Human Neurospheres as Three-Dimensional Cellular Systems for Developmental Neurotoxicity Testing

Background Developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) of environmental chemicals is a serious threat to human health. Current DNT testing guidelines propose investigations in rodents, which require large numbers of animals. With regard to the “3 Rs” (reduction, replacement, and refinement) of animal testing and the European regulation of chemicals [Registration, Evaluation, and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH)], alternative testing strategies are needed in order to refine and reduce animal experiments and allow faster and less expensive screening. Objectives The goal of this study was to establish a three-dimensional test system for DNT screening based on human fetal brain cells. Methods We established assays suitable for detecting disturbances in basic processes of brain development by employing human neural progenitor cells (hNPCs), which grow as neurospheres. Furthermore, we assessed effects of mercury and oxidative stress on these cells. Results We found that human neurospheres imitate proliferation, differentiation, and migration in vitro. Exposure to the proapoptotic agent staurosporine further suggests that human neurospheres possess functioning apoptosis machinery. The developmental neurotoxicants methylmercury chloride and mercury chloride decreased migration distance and number of neuronal-like cells in differentiated hNPCs. Furthermore, hNPCs undergo caspase-independent apoptosis when exposed toward high amounts of oxidative stress. Conclusions Human neurospheres are likely to imitate basic processes of brain development, and these processes can be modulated by developmental neurotoxicants. Thus, this three-dimensional cell system is a promising approach for DNT testing.

[1]  Draft OECD Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals , 2006 .

[2]  Lia S. Campos,et al.  β1 integrins activate a MAPK signalling pathway in neural stem cells that contributes to their maintenance , 2004, Development.

[3]  P. Rodier,et al.  Developing brain as a target of toxicity. , 1995, Environmental health perspectives.

[4]  M. Hatten,et al.  New directions for neuronal migration , 1998, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[5]  Pamela Lein,et al.  Meeting Report: Alternatives for Developmental Neurotoxicity Testing , 2007, Environmental health perspectives.

[6]  L. Flanagan,et al.  Regulation of human neural precursor cells by laminin and integrins , 2006, Journal of neuroscience research.

[7]  T. Clarkson The pharmacology of mercury compounds. , 1972, Annual review of pharmacology.

[8]  C. Sanfeliu,et al.  Neurotoxicity of organomercurial compounds , 2009, Neurotoxicity Research.

[9]  Ellen Fritsche,et al.  Polychlorinated Biphenyls Disturb Differentiation of Normal Human Neural Progenitor Cells: Clue for Involvement of Thyroid Hormone Receptors , 2005, Environmental health perspectives.

[10]  T. Schettler,et al.  Toxic threats to neurologic development of children. , 2001, Environmental health perspectives.

[11]  M. Zurich,et al.  Comparison of the developmental effects of two mercury compounds on glial cells and neurons in aggregate cultures of rat telencephalon , 1996, Brain Research.

[12]  G. Buonocore,et al.  Free Radicals and Brain Damage in the Newborn , 2001, Neonatology.

[13]  T. Clarkson Mercury: major issues in environmental health. , 1993, Environmental health perspectives.

[14]  Doris Marko,et al.  Indirubin, the active constituent of a Chinese antileukaemia medicine, inhibits cyclin-dependent kinases , 1999, Nature Cell Biology.

[15]  I. Fischer,et al.  In vitro differentiation of human marrow stromal cells into early progenitors of neural cells by conditions that increase intracellular cyclic AMP. , 2001, Biochemical and biophysical research communications.

[16]  N. Saunders,et al.  Developmental neurotoxicity of industrial chemicals , 2007, The Lancet.

[17]  O. Hermanson,et al.  High susceptibility of neural stem cells to methylmercury toxicity: effects on cell survival and neuronal differentiation , 2006, Journal of neurochemistry.

[18]  F. Collins,et al.  Transforming Environmental Health Protection , 2008, Science.

[19]  N. Baumann,et al.  Biology of oligodendrocyte and myelin in the mammalian central nervous system. , 2001, Physiological reviews.

[20]  Qihong Zhou,et al.  Effect of oxidative preconditioning on neural progenitor cells , 2008, Brain Research.

[21]  A. Gritti,et al.  Inorganic mercury changes the fate of murine CNS stem cells , 2003, FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.

[22]  T. Clarkson The three modern faces of mercury. , 2002, Environmental health perspectives.

[23]  S. Ceccatelli,et al.  Apoptotic morphology does not always require caspase activity in rat cerebellar granule neurons , 2001, Neurotoxicity research.

[24]  B. H. Choi The effects of methylmercury on the developing brain , 1989, Progress in Neurobiology.

[25]  S. Ceccatelli,et al.  Neurotoxicity and molecular effects of methylmercury , 2001, Brain Research Bulletin.

[26]  M. Verity,et al.  Oxidative mechanisms underlying methyl mercury neurotoxicity , 1991, International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience.

[27]  Jinsong Liu,et al.  Intrinsic oxidative stress in cancer cells: a biochemical basis for therapeutic selectivity , 2004, Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology.

[28]  S. Fienberg,et al.  Bone lead levels in adjudicated delinquents. A case control study. , 2002, Neurotoxicology and teratology.

[29]  B. H. Choi,et al.  Methylmercury poisoning induces oxidative stress in the mouse brain. , 1994, Experimental and molecular pathology.

[30]  Brent A Reynolds,et al.  Neural stem cells and neurospheres—re-evaluating the relationship , 2005, Nature Methods.

[31]  U. Hass The need for developmental neurotoxicity studies in risk assessment for developmental toxicity. , 2006, Reproductive toxicology.

[32]  E. Faustman,et al.  Effect of methylmercury on midbrain cell proliferation during organogenesis: potential cross-species differences and implications for risk assessment. , 2003, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[33]  D. Rice,et al.  Critical periods of vulnerability for the developing nervous system: evidence from humans and animal models. , 2000, Environmental health perspectives.

[34]  L R Goldman,et al.  Chemicals in the environment and developmental toxicity to children: a public health and policy perspective. , 2000, Environmental health perspectives.

[35]  S. Kharb Toxicology , 1936 .

[36]  L. Klotz,et al.  Thalidomide resistance is based on the capacity of the glutathione-dependent antioxidant defense. , 2008, Molecular pharmaceutics.

[37]  Ellen Fritsche,et al.  ERK-dependent and -independent pathways trigger human neural progenitor cell migration. , 2007, Toxicology and applied pharmacology.

[38]  M. Hatten,et al.  New Directions in Neuronal Migration , 2002, Science.

[39]  E. Slee,et al.  Cleavage of BID during cytotoxic drug and UV radiation-induced apoptosis occurs downstream of the point of Bcl-2 action and is catalysed by caspase-3: a potential feedback loop for amplification of apoptosis-associated mitochondrial cytochrome c release , 2000, Cell Death and Differentiation.

[40]  L. Oberley,et al.  Increased levels of superoxide and H2O2 mediate the differential susceptibility of cancer cells versus normal cells to glucose deprivation. , 2009, The Biochemical journal.

[41]  Alan M Goldberg,et al.  In vitro and other alternative approaches to developmental neurotoxicity testing (DNT). , 2005, Environmental toxicology and pharmacology.

[42]  Thomas Hartung,et al.  Workgroup Report: Incorporating In Vitro Alternative Methods for Developmental Neurotoxicity into International Hazard and Risk Assessment Strategies , 2007, Environmental health perspectives.