In this project we set up a human cell-based DNT in vitro testing strategy that is based on test methods with high readiness and data generated therefrom. The methods underwent a fit-for-purpose evaluation that considered four key elements: 1. The test system, 2. the exposure scheme, 3. the assay and analytical endpoint(s) and 4. the classification model. This testing battery was challenged with 119 chemicals for which rich toxicological information was available (for some of them also on their DNT hazard). Testing was performed in 5 test systems measuring 10 DNT-specific endpoints and additional 9 viability/ cytotoxicity-related parameters. For approximately half of the compounds, additional and complementary data from DNT in vitro tests was added by the US-EPA. This extended battery was also evaluated. Testing results revealed that the test methods of this current DNT in vitro battery are reliable and reproducible. The endpoints had to a large extent low redundancy. Battery performance, as assessed with compounds well-characterized for DNT hazard had a sensitivity of 82.7 % and a specificity of 88.2 %. Gap analyses suggested that radial, astro-and microglia as well as myelination endpoints may be added to the battery. Two case studies, one for screening and prioritization of 14 flame retardants, and one on hazard characterization of 2 pesticides, were presented. Hypothetical AOPs were developed based on the latter case study. In conclusion, the DNT testing strategy explored here is a very promising first approach for DNT hazard identification and characterization. The performance is encouraging and may be improved by inclusion of further tests. Some uncertainties in DNT in vitro battery testing outcomes could be reduced by incorporating test data and modelling approaches related to in vitro and in vivo toxicokinetics of test compounds.

Many in vitro tests have been developed to screen for potential neurotoxicity. However, only few cell function-based tests have been used for comparative screening, and thus experience is scarce on how to confirm and evaluate screening hits. We addressed these questions for the neural crest cell migration test (cMINC). After an initial screen, a hit follow-up strategy was devised. A library of 75 compounds plus internal controls (NTP80-list), assembled by the National Toxicology Program of the USA (NTP) was used. It contained some known classes of (developmental) neurotoxic compounds. The primary screen yielded 23 confirmed hits, which comprised ten flame retardants, seven pesticides and six drug-like compounds. Comparison of concentration-response curves for migration and viability showed that all hits were specific. The extent to which migration was inhibited was 25-90%, and two organochlorine pesticides (DDT, heptachlor) were most efficient. In the second part of this study, (1) the cMINC assay was repeated under conditions that prevent proliferation; (2) a transwell migration assay was used as a different type of migration assay; (3) cells were traced to assess cell speed. Some toxicants had largely varying effects between assays, but each hit was confirmed in at least one additional test. This comparative study allows an estimate on how confidently the primary hits from a cell function-based screen can be considered as toxicants disturbing a key neurodevelopmental process. Testing of the NTP80-list in more assays will be highly interesting to assemble a test battery and to build prediction models for developmental toxicity.

Hazard assessment, based on new approach methods (NAM), requires the use of batteries of assays, where individual tests may be contributed by different laboratories. A unified strategy for such collaborative testing is presented. It details all procedures required to allow test information to be usable for integrated hazard assessment, strategic project decisions and/or for regulatory purposes. The EU-ToxRisk project developed a strategy to provide regulatorily valid data, and exemplified this using a panel of > 20 assays (with > 50 individual endpoints), each exposed to 19 well-known test compounds (e.g. rotenone, colchicine, mercury, paracetamol, rifampicine, paraquat, taxol). Examples of strategy implementation are provided for all aspects required to ensure data validity: (i) documentation of test methods in a publicly accessible database; (ii) deposition of standard operating procedures (SOP) at the European Union DB-ALM repository; (iii) test readiness scoring accoding to defined criteria; (iv) disclosure of the pipeline for data processing; (v) link of uncertainty measures and metadata to the data; (vi) definition of test chemicals, their handling and their behavior in test media; (vii) specification of the test purpose and overall evaluation plans. Moreover, data generation was exemplified by providing results from 25 reporter assays. A complete evaluation of the entire test battery will be described elsewhere. A major learning from the retrospective analysis of this large testing project was the need for thorough definitions of the above strategy aspects, ideally in form of a study pre-registration, to allow adequate interpretation of the data and to ensure overall scientific/toxicological validity.

Due to their neurodevelopmental toxicity, flame retardants (FRs) like polybrominated diphenyl ethers are banned from the market and replaced by alternative FRs, like organophosphorus FRs, that have mostly unknown toxicological profiles. To study their neurodevelopmental toxicity, we evaluated the hazard of several FRs including phased-out polybrominated FRs and organophosphorus FRs: 2,2′,4,4′-tetrabromodiphenylether (BDE-47), 2,2′,4,4′,5-pentabromodiphenylether (BDE-99), tetrabromobisphenol A, triphenyl phosphate, tris(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate and its metabolite bis-(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate, isodecyl diphenyl phosphate, triphenyl isopropylated phosphate, tricresyl phosphate, tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate, tert-butylphenyl diphenyl phosphate, 2-ethylhexyl diphenyl phosphate, tris(1-chloroisopropyl) phosphate, and tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate. Therefore, we used a human cell–based developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) in vitro battery covering a large variety of neurodevelopmental endpoints. Potency according to the respective most sensitive benchmark concentration (BMC) across the battery ranked from <1 μM (5 FRs), 1<10 μM (7 FRs) to the >10 μM range (3 FRs). Evaluation of the data with the ToxPi tool revealed a distinct ranking (a) than with the BMC and (b) compared to the ToxCast data, suggesting that DNT hazard of these FRs is not well predicted by ToxCast assays. Extrapolating the DNT in vitro battery BMCs to human FR exposure via breast milk suggests low risk for individual compounds. However, it raises a potential concern for real-life mixture exposure, especially when different compounds converge through diverse modes-of-action on common endpoints, like oligodendrocyte differentiation in this study. This case study using FRs suggests that human cell–based DNT in vitro battery is a promising approach for neurodevelopmental hazard assessment and compound prioritization in risk assessment. Graphical abstract

No abstract