IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2022i1p273-d1013756.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Immunotoxicity In Vitro Assays for Environmental Pollutants under Paradigm Shift in Toxicity Tests

Author

Listed:
  • Xinge Wang

    (Key Laboratory of Drinking Water Science and Technology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China
    State Key Laboratory of Environmental Aquatic Chemistry, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China
    National Engineering Research Center of Industrial Wastewater Detoxication and Resource Recovery, Beijing 100085, China
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

  • Na Li

    (Key Laboratory of Drinking Water Science and Technology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China
    State Key Laboratory of Environmental Aquatic Chemistry, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China
    National Engineering Research Center of Industrial Wastewater Detoxication and Resource Recovery, Beijing 100085, China)

  • Mei Ma

    (Key Laboratory of Drinking Water Science and Technology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China
    State Key Laboratory of Environmental Aquatic Chemistry, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China
    National Engineering Research Center of Industrial Wastewater Detoxication and Resource Recovery, Beijing 100085, China
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

  • Yingnan Han

    (Key Laboratory of Drinking Water Science and Technology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China
    State Key Laboratory of Environmental Aquatic Chemistry, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China
    National Engineering Research Center of Industrial Wastewater Detoxication and Resource Recovery, Beijing 100085, China)

  • Kaifeng Rao

    (Key Laboratory of Drinking Water Science and Technology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China
    State Key Laboratory of Environmental Aquatic Chemistry, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China
    National Engineering Research Center of Industrial Wastewater Detoxication and Resource Recovery, Beijing 100085, China)

Abstract

With the outbreak of COVID-19, increasingly more attention has been paid to the effects of environmental factors on the immune system of organisms, because environmental pollutants may act in synergy with viruses by affecting the immunity of organisms. The immune system is a developing defense system formed by all metazoans in the course of struggling with various internal and external factors, whose damage may lead to increased susceptibility to pathogens and diseases. Due to a greater vulnerability of the immune system, immunotoxicity has the potential to be the early event of other toxic effects, and should be incorporated into environmental risk assessment. However, compared with other toxicity endpoints, e.g., genotoxicity, endocrine toxicity, or developmental toxicity, there are many challenges for the immunotoxicity test of environmental pollutants; this is due to the lack of detailed mechanisms of action and reliable assay methods. In addition, with the strong appeal for animal-free experiments, there has been a significant shift in the toxicity test paradigm, from traditional animal experiments to high-throughput in vitro assays that rely on cell lines. Therefore, there is an urgent need to build high-though put immunotoxicity test methods to screen massive environmental pollutants. This paper reviews the common methods of immunotoxicity assays, including assays for direct immunotoxicity and skin sensitization. Direct immunotoxicity mainly refers to immunosuppression, for which the assays mostly use mixed immune cells or isolated single cells from animals with obvious problems, such as high cost, complex experimental operation, strong variability and so on. Meanwhile, there have been no stable and standard cell lines targeting immune functions developed for high-throughput tests. Compared with direct immunotoxicity, skin sensitizer screening has developed relatively mature in vitro assay methods based on an adverse outcome pathway (AOP), which points out the way forward for the paradigm shift in toxicity tests. According to the experience of skin sensitizer screening, this paper proposes that we also should seek appropriate nodes and establish more complete AOPs for immunosuppression and other immune-mediated diseases. Then, effective in vitro immunotoxicity assay methods can be developed targeting key events, simultaneously coordinating the studies of the chemical immunotoxicity mechanism, and further promoting the paradigm shift in the immunotoxicity test.

Suggested Citation

  • Xinge Wang & Na Li & Mei Ma & Yingnan Han & Kaifeng Rao, 2022. "Immunotoxicity In Vitro Assays for Environmental Pollutants under Paradigm Shift in Toxicity Tests," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-23, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2022:i:1:p:273-:d:1013756
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/1/273/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/1/273/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Douglas L. Weed, 2005. "Weight of Evidence: A Review of Concept and Methods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1545-1557, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Douglas L. Weed, 2006. "Vision, Values, and Verisimilitude: The Author's Response," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 577-577, June.
    2. Igor Linkov & Susan Cormier & Joshua Gold & F. Kyle Satterstrom & Todd Bridges, 2012. "Using Our Brains to Develop Better Policy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(3), pages 374-380, March.
    3. Igor Linkov & F. Kyle Satterstrom, 2006. "Weight of Evidence: What Is the State of the Science?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 573-575, June.
    4. Igor Linkov & Paul Welle & Drew Loney & Alex Tkachuk & Laure Canis & J. B. Kim & Todd Bridges, 2011. "Use of Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Support Weight of Evidence Evaluation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(8), pages 1211-1225, August.
    5. Kristin A. Duncan & Jonathan L. Wilson, 2008. "A Multinomial‐Dirichlet Model for Analysis of Competing Hypotheses," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1699-1709, December.
    6. René Ulloa-Espíndola & Susana Martín-Fernández, 2021. "Simulation and Analysis of Land Use Changes Applying Cellular Automata in the South of Quito and the Machachi Valley, Province of Pichincha, Ecuador," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-25, August.
    7. Lorenz Rhomberg, 2015. "Hypothesis‐Based Weight of Evidence: An Approach to Assessing Causation and its Application to Regulatory Toxicology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(6), pages 1114-1124, June.
    8. Kai Guo & Yiyun Chen & Min Chen & Chaojun Wang & Zeyi Chen & Weinan Cai & Renjie Li & Weiming Feng & Ming Jiang, 2021. "Causal Analysis of Ecological Impairment in Land Ecosystem on a Regional Scale: Applied to a Mining City Daye, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-21, May.
    9. Randall Lutter & Linda Abbott & Rick Becker & Chris Borgert & Ann Bradley & Gail Charnley & Susan Dudley & Alan Felsot & Nancy Golden & George Gray & Daland Juberg & Mary Mitchell & Nancy Rachman & Lo, 2015. "Improving Weight of Evidence Approaches to Chemical Evaluations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(2), pages 186-192, February.
    10. Peter Wiedemann & Holger Schütz & Albena Spangenberg & Harald F. Krug, 2011. "Evidence Maps: Communicating Risk Assessments in Societal Controversies: The Case of Engineered Nanoparticles," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1770-1783, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2022:i:1:p:273-:d:1013756. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.