In vitro techniques for the assessment of neurotoxicity.

Risk assessment is a process often divided into the following steps: a) hazard identification, b) dose-response assessment, c) exposure assessment, and d) risk characterization. Regulatory toxicity studies usually are aimed at providing data for the first two steps. Human case reports, environmental research, and in vitro studies may also be used to identify or to further characterize a toxic hazard. In this report the strengths and limitations of in vitro techniques are discussed in light of their usefulness to identify neurotoxic hazards, as well as for the subsequent dose-response assessment. Because of the complexity of the nervous system, multiple functions of individual cells, and our limited knowledge of biochemical processes involved in neurotoxicity, it is not known how well any in vitro system would recapitulate the in vivo system. Thus, it would be difficult to design an in vitro test battery to replace in vivo test systems. In vitro systems are well suited to the study of biological processes in a more isolated context and have been most successfully used to elucidate mechanisms of toxicity, identify target cells of neurotoxicity, and delineate the development and intricate cellular changes induced by neurotoxicants. Both biochemical and morphological end points can be used, but many of the end points used can be altered by pharmacological actions as well as toxicity. Therefore, for many of these end points it is difficult or impossible to set a criterion that allows one to differentiate between a pharmacological and a neurotoxic effect. For the process of risk assessment such a discrimination is central. Therefore, end points used to determine potential neurotoxicity of a compound have to be carefully selected and evaluated with respect to their potential to discriminate between an adverse neurotoxic effect and a pharmacologic effect. It is obvious that for in vitro neurotoxicity studies the primary end points that can be used are those affected through specific mechanisms of neurotoxicity. For example, in vitro systems may be useful for certain structurally defined compounds and mechanisms of toxicity, such as organophosphorus compounds and delayed neuropathy, for which target cells and the biochemical processes involved in the neurotoxicity are well known. For other compounds and the different types of neurotoxicity, a mechanism of toxicity needs to be identified first. Once identified, by either in vivo or in vitro methods, a system can be developed to detect and to evaluate predictive ability for the type of in vivo neurotoxicity produced. Therefore, in vitro tests have their greatest potential in providing information on basic mechanistic processes in order to refine specific experimental questions to be addressed in the whole animal

Screening for Developmental Neurotoxicity Using PC12 Cells: Comparisons of Organophosphates with a Carbamate, an Organochlorine, and Divalent Nickel

BACKGROUND: In light of the large number of chemicals that are potential developmental neurotoxicants, there is a need to develop rapid screening techniques. OBJECTIVES: We exposed undifferentiated and differentiating neuronotypic PC12 cells to different organophosphates (chlorpyrifos, diazinon, parathion), a carbamate (physostigmine), an organochlorine (dieldrin), and a metal (divalent nickel; Ni(2+)) and examined indices of cell replication and differentiation for both short- and long-term exposures. RESULTS: In undifferentiated cells, all the agents inhibited DNA synthesis, with the greatest effect for diazinon, but physostigmine eventually produced the largest deficits in the total number of cells after prolonged exposure. The onset of differentiation intensified the adverse effects on DNA synthesis and changed the rank order in keeping with a shift away from noncholinergic mechanisms and toward cholinergic mechanisms. Differentiation also worsened the effects of each agent on cell number after prolonged exposure, whereas cell growth was not suppressed, nor were there any effects on viability as assessed with trypan blue. Nevertheless, differentiating cells displayed signs of oxidative stress from all of the test compounds except Ni(2+), as evidenced by measurements of lipid peroxidation. Finally, all of the toxicants shifted the transmitter fate of the cells away from the cholinergic phenotype and toward the catecholaminergic phenotype. CONCLUSIONS: These studies point out the feasibility of developing cell-based screening methods that enable the detection of multiple end points that may relate to mechanisms associated with developmental neurotoxicity, revealing some common targets for disparate agents