Adverse outcome pathway-based analysis of liver steatosis in vitro using human liver cell lines.

Here, we present an in vitro test battery to analyze chemicals for their potential to induce liver triglyceride accumulation, a hallmark of liver steatosis. We describe steps for using HepG2 and HepaRG human hepatoma cells in conjunction with a combination of several in vitro assays covering the different molecular initiating events and key events of the respective adverse outcome pathway. This protocol is suitable for assessing single substance effects as well as mixtures allowing their classification as steatotic or non-steatotic. For complete details on the use and execution of this protocol, please refer to Luckert et al. (2018),1 Lichtenstein et al. (2020),2 and Knebel et al. (2019).3.

Toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic mixture effects of plant protection products: A case study.

Authorisation of ready to use plant protection products (PPPs) usually relies on the testing of acute and local toxicity only. This is in stark contrast to the situation for active substances where the mandatory data set comprises a most comprehensive set of studies. While the combination of certain active ingredients and co-formulants may nevertheless result in increased toxicity of the final product such combinations have never been evaluated systematically for complex and long-term toxicological endpoints. We therefore investigated the effect of three frequently used co-formulants on the toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic of the representative active substance combination of tebuconazol (Teb) and prothioconazol (Pro) or of cypermethrin (Cpm) and piperonyl butoxide (Pip), respectively. With all four active substances being potential liver steatogens, cytotoxicity and triglyceride accumulation in HepaRG were used as primary endpoints. Concomitantly transcriptomics and biochemical studies were applied to interrogate for effects on gene expression or inhibition of CYP3A4 as key enzyme for functionalization. Some of the tested combinations clearly showed more than additive effects, partly due to CYP3A4 enzyme inhibition. Other effects comprised the modulation of the expression and activity of steatosis-related nuclear key receptors. Altogether, the findings highlight the need for a more systematic consideration of toxicodynamic and toxicokinetic mixture effects during assessment of PPPs.

Mixture effects of co-formulants and two plant protection products in a liver cell line.

Plant protection products (PPPs) consist of one or more active substances and several co-formulants. Active substances provide the functionality of the PPP and are consequently evaluated according to standard test methods set by legal data requirements before approval, whereas co-formulants' toxicity is not as comprehensively assessed. However, in some cases mixture effects of active substances and co-formulants might result in increased or different forms of toxicity. In a proof-of-concept study we hence built on previously published results of Zahn et al. (2018[38]) on the mixture toxicity of Priori Xtra® and Adexar® to specifically investigate the influence of co-formulants on the toxicity of these commonly used fungicides. Products, their respective active substances in combination as well as some co-formulants were applied to human hepatoma cell line (HepaRG) in several dilutions. Cell viability analysis, mRNA expression, abundance of xenobiotic metabolizing enzymes and intracellular concentrations of active substances determined by LC-MS/MS analyses demonstrated that the toxicity of the PPPs is influenced by the presence of co-formulants in vitro. PPPs were more cytotoxic than the mix of their active substances. Gene expression profiles of cells treated with the PPPs were similar to those treated with their respective mixture combinations with marked differences. Co-formulants can cause gene expression changes on their own. LC-MS/MS analyses revealed higher intracellular concentrations of active substances in cells treated with PPPs compared to those treated with the respective active substances' mix. Proteomic data showed co-formulants can induce ABC transporters and CYP enzymes. Co-formulants can contribute to the observed increased toxicity of PPPs compared to their active substances in combination due to kinetic interactions, necessitating a more comprehensive evaluation approach.

An approach for mixture testing and prioritization based on common kinetic groups.

In light of an ever-increasing exposure to chemicals, the topic of potential mixture toxicity has gained increased attention, particularly as the toxicological toolbox to address such questions has vastly improved. Routinely toxicological risk assessments will rely on the analysis of individual compounds with mixture effects being considered only in those specific cases where co-exposure is foreseeable, for example for pesticides or food contact materials. In the field of pesticides, active substances are summarized in so-called cumulative assessment groups (CAG) which are primarily based on their toxicodynamic properties, that is, respective target organs and mode of action (MoA). In this context, compounds causing toxicity by a similar MoA are assumed to follow a model of dose/concentration addition (DACA). However, the respective approach inherently falls short of addressing cases where there are dissimilar or independent MoAs resulting in wider toxicokinetic effects. Yet, the latter are often the underlying cause when effects deviate from the DACA model. In the present manuscript, we therefore suggest additionally to consider toxicokinetic effects (especially related to xenobiotic metabolism and transporter interaction) for the grouping of substances to predict mixture toxicity. In line with the concept of MoA-based CAGs, we propose common kinetics groups (CKGs) as an additional tool for grouping of chemicals and mixture prioritization. Fundamentals of the CKG concept are discussed, along with challenges for its implementation, and methodological approaches and examples are explored.

Effects of co-formulants on the absorption and secretion of active substances in plant protection products in vitro.

Currently, the authorisation process for plant protection products (PPPs) relies on the testing of acute and topological toxicity only. Contrastingly, the evaluation of active substances includes a more comprehensive set of toxicity studies. Nevertheless, mixture effects of active ingredients and co-formulants may result in increased toxicity. Therefore, we investigated effects of surface active co-formulants on the toxicity of two PPPs focussing on qualitative and quantitative toxicokinetic effects on absorption and secretion. The respective products are based on the active substances abamectin and fluroxypyr-meptyl and were tested for cytotoxicity in the presence or absence of the corresponding surfactants and co-formulants using Caco-2 cells. In addition, the effect of co-formulants on increased cellular permeation was quantified using LC-MS/MS, while potential kinetic mixture effects were addressed by fluorescence anisotropy measurements and ATPase assays. The results show that surface active co-formulants significantly increase the cytotoxicity of the investigated PPPs, leading to more than additive mixture effects. Moreover, analytical investigations show higher efflux ratios of both active substances and the metabolite fluroxypyr upon combination with certain concentrations of the surfactants. The results further point to a significant and concentration-dependent inhibition of Pgp transporters by most of the surfactants as well as to increased membrane fluidity. Altogether, these findings strongly support the hypothesis that surfactants contribute to increased cytotoxicity of PPPs and do so by increasing the bioavailability of the respective active substances.