A consortium of biopharmaceutical companies previously developed an optimized Zebrafish developmental toxicity assay (ZEDTA) where chorionated embryos were exposed to non-proprietary test compounds from 5 to 6 h post fertilization and assessed for morphological integrity at 5 days post fertilization. With the original 20 test compounds, this achieved an overall predictive value for teratogenicity of 88% of mammalian in vivo outcome [Gustafson, A. L., Stedman, D. B., Ball, J., Hillegass, J. M., Flood, A., Zhang, C. X., Panzica-Kelly, J., Cao, J., Coburn, A., Enright, B. P., et al. (2012). Interlaboratory assessment of a harmonized Zebrafish developmental toxicology assay-Progress report on phase I. Reprod. Toxicol. 33, 155-164]. In the second phase of this project, 38 proprietary pharmaceutical compounds from four consortium members were evaluated in two laboratories using the optimized method using either pond-derived or cultivated-strain wild-type Zebrafish embryos at concentrations up to 100μM. Embryo uptake of all compounds was assessed using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Twenty eight of 38 compounds had a confirmed embryo uptake of >5%, and with these compounds the ZEDTA achieved an overall predictive value of 82% and 65% at the two respective laboratories. When low-uptake compounds (≤ 5%) were retested with logarithmic concentrations up to 1000μM, the overall predictivity across all 38 compounds was 79% and 62% respectively, with the first laboratory achieving 74% sensitivity (teratogen detection) and 82% specificity (non-teratogen detection) and the second laboratory achieving 63% sensitivity (teratogen detection) and 62% specificity (non-teratogen detection). Subsequent data analyses showed that technical differences rather than strain differences were the primary contributor to interlaboratory differences in predictivity. Based on these results, the ZEDTA harmonized methodology is currently being used for compound assessment at lead optimization stage of development by 4/5 of the consortium companies.
Current preclinical drug testing does not predict some forms of adverse drug reactions in humans. Efforts at improving predictability of drug-induced tissue injury in humans include using stem cell technology to generate human cells for screening for adverse effects of drugs in humans. The advent of induced pluripotent stem cells means that it may ultimately be possible to develop personalised toxicology to determine inter-individual susceptibility to adverse drug reactions. However, the complexity of idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury (DILI) means that no current single cell model, whether of primary liver tissue origin, from liver cell lines, or derived from stem cells, adequately emulates what is believed to occur during human DILI. Nevertheless, a single cell model of a human hepatocyte which emulates key features of a hepatocyte is likely to be valuable in assessing potential chemical risk; furthermore understanding how to generate a relevant hepatocyte will also be critical to efforts to build complex multicellular models of the liver. Currently, hepatocyte-like cells differentiated from stem cells still fall short of recapitulating the full mature hepatocellular phenotype. Therefore, we convened a number of experts from the areas of preclinical and clinical hepatotoxicity and safety assessment, from industry, academia and regulatory bodies, to specifically explore the application of stem cells in hepatotoxicity safety assessment, and to make recommendations for the way forward. In this short review, we particularly discuss the importance of benchmarking stem cell-derived hepatocyte-like cells to their terminally-differentiated human counterparts using defined phenotyping, to make sure the cells are relevant and comparable between labs, and outline why this process is essential before the cells are introduced into chemical safety assessment.
This work enhances the evaluation tools available to study mechanisms of normal and abnormal development in this widely used animal testing species.
Regulatory non-clinical safety testing of human pharmaceuticals typically requires embryo-fetal developmental toxicity (EFDT) testing in two species (one rodent and one non-rodent). The question has been raised whether under some conditions EFDT testing could be limited to one species, or whether the testing in a second species could be decided on a case-by-case basis. As part of a consortium initiative, we built and queried a database of 379 compounds with EFDT studies (in both rat and rabbit animal models) conducted for marketed and non-marketed pharmaceuticals for their potential for adverse developmental and maternal outcomes, including EFDT incidence and the nature and severity of adverse findings. Manifestation of EFDT in either one or both species was demonstrated for 282 compounds (74%). EFDT was detected in only one species (rat or rabbit) in almost a third (31%, 118 compounds), with 58% (68 compounds) of rat studies and 42% (50 compounds) of rabbit studies identifying an EFDT signal. For 24 compounds (6%), fetal malformations were observed in one species (rat or rabbit) in the absence of any EFDT in the second species. In general, growth retardation, fetal variations, and malformations were more prominent in the rat, whereas embryo-fetal death was observed more often in the rabbit. Discordance across species may be attributed to factors such as maternal toxicity, study design differences, pharmacokinetic differences, and pharmacologic relevance of species. The current analysis suggests that in general both species are equally sensitive on the basis of an overall EFDT LOAEL comparison, but selective EFDT toxicity in one species is not uncommon. Also, there appear to be species differences in the prevalence of various EFDT manifestations (i.e. embryo-fetal death, growth retardation, and dysmorphogenesis) between rat and rabbit, suggesting that the use of both species has a higher probability of detecting developmental toxicants than either one alone.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.