PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 3420941

Possible developments in neurotoxicity testing in vitro.

Abstract

1. Many different chemical compounds produce a range of neurotoxic effects. They do not share a common mechanism and there is no single universally applicable test for neurotoxicity. 2. Testing for neurotoxicity in vivo is not always completely reliable, and many neurotoxic effects are still discovered following accidental exposure to humans. 3. Given the complexity of neurotoxins and their effects in vivo and the difficulties of elucidation of such effects in vivo, there is a place for the use of simple in vitro model systems in neutrotoxicity testing. 4. Various preparations of invertebrate neurones have been used in toxicological studies because of the similarities in basic neuronal properties between invertebrates and higher species. Mammalian nerve cells can be grown in culture and they are suitable for biochemical and electrophysiological experiments. Such neuronal cultures could also be adapted for toxicological studies. Cultures of continuous cell lines would probably be more convenient than primary cultures. 5. Future developments should concentrate on the establishment of a battery of human hybrid cell lines and of a range of biochemical assays. After validation by experiments with a series of known neurotoxins, such cultures would be suitable for neurotoxicological tests.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

A L Harvey. 1988. Possible developments in neurotoxicity testing in vitro.. https://doi.org/10.3109/00498258809041700

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Evaluation of surfactant cytotoxicity potential by primary cultures of ocular tissues: I. Characterization of rabbit corneal epithelial cells and initial injury and delayed toxicity studies.

This investigation was undertaken to develop cytotoxicity assay systems using primary cultures of rabbit corneal epithelial cells as an experimental model to evaluate oculotoxic agents and the ability of these in vitro assay systems to predict irritancy potential and delayed toxicity. We have characterized the epithelial nature of the cultures by identifying keratins with antikeratin antibodies (AE1/AE3) and by demonstrating metabolic enzymes important to the integrity of the cells: lactate dehydrogenase, glucose 6-phosphate dehydrogenase and aldolase. Eight surfactants were compared and ranked according to their cytotoxic potential. We evaluated cytotoxicity by measuring leakage of the cytosolic enzyme, lactate dehydrogenase, into the medium, by making morphological observations and by assessing lysosomal neutral red uptake and mitochondrial 3-(4,5-dimethythiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide (MTT) reduction. The cells were treated for 1 h with the surfactants and the possibility of delayed toxicity was evaluated 24 h after removal of the surfactant. The cytotoxicity of the different types of surfactants as shown by all the tests was cationic > anionic = amphoteric > non-ionic. Triton X-100, a non-ionic surfactant but a severe irritant, had a ranking similar to anionic surfactants. The in vitro rankings corresponded well to reported in vivo Draize rabbit eye test data. The 24-h test for lactate dehydrogenase leakage showed that mild and non-irritating surfactants did not demonstrate any subsequent damage after a 1-h exposure, but the extreme and severe surfactants continued to show further damage after the 1-h exposure. These in vitro findings were similar to reported in vivo results. The neutral red and MTT tests did not adequately predict the prolonged toxicity of the more irritating surfactants, as was demonstrated by the lactate dehydrogenase leakage test. We conclude that in vitro cytotoxicity assays using primary cultures of rabbit corneal epithelial cells may be used to rank the cytotoxic potential of surfactants, but only the lactate dehydrogenase leakage test was able to assess prolonged cell injury.

Animal Testing Alternatives