Caenorhabditis elegans As a Promising Alternative Model for Environmental Chemical Mixture Effect Assessment - A Comparative Study

60Citations
Citations of this article
80Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

A key challenge of mixture toxicity testing is that a multitude of substances with even more combinations need to be tested in a broad dose range. Consequently testing in rodent bioassays, the current gold standard of toxicity testing, is hardly feasible. High-throughput compatible cell culture systems, however, suffer from limitations with respect to toxicokinetics, tissue interactions, and compensatory mechanisms. Therefore, simple organisms like the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, combining relevant advantages of complex in vivo and fast in vitro assays might prove highly valuable within a testing strategy for mixtures. To investigate the comparability between results obtained with C. elegans and traditional rodent assays, we used five azole fungicides as well investigated model substances. Our findings suggest that azoles act additively in C. elegans which is in line with previous results in rats. Additionally, we show that toxicokinetics are one important factor for the differences in the relative toxicity of the azoles in both species. Importantly, we also demonstrate that in contrast to most rodent in vivo studies, C. elegans assays provide well-defined concentration-response relationships which are a very good basis for the prediction of mixture effects. We conclude that C. elegans may be an appropriate model for mixture toxicity testing at least within a first step to identify and prioritize relevant mixtures for further testing.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Wittkowski, P., Marx-Stoelting, P., Violet, N., Fetz, V., Schwarz, F., Oelgeschläger, M., … Vogl, S. (2019). Caenorhabditis elegans As a Promising Alternative Model for Environmental Chemical Mixture Effect Assessment - A Comparative Study. Environmental Science and Technology, 53(21), 12725–12733. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b03266

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free