A Systematic Review to Compare Chemical Hazard Predictions of the Zebrafish Embryotoxicity Test With Mammalian Prenatal Developmental Toxicity.

Originally developed to inform the acute toxicity of chemicals on fish, the zebrafish embryotoxicity test (ZET) has also been proposed for assessing the prenatal developmental toxicity of chemicals, potentially replacing mammalian studies. Although extensively evaluated in primary studies, a comprehensive review summarizing the available evidence for the ZET's capacity is lacking. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of how well the presence or absence of exposure-related findings in the ZET predicts prenatal development toxicity in studies with rats and rabbits. A two-tiered systematic review of the developmental toxicity literature was performed, a review of the ZET literature was followed by one of the mammalian literature. Data were extracted using DistillerSR, and study validity was assessed with an amended SYRCLE's risk-of-bias tool. Extracted data were analyzed for each species and substance, which provided the basis for comparing the 2 test methods. Although limited by the number of 24 included chemicals, our results suggest that the ZET has potential to identify chemicals that are mammalian prenatal developmental toxicants, with a tendency for overprediction. Furthermore, our analysis confirmed the need for further standardization of the ZET. In addition, we identified contextual and methodological challenges in the application of systematic review approaches to toxicological questions. One key to overcoming these challenges is a transition to more comprehensive and transparent planning, conduct and reporting of toxicological studies. The first step toward bringing about this change is to create broad awareness in the toxicological community of the need for and benefits of more evidence-based approaches.

Effect of sub-chronic exposure to cigarette smoke, electronic cigarette and waterpipe on human lung epithelial barrier function.

BACKGROUND: Taking into consideration a recent surge of a lung injury condition associated with electronic cigarette use, we devised an in vitro model of sub-chronic exposure of human bronchial epithelial cells (HBECs) in air-liquid interface, to determine deterioration of epithelial cell barrier from sub-chronic exposure to cigarette smoke (CS), e-cigarette aerosol (EC), and tobacco waterpipe exposures (TW). METHODS: Products analyzed include commercially available e-liquid, with 0% or 1.2% concentration of nicotine, tobacco blend (shisha), and reference-grade cigarette (3R4F). In one set of experiments, HBECs were exposed to EC (0 and 1.2%), CS or control air for 10 days using 1 cigarette/day. In the second set of experiments, exposure of pseudostratified primary epithelial tissue to TW or control air exposure was performed 1-h/day, every other day, until 3 exposures were performed. After 16-18 h of last exposure, we investigated barrier function/structural integrity of the epithelial monolayer with fluorescein isothiocyanate-dextran flux assay (FITC-Dextran), measurements of trans-electrical epithelial resistance (TEER), assessment of the percentage of moving cilia, cilia beat frequency (CBF), cell motion, and quantification of E-cadherin gene expression by reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). RESULTS: When compared to air control, CS increased fluorescence (FITC-Dextran assay) by 5.6 times, whereby CS and EC (1.2%) reduced TEER to 49 and 60% respectively. CS and EC (1.2%) exposure reduced CBF to 62 and 59%, and cilia moving to 47 and 52%, respectively, when compared to control air. CS and EC (1.2%) increased cell velocity compared to air control by 2.5 and 2.6 times, respectively. The expression of E-cadherin reduced to 39% of control air levels by CS exposure shows an insight into a plausible molecular mechanism. Altogether, EC (0%) and TW exposures resulted in more moderate decreases in epithelial integrity, while EC (1.2%) substantially decreased airway epithelial barrier function comparable with CS exposure. CONCLUSIONS: The results support a toxic effect of sub-chronic exposure to EC (1.2%) as evident by disruption of the bronchial epithelial cell barrier integrity, whereas further research is needed to address the molecular mechanism of this observation as well as TW and EC (0%) toxicity in chronic exposures.

Adaptation of the Systematic Review Framework to the Assessment of Toxicological Test Methods: Challenges and Lessons Learned With the Zebrafish Embryotoxicity Test.

Systematic review methodology is a means of addressing specific questions through structured, consistent, and transparent examinations of the relevant scientific evidence. This methodology has been used to advantage in clinical medicine, and is being adapted for use in other disciplines. Although some applications to toxicology have been explored, especially for hazard identification, the present preparatory study is, to our knowledge, the first attempt to adapt it to the assessment of toxicological test methods. As our test case, we chose the zebrafish embryotoxicity test (ZET) for developmental toxicity and its mammalian counterpart, the standard mammalian prenatal development toxicity study, focusing the review on how well the ZET predicts the presence or absence of chemical-induced prenatal developmental toxicity observed in mammalian studies. An interdisciplinary team prepared a systematic review protocol and adjusted it throughout this piloting phase, where needed. The final protocol was registered and will guide the main study (systematic review), which will execute the protocol to comprehensively answer the review question. The goal of this preparatory study was to translate systematic review methodology to the assessment of toxicological test method performance. Consequently, it focused on the methodological issues encountered, whereas the main study will report substantive findings. These relate to numerous systematic review steps, but primarily to searching and selecting the evidence. Applying the lessons learned to these challenges can improve not only our main study, but may also be helpful to others seeking to use systematic review methodology to compare toxicological test methods. We conclude with a series of recommendations that, if adopted, would help improve the quality of the published literature, and make conducting systematic reviews of toxicological studies faster and easier over time.