Basic concepts of mixture toxicity and relevance for risk evaluation and regulation

Exposure to multiple substances is a challenge for risk evaluation. Currently, there is an ongoing debate if generic “mixture assessment/allocation factors” (MAF) should be introduced to increase public health protection. Here, we explore concepts of mixture toxicity and the potential influence of mixture regulation concepts for human health protection. Based on this analysis, we provide recommendations for research and risk assessment. One of the concepts of mixture toxicity is additivity. Substances may act additively by affecting the same molecular mechanism within a common target cell, for example, dioxin-like substances. In a second concept, an “enhancer substance” may act by increasing the target site concentration and aggravating the adverse effect of a “driver substance”. For both concepts, adequate risk management of individual substances can reliably prevent adverse effects to humans. Furthermore, we discuss the hypothesis that the large number of substances to which humans are exposed at very low and individually safe doses may interact to cause adverse effects. This commentary identifies knowledge gaps, such as the lack of a comprehensive overview of substances regulated under different silos, including food, environmentally and occupationally relevant substances, the absence of reliable human exposure data and the missing accessibility of ratios of current human exposure to threshold values, which are considered safe for individual substances. Moreover, a comprehensive overview of the molecular mechanisms and most susceptible target cells is required. We conclude that, currently, there is no scientific evidence supporting the need for a generic MAF. Rather, we recommend taking more specific measures, which focus on compounds with relatively small ratios between human exposure and doses, at which adverse effects can be expected

PDGFR alpha signaling in the primary cilium regulates NHE1-dependent fibroblast migration via coordinated differential activity of MEK1/2-ERK1/2-p90(RSK) and AKT signaling pathways

In fibroblasts, platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha (PDGFRα) is upregulated during growth arrest and compartmentalized to the primary cilium. PDGF-AA mediated activation of the dimerized ciliary receptor produces a phosphorylation cascade through the PI3K–AKT and MEK1/2–ERK1/2 pathways leading to the activation of the Na(+)/H(+) exchanger, NHE1, cytoplasmic alkalinization and actin nucleation at the lamellipodium that supports directional cell migration. We here show that AKT and MEK1/2–ERK1/2–p90(RSK) inhibition reduced PDGF-AA-induced cell migration by distinct mechanisms: AKT inhibition reduced NHE1 activity by blocking the translocation of NHE1 to the cell membrane. MEK1/2 inhibition did not affect NHE1 activity but influenced NHE1 localization, causing NHE1 to localize discontinuously in patches along the plasma membrane, rather than preferentially at the lamellipodium. We also provide direct evidence of NHE1 translocation through the cytoplasm to the leading edge. In conclusion, signals initiated at the primary cilium through the PDGFRαα cascade reorganize the cytoskeleton to regulate cell migration differentially through the AKT and the MEK1/2–ERK1/2–p90(RSK) pathways. The AKT pathway is necessary for initiation of NHE1 translocation, presumably in vesicles, to the leading edge and for its activation. In contrast, the MEK1/2–ERK1/2–p90(RSK) pathway controls the spatial organization of NHE1 translocation and incorporation, and therefore specifies the direction of the leading edge formation

Stellungnahme zu Acetaldehyd als Aromastoff: Aspekte der Risikobewertung

Acetaldehyd kommt natürlicherweise in zahlreichen Lebensmitteln vor und wird aufgrund seines fruchtigen Aromas auch als Aromastoff eingesetzt. Die Internationale Agentur für Krebsforschung (IARC) stufte Acetaldehyd als möglicherweise krebserregend sowie in Verbindung mit der oralen Aufnahme über alkoholhaltige Getränke als humanes Kanzerogen ein. Vor diesem Hintergrund stellt sich die Frage, ob die Verwendung von Acetaldehyd als Aromastoff weiterhin vertretbar ist. Die Senatskommission zur gesundheitlichen Bewertung von Lebensmitteln (SKLM) der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) hat die aktuelle Datenlage zur Bewertung des gesundheitlichen Risikos der Verwendung von Acetaldehyd als Aromastoff geprüft und hierzu eine Stellungnahme verabschiedet. Demnach kann die Frage, ob Acetaldehyd nach oraler Exposition in vivo gentoxisch und mutagen wirkt, derzeit nicht abschließend beantwortet werden. Weiterhin ist auch unklar, welchen Beitrag die Verwendung von Acetaldehyd als Aromastoff zur Gesamtexposition des Verbrauchers gegenüber Acetaldehyd leistet. Eine wissenschaftliche Bewertung des gesundheitlichen Risikos der Verwendung von Acetaldehyd als Aromastoff ist daher weiterhin nicht möglich. Die SKLM weist darauf hin, dass aufgrund des gentoxischen Gefährdungspotenzials sowie zahlreicher Datenlücken, die für eine vollständige Risikobewertung geschlossen werden müssen, Zweifel an der Sicherheit von Acetaldehyd als Aromastoff bestehen. Nach Ansicht der SKLM sollte der gezielte Zusatz von Acetaldehyd als Aromastoff aus Gründen des vorsorgenden Verbraucherschutzes neu beurteilt werden.Acetaldehyde occurs naturally in many foods and is also used as a flavouring due to its fruity aroma. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified acetaldehyde as possibly carcinogenic to humans and, in combination with oral intake via alcoholic beverages, as carcinogenic to humans. Therefore, the question arises whether the use of acetaldehyde as a flavouring agent is still justifiable. The Senate Commission on Food Safety (SKLM) of the German Research Foundation (DFG) reviewed the scientific basis for health risk assessment of the use of acetaldehyde as a flavouring substance and adopted an opinion. Based on the available data, it is at present not possible to conclude if acetaldehyde is genotoxic and mutagenic in vivo after oral exposure. There is also uncertainty regarding the contribution of acetaldehyde as a flavouring substance to the overall exposure to acetaldehyde. Therefore, a science-based assessment on health risk related to the use of acetaldehyde as a flavouring is not possible at present. Considering the genotoxic potential as well as numerous data gaps that need to be closed for a full risk assessment, the SKLM is concerned about the safety of acetaldehyde as a flavouring substance. For reasons of precautionary consumer protection, the SKLM considers that the use of acetaldehyde as a food additive should be re-evaluated

Evaluation of the genotoxic potential of acrylamide: Arguments for the derivation of a tolerable daily intake (TDI value)

This opinion of the Senate Commission on Food Safety (SKLM) of the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG) presents arguments for an updated risk assessment of diet-related exposure to acrylamide (AA), based on a critical review of scientific evidence relevant to low dose exposure. The SKLM arrives at the conclusion that as long as an appropriate exposure limit for AA is not exceeded, genotoxic effects resulting in carcinogenicity are unlikely to occur. Based on the totality of the evidence, the SKLM considers it scientifically justified to derive a tolerable daily intake (TDI) as a health-based guidance value

Toxicity of fluoride: critical evaluation of evidence for human developmental neurotoxicity in epidemiological studies, animal experiments and in vitro analyses

Recently, epidemiological studies have suggested that fluoride is a human developmental neurotoxicant that reduces measures of intelligence in children, placing it into the same category as toxic metals (lead, methylmercury, arsenic) and polychlorinated biphenyls. If true, this assessment would be highly relevant considering the widespread fluoridation of drinking water and the worldwide use of fluoride in oral hygiene products such as toothpaste. To gain a deeper understanding of these assertions, we reviewed the levels of human exposure, as well as results from animal experiments, particularly focusing on developmental toxicity, and the molecular mechanisms by which fluoride can cause adverse effects. Moreover, in vitro studies investigating fluoride in neuronal cells and precursor/stem cells were analyzed, and 23 epidemiological studies published since 2012 were considered. The results show that the margin of exposure (MoE) between no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) in animal studies and the current adequate intake (AI) of fluoride (50 µg/kg b.w./day) in humans ranges between 50 and 210, depending on the specific animal experiment used as reference. Even for unusually high fluoride exposure levels, an MoE of at least ten was obtained. Furthermore, concentrations of fluoride in human plasma are much lower than fluoride concentrations, causing effects in cell cultures. In contrast, 21 of 23 recent epidemiological studies report an association between high fluoride exposure and reduced intelligence. The discrepancy between experimental and epidemiological evidence may be reconciled with deficiencies inherent in most of these epidemiological studies on a putative association between fluoride and intelligence, especially with respect to adequate consideration of potential confounding factors, e.g., socioeconomic status, residence, breast feeding, low birth weight, maternal intelligence, and exposure to other neurotoxic chemicals. In conclusion, based on the totality of currently available scientific evidence, the present review does not support the presumption that fluoride should be assessed as a human developmental neurotoxicant at the current exposure levels in Europe

Contribution to the ongoing discussion on fluoride toxicity

Since the addition of fluoride to drinking water in the 1940s, there have been frequent and sometimes heated discussions regarding its benefits and risks. In a recently published review, we addressed the question if current exposure levels in Europe represent a risk to human health. This review was discussed in an editorial asking why we did not calculate benchmark doses (BMD) of fluoride neurotoxicity for humans. Here, we address the question, why it is problematic to calculate BMDs based on the currently available data. Briefly, the conclusions of the available studies are not homogeneous, reporting negative as well as positive results; moreover, the positive studies lack control of confounding factors such as the influence of well-known neurotoxicants. We also discuss the limitations of several further epidemiological studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria of our review. Finally, it is important to not only focus on epidemiological studies. Rather, risk analysis should consider all available data, including epidemiological, animal, as well as in vitro studies. Despite remaining uncertainties, the totality of evidence does not support the notion that fluoride should be considered a human developmental neurotoxicant at current exposure levels in European countries

Migration of human melanoma cells depends on extracellular pH and Na(+)/H(+) exchange

Their glycolytic metabolism imposes an increased acid load upon tumour cells. The surplus protons are extruded by the Na(+)/H(+) exchanger (NHE) which causes an extracellular acidification. It is not yet known by what mechanism extracellular pH (pH(e)) and NHE activity affect tumour cell migration and thus metastasis. We studied the impact of pH(e) and NHE activity on the motility of human melanoma (MV3) cells. Cells were seeded on/in collagen I matrices. Migration was monitored employing time lapse video microscopy and then quantified as the movement of the cell centre. Intracellular pH (pH(i)) was measured fluorometrically. Cell–matrix interactions were tested in cell adhesion assays and by the displacement of microbeads inside a collagen matrix. Migration depended on the integrin α2β1. Cells reached their maximum motility at pH(e)∼7.0. They hardly migrated at pH(e) 6.6 or 7.5, when NHE was inhibited, or when NHE activity was stimulated by loading cells with propionic acid. These procedures also caused characteristic changes in cell morphology and pH(i). The changes in pH(i), however, did not account for the changes in morphology and migratory behaviour. Migration and morphology more likely correlate with the strength of cell–matrix interactions. Adhesion was the strongest at pH(e) 6.6. It weakened at basic pH(e), upon NHE inhibition, or upon blockage of the integrin α2β1. We propose that pH(e) and NHE activity affect migration of human melanoma cells by modulating cell–matrix interactions. Migration is hindered when the interaction is too strong (acidic pH(e)) or too weak (alkaline pH(e) or NHE inhibition)