化学物质对神经网络活动的影响:微电极阵列试验中急性暴露与网络形成暴露的比较。

IF 4.8 3区 医学 Q1 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Melissa M. Martin , Amy F. Carpenter , Timothy J. Shafer , Katie Paul Friedman , Kelly E. Carstens
{"title":"化学物质对神经网络活动的影响:微电极阵列试验中急性暴露与网络形成暴露的比较。","authors":"Melissa M. Martin ,&nbsp;Amy F. Carpenter ,&nbsp;Timothy J. Shafer ,&nbsp;Katie Paul Friedman ,&nbsp;Kelly E. Carstens","doi":"10.1016/j.tox.2024.153842","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>New approach methodologies (NAMs) can address information gaps on potential neurotoxicity or developmental neurotoxicity hazard for data-poor chemicals. Two assays have been previously developed using microelectrode arrays (MEA), a technology which measures neural activity. The MEA acute network function assay (AcN) uses dissociated rat cortical cells cultured at postnatal day 0 and evaluates network activity during a 40-minute chemical exposure on day <em>in vitro</em> (DIV)13 or 15. In contrast, the MEA network formation assay (NFA) uses a developmental exposure paradigm spanning DIV0 through DIV12. Measures of network activity over time at DIV5, 7, 9, and 12 in the NFA are reduced to an estimated area under the curve to facilitate concentration-response evaluation. Here, we evaluated the hypothesis that chemicals with effects in the AcN also perturb the NFA by examining quantitative and qualitative concordance between assays. Out of 243 chemicals screened in both assays, we observed 70.3% concordance between the AcN and NFA after eliminating activity inferred to be cytotoxic (selective activity), with the majority of discordance explained by chemicals that altered selective activity in the AcN but not NFA. The NFA detected more active chemicals when evaluating activity associated with cytotoxicity. Median potency values were lower in the NFA compared to the AcN, but within-chemical potency values were not uniformly lower in the NFA than the AcN. Lastly, the AcN and NFA captured unique bioactivity fingerprints; the AcN was more informative for identifying chemicals with a shared mode of action, while the NFA provided information relevant to developmental exposure. Taken together, this analysis provides a rationale for using both approaches for chemical evaluation with consideration of the context of use, such as screening/ prioritization, hazard identification, or to address questions regarding biological mechanism or function.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":23159,"journal":{"name":"Toxicology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Chemical effects on neural network activity: Comparison of acute versus network formation exposure in microelectrode array assays\",\"authors\":\"Melissa M. Martin ,&nbsp;Amy F. Carpenter ,&nbsp;Timothy J. Shafer ,&nbsp;Katie Paul Friedman ,&nbsp;Kelly E. Carstens\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.tox.2024.153842\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>New approach methodologies (NAMs) can address information gaps on potential neurotoxicity or developmental neurotoxicity hazard for data-poor chemicals. Two assays have been previously developed using microelectrode arrays (MEA), a technology which measures neural activity. The MEA acute network function assay (AcN) uses dissociated rat cortical cells cultured at postnatal day 0 and evaluates network activity during a 40-minute chemical exposure on day <em>in vitro</em> (DIV)13 or 15. In contrast, the MEA network formation assay (NFA) uses a developmental exposure paradigm spanning DIV0 through DIV12. Measures of network activity over time at DIV5, 7, 9, and 12 in the NFA are reduced to an estimated area under the curve to facilitate concentration-response evaluation. Here, we evaluated the hypothesis that chemicals with effects in the AcN also perturb the NFA by examining quantitative and qualitative concordance between assays. Out of 243 chemicals screened in both assays, we observed 70.3% concordance between the AcN and NFA after eliminating activity inferred to be cytotoxic (selective activity), with the majority of discordance explained by chemicals that altered selective activity in the AcN but not NFA. The NFA detected more active chemicals when evaluating activity associated with cytotoxicity. Median potency values were lower in the NFA compared to the AcN, but within-chemical potency values were not uniformly lower in the NFA than the AcN. Lastly, the AcN and NFA captured unique bioactivity fingerprints; the AcN was more informative for identifying chemicals with a shared mode of action, while the NFA provided information relevant to developmental exposure. Taken together, this analysis provides a rationale for using both approaches for chemical evaluation with consideration of the context of use, such as screening/ prioritization, hazard identification, or to address questions regarding biological mechanism or function.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23159,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Toxicology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Toxicology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X24001239\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X24001239","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

新方法(NAMs)可以填补数据贫乏的化学品在潜在神经毒性或发育神经毒性危害方面的信息空白。此前已开发出两种使用微电极阵列(MEA)的检测方法,这是一种测量神经活动的技术。MEA 急性网络功能测试(AcN)使用的是在出生后第 0 天培养的离体大鼠皮层细胞,并在体外(DIV)13 或 15 天进行 40 分钟的化学品暴露期间对网络活动进行评估。相比之下,MEA 网络形成试验(NFA)采用的是发育暴露范式,时间跨度为 DIV0 到 DIV12。在 NFA 中,DIV5、7、9 和 12 时网络活性的测量值被简化为曲线下的估计面积,以方便进行浓度反应评估。在此,我们通过检测不同检测方法之间的定量和定性一致性,评估了在 AcN 中产生影响的化学物质也会扰乱 NFA 的假设。在两种检测方法筛选出的 243 种化学物质中,我们发现在剔除了推断为细胞毒性(选择性活性)的活性后,AcN 和 NFA 之间的一致性达到了 70.3%,大部分不一致的原因是化学物质在 AcN 中改变了选择性活性,而在 NFA 中却没有。在评估与细胞毒性相关的活性时,NFA 检测出了更多的活性化学品。与 AcN 相比,NFA 中的效价中值较低,但 NFA 中的化学效价中值并不一定低于 AcN。最后,AcN 和 NFA 都捕捉到了独特的生物活性指纹;AcN 更有助于识别具有共同作用模式的化学品,而 NFA 则提供了与发育暴露相关的信息。综上所述,这项分析为使用这两种方法进行化学品评估提供了理论依据,同时也考虑到了使用环境,如筛选/优先排序、危害识别,或解决生物机制或功能方面的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Chemical effects on neural network activity: Comparison of acute versus network formation exposure in microelectrode array assays

New approach methodologies (NAMs) can address information gaps on potential neurotoxicity or developmental neurotoxicity hazard for data-poor chemicals. Two assays have been previously developed using microelectrode arrays (MEA), a technology which measures neural activity. The MEA acute network function assay (AcN) uses dissociated rat cortical cells cultured at postnatal day 0 and evaluates network activity during a 40-minute chemical exposure on day in vitro (DIV)13 or 15. In contrast, the MEA network formation assay (NFA) uses a developmental exposure paradigm spanning DIV0 through DIV12. Measures of network activity over time at DIV5, 7, 9, and 12 in the NFA are reduced to an estimated area under the curve to facilitate concentration-response evaluation. Here, we evaluated the hypothesis that chemicals with effects in the AcN also perturb the NFA by examining quantitative and qualitative concordance between assays. Out of 243 chemicals screened in both assays, we observed 70.3% concordance between the AcN and NFA after eliminating activity inferred to be cytotoxic (selective activity), with the majority of discordance explained by chemicals that altered selective activity in the AcN but not NFA. The NFA detected more active chemicals when evaluating activity associated with cytotoxicity. Median potency values were lower in the NFA compared to the AcN, but within-chemical potency values were not uniformly lower in the NFA than the AcN. Lastly, the AcN and NFA captured unique bioactivity fingerprints; the AcN was more informative for identifying chemicals with a shared mode of action, while the NFA provided information relevant to developmental exposure. Taken together, this analysis provides a rationale for using both approaches for chemical evaluation with consideration of the context of use, such as screening/ prioritization, hazard identification, or to address questions regarding biological mechanism or function.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Toxicology
Toxicology 医学-毒理学
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
4.40%
发文量
222
审稿时长
23 days
期刊介绍: Toxicology is an international, peer-reviewed journal that publishes only the highest quality original scientific research and critical reviews describing hypothesis-based investigations into mechanisms of toxicity associated with exposures to xenobiotic chemicals, particularly as it relates to human health. In this respect "mechanisms" is defined on both the macro (e.g. physiological, biological, kinetic, species, sex, etc.) and molecular (genomic, transcriptomic, metabolic, etc.) scale. Emphasis is placed on findings that identify novel hazards and that can be extrapolated to exposures and mechanisms that are relevant to estimating human risk. Toxicology also publishes brief communications, personal commentaries and opinion articles, as well as concise expert reviews on contemporary topics. All research and review articles published in Toxicology are subject to rigorous peer review. Authors are asked to contact the Editor-in-Chief prior to submitting review articles or commentaries for consideration for publication in Toxicology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信