Quantification of freely dissolved effect concentrations in in vitro cell-based bioassays

Henneberger, Luise; Mühlenbrink, Marie; König, Maria; Schlichting, Rita; Fischer, Fabian C.; Escher, Beate I.

doi:10.1007/s00204-019-02498-3

Cited by 23 publications

(85 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The freely dissolved concentration is the bioavailable concentration and the best experimentally accessible dose-metric because it can be directly compared between different assay types that use different formats and media (Table 9.1, Figure 9.11). The freely dissolved concentrations has been quantified for more than a decade in specific applications (Heringa and Hermens, 2003;Kramer et al, 2012) but has only recently become available for 96-well plate assays thanks to versatile solidphase microextraction (SPME) fibres with low coating volume (Henneberger et al, 2019;Huchthausen et al, 2020). SPME fibres coated with polymers and C18 that sorb charged chemicals have very recently become available in multiplexed plate format, allowing in the future more routine and HT quantification of freely dissolved concentrations.…”

Section: Dose-metrics In Cell Assaysmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our recommendation is to plan the highest concentration at maximum solubility in the medium and to consider the implications of baseline toxicity. The medium solubility S medium can be calculated from Equation (9.5) (Fischer et al, 2019).…”

Section: Practical Considerations For Dosing Of Chemicalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The aqueous solubility S water can be retrieved from databases such as the CompTox Chemistry Dashboard (U.S. EPA, 2020) and the medium-water partition constant K medium/w (Equation 9.6) can be approximated from the protein−water partition constant K BSA/w and the liposome−water partition constant K lip/w and the fraction of FBS added to the medium β FBS . Evidently, the composition of FBS is somewhat variable with respect to protein and lipid content but to simplify the Equation (9.6) we have assumed an average composition (Fischer et al, 2019). In turn, log K BSA/w (Equation 9.7) and log K lip/w (Equation 9.8) can be simply predicted from the log K ow for neutral chemicals.…”

Section: Practical Considerations For Dosing Of Chemicalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With these equations it is possible to build a fairly robust estimate of medium solubility, which is much higher than the aqueous solubility for hydrophobic chemicals (Fischer et al, 2019).…”

Section: Practical Considerations For Dosing Of Chemicalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Bioanalytical Tools in Water Quality Assessment

Neale¹,

Leusch²,

Escher³

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The first edition of Bioanalytical Tools in Water Quality Assessment was released in 2012. The field has exploded since and the second edition updates and reviews the application of bioanalytical tools for water quality assessment including surveillance monitoring. The book focuses on applications to water quality assessment ranging from wastewater to drinking water, including recycled water, as well as treatment processes and advanced water treatment. Emerging applications for other environmental matrices are also included. Bioanalytical Tools in Water Quality Assessment, Second Edition, not only demonstrates applications but also fills in the background knowledge in toxicology/ecotoxicology needed to appreciate these applications. Each chapter summarises fundamental material in a targeted way so that information can be applied to better understand the use of bioanalytical tools in water quality assessment. The book can be used by lecturers teaching academic and professional courses and also by risk assessors, regulators, experts, consultants, researchers and managers working in the water sector. It can also be a reference manual for environmental engineers, analytical chemists and toxicologists. ISBN: 9781789061970 (Paperback) ISBN: 9781789061987 (eBook)

show abstract

Section: Dose-metrics In Cell Assaysmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Practical Considerations For Dosing Of Chemicalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Practical Considerations For Dosing Of Chemicalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Practical Considerations For Dosing Of Chemicalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Bioanalytical Tools in Water Quality Assessment

Neale¹,

Leusch²,

Escher³

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Experimental K lipw data (Betageri and Rogers 1987;Avdeef et al 1998;Escher et al 2000Escher et al , 2017Kwon et al 2006;Endo et al 2011;Bittermann et al 2014;Henneberger et al 2019aHenneberger et al , 2019bKlüver et al 2019;Ebert et al 2020) were given preference in Supplemental Data, Table S1. If no experimental data were available, a log K OW -based QSAR (Endo et al 2011) was used to predict the log K lipw (neutral), and it was assumed that K lipw (ionized) was 10 times lower than K lipw (neutral; Bittermann et al 2014) as detailed previously (Escher et al 2020b).…”

Section: Chemicals and Their Physicochemical Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect‐Based Trigger Values for Mixtures of Chemicals in Surface Water Detected with In Vitro Bioassays

Escher

Neale

2021

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effect-based trigger (EBT) values for in vitro bioassays are important for surface water quality monitoring because they define the threshold between acceptable and poor water quality. EBTs have been derived for highly specific This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. Accepted Article bioassays, such as hormone-receptor activation in reporter gene bioassays, by reading across from existing chemical guideline values. This read-across method is not easily applicable to bioassays indicative of adaptive stress responses, which are triggered by many different chemicals, and activation of nuclear receptors for xenobiotic metabolism, to which many chemicals bind with rather low specificity. We propose an alternative approach to define the EBT from the distribution of specificity ratios of all active chemicals. Specificity ratios are the ratio between the predicted baseline toxicity of a chemical in a given bioassay and its measured specific endpoint. Unlike many previous read-across methods to derive EBTs, the proposed method accounts for mixture effects and includes all chemicals, not only high-potency chemicals. The EBTs were derived from a cytotoxicity EBT that was defined as equivalent to 1% of cytotoxicity in a native surface water sample. The cytotoxicity EBT was scaled by the median of the log-normal distribution of specificity ratios to derive the EBT for effects specific for each bioassay. We illustrate the new approach using the example of the AREc32 assay indicative of the oxidative stress response and two nuclear receptor assays targeting the peroxisome proliferator activated receptor PPAR and the arylhydrocarbon receptor AhR. The EBTs were less conservative than previously proposed but were able to differentiate untreated and insufficiently treated wastewater from wastewater treatment plant effluent with secondary or tertiary treatment and surface water.

show abstract

Rapid determination of serum albumin partition coefficients using affinity chromatography

Ulrich¹,

Böhme²

2022

Environmental Advances

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quantification of freely dissolved effect concentrations in in vitro cell-based bioassays

Cited by 23 publications

References 35 publications

Bioanalytical Tools in Water Quality Assessment

Bioanalytical Tools in Water Quality Assessment

Effect‐Based Trigger Values for Mixtures of Chemicals in Surface Water Detected with In Vitro Bioassays

Rapid determination of serum albumin partition coefficients using affinity chromatography

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About