxicology; nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; hepatic steatosis

Categories

Funding

  1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Risk assessors use liver endpoints in rodent toxicology studies to assess the safety of chemical exposures. Yet, rodent endpoints may not accurately reflect human responses. For this reason and others, human-based in vitro models are being developed and anchored to adverse outcome pathways to better predict adverse human health outcomes. Here, a networked adverse outcome pathway-guided selection of biology-based assays for lipid uptake, lipid efflux, fatty acid oxidation, and lipid accumulation were developed. These assays were evaluated in a metabolically competent human hepatocyte cell model (HepaRG) exposed to compounds known to cause steatosis (amiodarone, cyclosporine A, and T0901317) or activate lipid metabolism pathways (troglitazone, Wyeth-14,643, and 22(R)-hydroxycholesterol). All of the chemicals activated at least one assay, however, only T0901317 and cyclosporin A dose-dependently increased lipid accumulation. T0901317 and cyclosporin A increased fatty acid uptake, decreased lipid efflux (inferred from apolipoprotein B100 levels), and increased fatty acid synthase protein levels. Using this biologically-based evaluation of key events regulating hepatic lipid levels, we demonstrated dysregulation of compensatory pathways that normally balance hepatic lipid levels. This approach may provide biological plausibility and data needed to increase confidence in linking in vitro-based measurements to chemical effects on adverse human health outcomes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available