Abstract

In modern toxicology, substantial efforts are undertaken to develop alternative solutions for in vivo toxicity testing. The adverse outcome pathway (AOP) concept could facilitate knowledge-based safety assessment of chemicals that does not rely exclusively on in vivo toxicity testing. The construction of an AOP is based on understanding toxicological processes at different levels of biological organisation. Here, we present the developed AOP for liver fibrosis and demonstrate a linkage between hepatic injury caused by chemical protein alkylation and the formation of liver fibrosis, supported by coherent and consistent scientific data. This long-term process, in which inflammation, tissue destruction, and repair occur simultaneously, results from the complex interplay between various hepatic cell types, receptors, and signalling pathways. Due to the complexity of the process, an adequate liver fibrosis cell model for in vitro evaluation of a chemical’s fibrogenic potential is not yet available. Liver fibrosis poses an important human health issue that is also relevant for regulatory purposes. An AOP described with enough mechanistic detail might support chemical risk assessment by indicating early markers for downstream events and thus facilitating the development of an in vitro testing strategy. With this work, we demonstrate how the AOP framework can support the assembly and coherent display of distributed mechanistic information from the literature to support the use of alternative approaches for prediction of toxicity. This AOP was developed according to the guidance document on developing and assessing AOPs and its supplement, the users’ handbook, issued by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Highlights

  • Liver fibrosis typically results from repeated-dose toxic injury and is an important human health issue associated with chemical exposure, which disrupts the normal liver architecture, alters organ function and may further develop to cirrhosis and liver cancer with considerable mortality attributable to these end stages (Bataller and Brenner 2005; Carey and Carey 2010; Lee 2003; Lim and Kim 2008; Mehta et al 2014; Ramachandran and Kakar 2009)

  • adverse outcome pathway (AOP) methodology provides a framework for collecting, organising, and evaluating relevant mechanistic information on the toxic effects of chemicals, and it is still evolving with increasing experience from the growing community of AOP developers

  • The described available mechanistic toxicological information serves as a knowledge-based repository for the identification of key events (KEs) along the pathway and might be helpful for the identification of novel biomarkers

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Liver fibrosis typically results from repeated-dose toxic injury and is an important human health issue associated with chemical exposure, which disrupts the normal liver architecture, alters organ function and may further develop to cirrhosis and liver cancer with considerable mortality attributable to these end stages (Bataller and Brenner 2005; Carey and Carey 2010; Lee 2003; Lim and Kim 2008; Mehta et al 2014; Ramachandran and Kakar 2009). KCs constitute 80–90 % of the tissue macrophages in the liver reticulo-endothelial system and account for approximately 15 % of the total liver cell population (Bouwens et al 1986; Kolios et al 2006) When activated, they are involved in pathogenesis of chemical-induced liver injury through the release of inflammatory mediators including cytokines, chemokines, lysosomal, and proteolytic enzymes and are a main source of TGF-β1 (Luckey and Petersen 2001; Winwood and Arthur 1993). Oxidative stress is reflected in an imbalance between the rate of oxidant production and its degradation It plays a crucial role in liver fibrogenesis by inducing hepatocyte injury and death, by activating KCs and HSCs and by modulating both the expression and the activity of profibrogenic cytokines (Kirkham 2007; Poli 2000; Singh and Czaja 2007) This concept is still controversial and discussions are on-going (Blachier et al 2013; Iwaisako et al 2012; Kisseleva and Brenner 2011; Liedtke et al 2013; Scholten and Weiskirchen 2011; Wells 2010; Zeisberg et al 2007)

Discussion
Findings
Conclusion
Compliance with ethical standards
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call