PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Monika Nendza

Publications and source records attributed to Monika Nendza.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Discriminating toxicant classes by mode of action. 1. (Eco)toxicity profiles.

BACKGROUND AND SCOPE: Predictive toxicology, particularly quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSARs), require classification of chemicals by mode of action (MOA). MOA is, however, not a constant property of a compound but it varies between species and may change with concentration and duration of exposure. A battery of MOA-specific in-vitro and low-complexity assays, featuring biomolecular targets for major classes of environmental pollutants, provides characteristic responses for (1.) classification of chemicals by MOA, (2.) identification of (eco)toxicity profiles of chemicals, (3.) identification of chemicals with specific MOAs, (4.) indication of most sensitive species, (5.) identification of chemicals that are outliers in QSARs and (6.) selection of appropriate QSARs for predictions. METHODS: Chemicals covering nine distinct modes of toxic action (non-polar non-specific toxicants (n=14), polar non-specific toxicants (n=18), uncouplers of oxidative phosphorylation (n=25), inhibitors of photosynthesis (n=15), inhibitors of acetylcholinesterase (n=14), inhibitors of respiration (n=3), thiol-alkylating agents (n=9), reactives (irritants) (n=8), estrogen receptor agonists (n=9)) were tested for cytotoxicity in the neutralred assay, oxygen consumption in isolated mitochondria, oxygen production in algae, inhibition of AChE, reaction with GSH and activity in the yeast estrogen receptor assay. Data on in-vivo aquatic toxicity (LC50, EC50) towards fish, daphnids, algae and bacteria were collected from the literature for reasons of comparison and reference scaling. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: In the MOA-specific in-vitro test battery, most test chemicals are specifically active at low concentrations, though multiple effects do occur. Graphical and statistical evaluation of the individual classes versus MOA 1 (non-polar non-specific toxicants) identifies interactions related to predominant MOA. Discriminant analyses (DA) on subsets of the data revealed correct classifications between 70% (in-vivo data) and >90% (in-vitro data). Functional similarity of chemical substances is defined in terms of their (eco)toxicity profiles. Within each MOA class, the compounds share some properties related to the rate-limiting interactions, e.g., steric fit to the target site and/or reactivity with target biomolecules, revealing a specific pattern (fingerprint) of characteristic effects. CONCLUSION: The successful discrimination of toxicant classes by MOA is based on comprehensive characterization of test chemicals' properties related to interactions with target sites. The suite of aquatic in-vivo tests using fish, daphnids, algae and bacteria covers most acute effects, whilst long-term (latent) impacts are generally neglected. With the MOA-specific in-vitro test battery such distinctions are futile, because it focuses on isolated targets, i.e. it indicates the possible targets of a chemical regardless of the timescale of effects. The data analysis indicates that the in-vitro battery covers most effects in vivo and moreover provides additional aspects of the compounds' MOA. RECOMMENDATION AND PERSPECTIVE: Translating in-vitro effects to in-vivo toxicity requires combining physiological and chemical knowledge about underlying processes. Comparison of the specific in-vitro effects of a compound with the respective sensitivities of aquatic organisms indicates particularly sensitive species. Classifications of toxicants by MOA based on physicochemical descriptors provides insight to interactions and directs to mechanistic QSARs.

Animals↗

Mixture toxicity and its modeling by quantitative structure-activity relationships.

Environmental contaminants are frequently encountered as mixtures, and the behavior of chemicals in a mixture may not correspond to that predicted from data on the pure compounds. This paper reviews current quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) methodology for the analysis of mixture toxicity. Interactions of components in a mixture can cause complex and substantial changes in the apparent properties of its constituents, resulting in synergistic or antagonistic effects as opposed to the ideal reference case of additive behavior: concentration addition (CA) and independent action (IA) are two prominent reference models for the evaluation of joint activity, and both have mechanistic support from pharmacology. After discussing graphical tools for analyzing binary mixtures and joint effect indices suitable also for multicomponent mixtures, water solubility and hydrophobicity of mixtures are analyzed with respect to the property contributions of the individual components. With the former, small but significant deviations from ideal behavior are observed even for simple organics, whereas in the case of low concentrations, mixture hydrophobicity was found to agree approximately with the fractional contributions of the components. A variety of studies suggest that mixtures of compounds exerting only one (narcotic or specific) mode of action can be modeled satisfactorily by assuming CA, whereas the interaction of differently acting compounds tends to yield a less than CA joint activity. The QSARs have been used to predict concentrations of components in mixtures from joint effects and defined mixture ratios and have been developed to predict narcotic-type mixture toxicity from molecular descriptors that are calculated as composite properties according to the fractional concentrations of the mixture components. In the case of ionogenic compounds, initial results suggest that CA may serve as a first-order approximation for the joint effect of un-ionized and ionized compound portions.

Animals↗

Inventory of marine biotest methods for the evaluation of dredged material and sediments.

An inventory of marine biotest methods for the evaluation of dredged material and sediments was compiled on behalf of the Federal Environmental Agency of Germany. Relevant assays were identified from the literature and experts from several countries contributed to a questionnaire survey on established and developing procedures. The biotest methods are applicable to whole sediment, sediment suspension, sediment elutriate, porewater and/or sediment extract. The endpoints cover acute and long-term toxicity, bioaccumulation, endocrine effects, toxic effects on reproduction, carcinogenicity and mutagenicity. Comparative analyses and evaluation of the biotest methods were conducted with regard to their sensitivity, specificity, applicability (regional specificity, availability and suitability of the test organisms), variability (physicochemical factors, natural factors and factors related to sampling and testing), cost-effectiveness, aspects of animal ethics, standardization (guidelines, intercalibration) and application for monitoring purposes in the areas of the OSPAR and Helsinki Conventions. The available information was integrated to rate the validity of the methods, their relevance for assessing impacts on ecosystems and the suitability of the methods for the evaluation of marine sediments and dredged material. Based on the rating of the individual bioassays, a tiered testing is suggested in a hierarchical approach representing a variety in taxa, biological processes and exposure routes, thereby covering the cellular, species, population and community level with a wide discriminatory and sensitivity range. The toxicological significance and complexity increases with the tiers: (1) screening and detection of impacts, (2) characterization of toxic effects, (3) verification of in situ alterations.

Animals↗