AJMB

Teratogen Screening: State of the Art

PDF - Export to EndNote - PubMed Central XML format - PubMed Central XML format - PubMed Central XML format
PMID: 23408063 (PubMed) - PMCID: PMC3558154 - View online: PubReader
Volume 2, Issue 3, July-September , Page 115 to 121
Thursday, June 17, 2010 :Received , Monday, August 9, 2010 :Accepted

  • Corresponding author Julia Schumann, Ph.D., Institute of Physiological Chemistry, aculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany, Tel: +49-341-9738107 Fax: +49-341-9738119 E-mail: julia.schumann@vmf.uni-leipzig.de
    - Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Institute of Physiological Chemistry, University of Leipzig , Leipzig, Germany

Abstract: Due to the number of new substances coming into use every year and the increasing amounts of chemicals, which are introduced into the environment, there is a high demand for a rapid, reliable and cost-effective method for detection of developmental toxicity. To meet this challenge various in vitro techniques have been established additional to in vivo animal testing. This review introduces the techniques in existence at the moment. Requirements on an ideal in vitro teratogenicity test system are stated, and the advantages and disadvantages of the present methods are discussed.

 

 

Introduction :
The need for efficient methods to screen new chemicals, drugs and environmental pollutants for their toxicity is obvious. However, from of the thousands of chemicals in commercial use, only a small fraction has been tested for their teratogenic activity so far (1). Moreover, the underlying mechanisms behind the developmental toxicity of compounds known to have a teratogenic potential has solely partially elucidated if any (1).
In context of pharmaceutically relevant substances the evaluation of the embryo toxic potential is of special importance. Very early in the course of the development of drugs a newly synthesized compound has to be tested for its acute and chronic as well as for its developmental toxicity. This preclinical evaluation of the long-term safety of a drug implies high throughput screenings of


possible cytotoxic, mutagenic, embryo toxic and teratogenic effects.
Due to the number of new substances coming into use every year and the increasing amounts of chemicals, which are introduced into the environment, there is a high demand for a rapid, reliable and cost-effective method for detection of developmental toxicity. This review introduces the techniques in existence at the moment. In this, in vitro systems are brought into the focus of attention. Requirements on an ideal in vitro teratogenicity test system are stated, and the advantages and disadvantages of the present methods are discussed.

Animal Test Systems
The preclinical evaluation of drugs traditionally involves large numbers of animals to predict possible drug side-effects.
Various animal-based test systems established for screening a potential teratogenic activity are conducted on pregnant laboratory animals, usually mammals such as mice, rats, rabbits and nonhuman primates. This way, the test compound is administered daily during the period of organogenesis of the fetus. Near-term the fetus is examined for skeletal, visceral and external anomalies (2,3).
Although this screening procedure has been of value especially until the eighties in the last century, however there are certain drawbacks to consider. Generally, the in vivo assays are very time consuming, laborious and expensive, thus contravening with the current need for rapid testing of potential drugs (2,3). Moreover, due to differences in maternal metabolism, transport and maternal-fetal membrane relationships animal studies often indicate substantial differences of toxicity between species. A compound that is demonstrably teratogenic in animals may not be so in man or vice versa (2,3).
To complicate the situation numerous additional factors as the nutritional state of the dam, the variability in the developmental age of embryos from litter to litter or within the same litter as well as placental functions must to be taken into account at interpretation of data (2,3). It can be stated, that pregnant animal testing alone is not qualified to predict the teratogenic potential of new compounds. Furthermore, there is an increased political and public demand to reduce the use of laboratory animals due to objections to experiments on living animals.

In vitro Techniques
Many of the variables of in vivo test systems e.g. species differences can be eliminated or at least controlled by in vitro techniques. Besides, in vitro tests are simple and cost-efficient. However, unlike other toxicity testing systems, in vitro analysis for teratogenicity presents certain special circumstances since the target in this case is a rapidly growing embryo, whose tissues are simultaneously embarked on divergent differentiation pathways. Thus, the test system has to be designed in a way that the in vitro data can be interpreted in terms of a possible in vivo outcome.
Main characteristics of an ideal in vitro teratogenicity screening system (Table 1) include its relevance to mechanisms of teratogenesis as well as the involvement of developmental events in addition to desirable features common to other

 



Table 1. Main characteristics of an ideal in vitro teratogenicity screening system adapted from Wilson (1978) [4]
Table 1. Main characteristics of an ideal in vitro teratogenicity screening system adapted from Wilson (1978) [4]




Table 2. Various parameters which may indicate teratogenic activity of a compound in whole embryo culture test systems adapted from Kochar (1980) [2]
Table 2. Various parameters which may indicate teratogenic activity of a compound in whole embryo culture test systems adapted from Kochar (1980) [2]




Table 3. Advantages and disadvantages of whole embryo culture test systems adapted from Fantel (1982) [3]
Table 3. Advantages and disadvantages of whole embryo culture test systems adapted from Fantel (1982) [3]




References :
  1. Walmod PS, Gravemann U, Nau H, Berezin V, Bock E. Discriminative power of an assay for automated in vitro screening of teratogens. Toxicol In Vitro 2004;18(4): 511-525.
  2. Kochhar DM. In vitro testing of teratogenic agents using mammalian embryos. Teratog Carcinog Mutagen 1981;1(1):63-74.
  3. Fantel AG. Culture of whole rodent embryos in teratogen screening. Teratog Carcinog Mutagen 1982;2(3-4):231-242.
  4. Wilson JG. Review of in vitro systems with potential for use in teratogenicity screening. J Environ Pathol Toxicol 1978;2(1):149-167.
  5. Pearson RM. In-vitro techniques: can they replace animal testing? Hum Reprod 1986;1(8):559-560.
  6. Bernardini G, Vismara C, Boracchi P, Camatini M. Lethality, teratogenicity and growth inhibition of heptanol in Xenopus assayed by a modified frog embryo teratogenesis assay-Xenopus (FETAX) procedure. Sci Total Environ 1994;151(1):1-8.
  7. Bantle JA, Finch RA, Burton DT, Fort DJ, Dawson DA, Linder G, et al. FETAX interlaboratory validation study: phase III-Part 1 testing. J Appl Toxicol 1996;16(6):517-528.
  8. Flint OP. In vitro tests for teratogens: desirable endpoints, test batteries and current status of the micromass teratogen test. Reprod Toxicol 1993;7(Suppl 1):103-111.
  9. Umansky R. The effect of cell population density on the developmental fate of reaggregating mouse limb bud mesenchyme. Dev Biol 1966;13(1):31-56.
  10. Paulsen DF, Solursh M. Microtiter micromass cultures of limb-bud mesenchymal cells. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol 1988;24(2):138-147.
  11. Flint OP, Orton TC, Ferguson RA. Differentiation of rat embryo cells in culture: response following acute maternal exposure to teratogens and non-teratogens. J Appl Toxicol 1984;4(2):109-116.
  12. Flint OP, Orton TC. An in vitro assay for teratogens with cultures of rat embryo midbrain and limb bud cells. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 1984;76(2):383-395.
  13. Wise LD, Clark RL, Rundell JO, Robertson RT. Examination of a rodent limb bud micromass assay as a prescreen for developmental toxicity. Teratology 1990;41(3):341-351.
  14. Renault JY, Melcion C, Cordier A. Limb bud cell culture for in vitro teratogen screening: validation of an improved assessment method using 51 compounds. Teratog Carcinog Mutagen 1989;9(2):83-96.
  15. Doetschman TC, Eistetter H, Katz M, Schmidt W, Kemler R. The in vitro development of blastocyst-derived embryonic stem cell lines: formation of visceral yolk sac, blood islands and myocardium. J Embryol Exp Morphol 1985;87:27-45.
  16. Rohwedel J, Guan K, Hegert C, Wobus AM. Embryonic stem cells as an in vitro model for mutagenicity, cytotoxicity and embryotoxicity studies: present state and future prospects. Toxicol In Vitro 2001;15(6):741-753.
  17. Tillner J, Winckler T, Dingermann T. Developmentally regulated promoters from Dictyostelium discoideum as molecular markers for testing potential teratogens. Pharmazie 1996; 51(11):902-906.
  18. Tillner J, Nau H, Winckler T, Dingermann T. Evaluation of the teratogenic potential of valproic acid analogues in transgenic Dictyostelium discoideum strains. Toxicol In Vitro 1998;12 (4):463-469.
  19. Dannat K, Tillner J, Winckler T, Weiss M, Eger K, Dingermann T. Effects of medicinal compounds on the differentiation of the eukaryotic microorganism dictyostelium discoideum: can this model be used as a screening test for reproductive toxicity in humans? Pharmazie 2003;58(3):204-210.
  20. Cotter DA, Sands TW, Virdy KJ, North MJ, Klein G, Satre M. Patterning of development in Dictyostelium discoideum: factors regulating growth, differentiation, spore dormancy, and germination. Biochem Cell Biol 1992;70(10-11): 892-919.
  21. Loomis WF. Lateral inhibition and pattern formation in Dictyostelium. Curr Top Dev Biol 1993;28:1-46.
  22. Schaap P, Tang YH, Othmer HG. A model for pattern formation in Dictyostelium discoideum. Differentiation 1996;60(1):1-16.
  23. Stigson M, Kultima K, Jergil M, Scholz B, Alm H, Gustafson AL, et al. Molecular targets and early response biomarkers for the prediction of developmental toxicity in vitro. Altern Lab Anim 2007;35(3):335-342.
  24. Jergil M, Kultima K, Gustafson AL, Dencker L, Stigson M. Valproic acid-induced deregulation in vitro of genes associated in vivo with neural tube defects. Toxicol Sci 2009;108:132-148.
  25. Robinson JF, Guerrette Z, Yu X, Hong S, Faustman EM. A systems-based approach to investigate dose- and time-dependent methylmercury-induced gene expression response in C57BL/6 mouse embryos undergoing neurulation. Birth Defects Res B Dev Reprod Toxicol 2010;89(3):188-200.
  26. Sha K, Winn LM. Characterization of valproic acid-initiated homologous recombination. Birth Defects Res B Dev Reprod Toxicol 2010;89(2):124-132.
  27. Fisher JC, Bodenstein L. Computer simulation analysis of normal and abnormal development of the mammalian diaphragm. Theor Biol Med Model 2006;3(1):9.
  28. Rajnikant, Dinesh, Chand B. Biological activity predictions, crystallographic comparison and hydrogen bonding analysis of cholane derivatives. Indian J Biochem Biophys 2007;44(6):458-469.