4.5 Article

Evaluation of drug-induced neurotoxicity based on metabolomics, proteomics and electrical activity measurements in complementary CNS in vitro models

期刊

TOXICOLOGY IN VITRO
卷 30, 期 1, 页码 138-165

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tiv.2015.05.016

关键词

In vitro blood brain barrier; MEA; Neuronal network culture; OMICs; Drug development; 3D brain culture

资金

  1. EU [202222]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study was performed in an attempt to develop an in vitro integrated testing strategy (ITS) to evaluate drug-induced neurotoxicity. A number of endpoints were analyzed using two complementary brain cell culture models and an in vitro blood-brain barrier (BBB) model after single and repeated exposure treatments with selected drugs that covered the major biological, pharmacological and neuro-toxicological responses. Furthermore, four drugs (diazepam, cyclosporine A, chlorpromazine and amiodarone) were tested more in depth as representatives of different classes of neurotoxicants, inducing toxicity through different pathways of toxicity. The developed in vitro BBB model allowed detection of toxic effects at the level of BBB and evaluation of drug transport through the barrier for predicting free brain concentrations of the studied drugs. The measurement of neuronal electrical activity was found to be a sensitive tool to predict the neuroactivity and neurotoxicity of drugs after acute exposure. The histotypic 3D re-aggregating brain cell cultures, containing all brain cell types, were found to be well suited for OMICs analyses after both acute and long term treatment. The obtained data suggest that an in vitro ITS based on the information obtained from BBB studies and combined with metabolomics, proteomics and neuronal electrical activity measurements performed in stable in vitro neuronal cell culture systems, has high potential to improve current in vitro drug-induced neurotoxicity evaluation. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据