Archives of Toxicology

, Volume 92, Issue 6, pp 2043–2054 | Cite as

Profiling the immunotoxicity of chemicals based on in vitro evaluation by a combination of the Multi-ImmunoTox assay and the IL-8 Luc assay

  • Yutaka Kimura
  • Chizu Fujimura
  • Yumiko Ito
  • Toshiya Takahashi
  • Hitoshi Terui
  • Setsuya Aiba
Immunotoxicology
  • 79 Downloads

Abstract

We established a luciferase reporter assay system, the Multi-ImmunoTox Assay (MITA), which can evaluate the effects of chemicals on the promoter activities of four cytokines: IL-2, IFN-γ, IL-1β, and IL-8. We previously reported that MITA correctly reflected the change in mRNA of human whole-blood cells treated with dexamethasone, cyclosporine, FK506, or several other immunosuppressive drugs. In this study, we combined MITA with the IL-8 Luc assay to detect skin sensitization chemicals (OECD 442E) (modified MITA: mMITA) and established a data set of 60 chemicals examined by mMITA. Using the mMITA results, chemicals can be classified based on the lowest observed effect level (LOEL) of chemicals in suppressing or augmenting the promoter activities of the four cytokines. Moreover, we demonstrated that K-means clustering and hierarchical clustering of the 60 chemicals based on the LOEL for their effects on IL-2 and IL-8 promoter activities and the judgment by the IL-8 Luc assay resulted in the same 6-cluster solution: cluster 1 with preferential suppression of IL-8, cluster 2 with suppression of IL-2 and a positive IL-8 Luc assay result, cluster 3 with suppression of both IL-2 and IL-8, cluster 4 with no effects on IL-2 or IL-8 and a negative IL-8 Luc assay result, cluster 5 with suppression of both IL-2 and IL-8 and a negative IL-8 Luc assay result, and cluster 6 with preferential suppression of IL-8. These data suggest that mMITA is a promising novel high-throughput approach for detecting unrecognized immunological effects of chemicals and for profiling their immunotoxic effects.

Keywords

Immunotoxicity Reporter assay Alternatives to animals 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the New Energy and Industrial Development Organization (NEDO), by a Grant-in-Aid for Challenging Exploratory Research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (KAKENHI Grant no. 26670473), by Health Labor Sciences Research in Japan, by the Ministry of Economy, Science and Industry in Japan, and by the Japanese Society for Alternatives to Animal Experiments. We are grateful to Mika Watanabe, Miwako Kobayashi, and Kohji Yamakage, PhD (Hatano Research Institute, Food and Drug Safety Center, Hadano, Japan), Rie Yasuno, PhD and Yoshihiro Ohmiya, MD, PhD (Biomedical Research Institute, Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, Tsukuba, Japan), Tomoko Iwaki and Yoshihiro Nakajima, PhD (Health Research Institute, Advanced Industrial Science and technology, Takamatsu, Japan), Mayumi Kobayashi and Takashi Omori, PhD (Division of Biostatistics, Department of Social/Community Medicine and Health Science, Kobe University School of Medicine, Japan), and Hajime Kojima (Japanese Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods, Tokyo, Japan) for their kind advise in developing MITA.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

204_2018_2199_MOESM1_ESM.docx (141 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 140 KB)

References

  1. World Health Organization (WHO)(2012) Guidance for immunotoxicity risk assessment for chemicals. WHO press, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  2. Carfi M, Gennari A, Malerba I et al (2007) In vitro tests to evaluate immunotoxicity: a preliminary study. Toxicology 229(1–2):11–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2006.09.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Furst DE, Clements PJ (2008) Immunosuppressives. In: Hochberg MC, Silman AJ, Smolen JS, Weinblatt ME, Weisman MH (eds) Rheumatology (Oxford), vol 1, 4th edn. Mosby Elsevier, Philadelphia, pp 471–480Google Scholar
  4. Galbiati V, Mitjans M, Corsini E (2010) Present and future of in vitro immunotoxicology in drug development. J Immunotoxicol 7(4): 255–267.  https://doi.org/10.3109/1547691X.2010.509848 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Gennari A, Ban M, Braun A et al (2005) The use of in vitro systems for evaluating immunotoxicity: the report and recommendations of an ECVAM workshop. J Immunotoxicol 2(2):61–83.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15476910590965832 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Hartung T (2002) Comparison and validation of novel pyrogen tests based on the human fever reaction. Altern Lab Anim ATLA 30(Suppl 2):49–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Kakeda M, Hiratsuka M, Nagata K et al (2005) Human artificial chromosome (HAC) vector provides long-term therapeutic transgene expression in normal human primary fibroblasts. Gene Ther 12(10):852–856.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.gt.3302483 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Kimura Y, Fujimura C, Ito Y et al (2014) Evaluation of the Multi-ImmunoTox Assay composed of 3 human cytokine reporter cells by examining immunological effects of drugs. Toxicol In Vitro 28(5):759–768.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tiv.2014.02.013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Kimura Y, Fujimura C, Ito Y et al (2015) Optimization of the IL-8 Luc assay as an in vitro test for skin sensitization. Toxicol In Vitro 29(7):1816–1830.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tiv.2015.07.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Langezaal I, Hoffmann S, Hartung T et al (2002) Evaluation and prevalidation of an immunotoxicity test based on human whole-blood cytokine release. Altern Lab Anim ATLA 30(6):581–595PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Lankveld DP, Van Loveren H, Baken KA et al (2010) In vitro testing for direct immunotoxicity: state of the art. Methods Mol Biol 598:401–423.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60761-401-2_26 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. OECD (2017) OECD Test Gudeline for the Testing of Chemicals No.442E: In vitro skin sensitisation assays addressing the key event on activation of dendritic cells on the adverse outcome pathway for skin sensitisation. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/oecd-guidelines-for-the-testing-of-chemicals-section-4-health-effects_20745788. Accessed 9 Oct 2017
  13. Saag K (2008) Systemic glucocorticoids in rheumatology. In: Hochberg MC, Silman AJ, Smolen JS, Weinblatt ME, Weisman MH (eds) Rheumtology. vol 1, 4th edn. Mosby Elsevier, Philadelphia, pp 411–419Google Scholar
  14. Saito R, Hirakawa S, Ohara H et al(2011) Nickel differentially regulates NFAT and NF-kappaB activation in T cell signaling. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 254(3):245–255.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.taap.2011.04.017 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Sarle W (1983) Cubic Clustering Criterion, SAS Technical Report A-108 Cary, NC: SAS Institute IncGoogle Scholar
  16. Takahashi T, Kimura Y, Saito R et al (2011) An in vitro test to screen skin sensitizers using a stable THP-1-derived IL-8 reporter cell line, THP-G8. Toxicol Sci 124(2):359–369.  https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfr237 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Wagner W, Walczak-Drzewiecka A et al (2006) Fluorescent cell chip a new in vitro approach for immunotoxicity screening. Toxicol Lett 162(1):55–70.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2005.10.017 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of DermatologyTohoku University HospitalSendaiJapan
  2. 2.Department of DermatologyTohoku University Graduate School of MedicineSendaiJapan

Personalised recommendations