Toxicity screenings of nanomaterials: challenges due to interference with assay processes and components of classic in vitro tests.

Given the multiplicity of nanoparticles (NPs), there is a requirement to develop screening strategies to evaluate their toxicity. Within the EU-funded FP7 NanoTEST project, a panel of medically relevant NPs has been used to develop alternative testing strategies of NPs used in medical diagnostics. As conventional toxicity tests cannot necessarily be directly applied to NPs in the same manner as for soluble chemicals and drugs, we determined the extent of interference of NPs with each assay process and components. In this study, we fully characterized the panel of NP suspensions used in this project (poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid)-polyethylene oxide [PLGA-PEO], TiO2, SiO2, and uncoated and oleic-acid coated Fe3O4) and showed that many NP characteristics (composition, size, coatings, and agglomeration) interfere with a range of in vitro cytotoxicity assays (WST-1, MTT, lactate dehydrogenase, neutral red, propidium iodide, (3)H-thymidine incorporation, and cell counting), pro-inflammatory response evaluation (ELISA for GM-CSF, IL-6, and IL-8), and oxidative stress detection (monoBromoBimane, dichlorofluorescein, and NO assays). Interferences were assay specific as well as NP specific. We propose how to integrate and avoid interference with testing systems as a first step of a screening strategy for biomedical NPs.

Ribavirin Concentrations Do Not Predict Sustained Virological Response in HIV/HCV-Coinfected Patients Treated with Ribavirin and Pegylated Interferon in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Ribavirin (RBV) is an essential component of most current hepatitis C (HCV) treatment regimens and still standard of care in the combination with pegylated interferon (pegIFN) to treat chronic HCV in resource limited settings. Study results in HIV/HCV-coinfected patients are contradicting as to whether RBV concentration correlates with sustained virological response (SVR). METHODS: We included 262 HCV treatment naïve HIV/HCV-coinfected Swiss HIV Cohort Study (SHCS) participants treated with RBV and pegIFN between 01.01.2001-01.01.2010, 134 with HCV genotype (GT) 1/4, and 128 with GT 2/3 infections. RBV levels were measured retrospectively in stored plasma samples obtained between HCV treatment week 4 and end of therapy. Uni- and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate the association between RBV concentration and SVR in GT 1/4 and GT 2/3 infections. The analyses were repeated stratified by treatment phase (week 4-12, 13-24, >24) and IL28B genotype (CC versus CT/TT). RESULTS: SVR rates were 35.1% in GT 1/4 and 70.3% in GT 2/3 infections. Overall, median RBV concentration was 2.0 mg/L in GT 1/4, and 1.9 mg/L in GT 2/3, and did not change significantly across treatment phases. Patients with SVR had similar RBV concentrations compared to patients without SVR in both HCV genotype groups. SVR was not associated with RBV levels ≥2.0 mg/L (GT 1/4, OR 1.19 [0.5-2.86]; GT 2/3, 1.94 [0.78-4.80]) and ≥2.5 mg/L (GT 1/4, 1.56 [0.64-3.84]; GT 2/3 2.72 [0.85-8.73]), regardless of treatment phase, and IL28B genotype. CONCLUSION: In HIV/HCV-coinfected patients treated with pegIFN/RBV, therapeutic drug monitoring of RBV concentrations does not enhance the chance of HCV cure, regardless of HCV genotype, treatment phase and IL28B genotype.

A Lead-In with Silibinin Prior to Triple-Therapy Translates into Favorable Treatment Outcomes in Difficult-To-Treat HIV/Hepatitis C Coinfected Patients.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of first-generation protease inhibitor based triple-therapy against hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is limited in HIV/HCV-coinfected patients with advanced liver fibrosis and non-response to previous peginterferon-ribavirin. These patients have a low chance of achieving a sustained virologic response (SVR) using first generation triple-therapy, with a success rate of only 20%. We investigated the efficacy and safety of lead-in therapy with intravenous silibinin followed by triple-therapy in this difficult-to-treat patient group. METHODOLOGY: Inclusion criteria were HIV/HCV coinfection with advanced liver fibrosis and documented previous treatment failure on peginterferon-ribavirin. The intervention was a lead-in therapy with intravenous silibinin 20 mg/kg/day for 14 days, followed by triple-therapy (peginterferon-ribavirin and telaprevir) for 12 weeks, and peginterferon-ribavirin alone for 36 weeks. Outcome measurements were HCV-RNA after silibinin lead-in and during triple-therapy, SVR data at week 12, and safety and tolerability of silibinin. RESULTS: We examined sixteen HIV/HCV-coinfected patients with previous peginterferon-ribavirin failure, of whom 14 had a fibrosis grade METAVIR ≥F3. All were on successful antiretroviral therapy. Median (IQR) HCV-RNA decline after silibinin therapy was 2.65 (2.1-2.8) log10 copies/mL. Fifteen of sixteen patients (94%) had undetectable HCV RNA at weeks 4 and 12, eleven patients (69%) showed end-of-treatment response (i.e., undetectable HCV-RNA at week 48), and ten patients (63%) reached SVR at week 12 (SVR 12). Six of the sixteen patients (37%) did not reach SVR 12: One patient had rapid virologic response (RVR) (i.e., undetectable HCV-RNA at week 4) but stopped treatment at week 8 due to major depression. Five patients had RVR, but experienced viral breakthroughs at week 21, 22, 25, or 32, or a relapse at week 52. The HIV RNA remained below the limit of detection in all patients during the complete treatment period. No serious adverse events and no significant drug-drug interactions were associated with silibinin. CONCLUSION: A lead-in with silibinin before triple-therapy was safe and highly effective in difficult-to-treat HIV/HCV coinfected patients, with a pronounced HCV-RNA decline during the lead-in phase, which translates into 63% SVR. An add-on of intravenous silibinin to standard of care HCV treatment is worth further exploration in selected difficult-to-treat patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01816490.

Comparison of differential gene expression to water stress among bacteria with relevant pollutant-degradation properties.

Resistance to semi-dry environments has been considered a crucial trait for superior growth and survival of strains used for bioaugmentation in contaminated soils. In order to compare water stress programmes, we analyse differential gene expression among three phylogenetically different strains capable of aromatic compound degradation: Arthrobacter chlorophenolicus A6, Sphingomonas wittichii RW1 and Pseudomonas veronii 1YdBTEX2. Standardized laboratory-induced water stress was imposed by shock exposure of liquid cultures to water potential decrease, induced either by addition of solutes (NaCl, solute stress) or by addition of polyethylene glycol (matric stress), both at absolute similar stress magnitudes and at those causing approximately similar decrease of growth rates. Genome-wide differential gene expression was recorded by micro-array hybridizations. Growth of P. veronii 1YdBTEX2 was the most sensitive to water potential decrease, followed by S. wittichii RW1 and A. chlorophenolicus A6. The number of genes differentially expressed under decreasing water potential was lowest for A. chlorophenolicus A6, increasing with increasing magnitude of the stress, followed by S. wittichii RW1 and P. veronii 1YdBTEX2. Gene inspection and gene ontology analysis under stress conditions causing similar growth rate reduction indicated that common reactions among the three strains included diminished expression of flagellar motility and increased expression of compatible solutes (which were strain-specific). Furthermore, a set of common genes with ill-defined function was found between all strains, including ABC transporters and aldehyde dehydrogenases, which may constitute a core conserved response to water stress. The data further suggest that stronger reduction of growth rate of P. veronii 1YdBTEX2 under water stress may be an indirect result of the response demanding heavy NADPH investment, rather than the presence or absence of a suitable stress defence mechanism per se.

Suitability of human and mammalian cells of different origin for the assessment of genotoxicity of metal and polymeric engineered nanoparticles.

Nanogenotoxicity is a crucial endpoint in safety testing of nanomaterials as it addresses potential mutagenicity, which has implications for risks of both genetic disease and carcinogenesis. Within the NanoTEST project, we investigated the genotoxic potential of well-characterised nanoparticles (NPs): titanium dioxide (TiO2) NPs of nominal size 20 nm, iron oxide (8 nm) both uncoated (U-Fe3O4) and oleic acid coated (OC-Fe3O4), rhodamine-labelled amorphous silica 25 (Fl-25 SiO2) and 50 nm (Fl-50 SiO) and polylactic glycolic acid polyethylene oxide polymeric NPs - as well as Endorem® as a negative control for detection of strand breaks and oxidised DNA lesions with the alkaline comet assay. Using primary cells and cell lines derived from blood (human lymphocytes and lymphoblastoid TK6 cells), vascular/central nervous system (human endothelial human cerebral endothelial cells), liver (rat hepatocytes and Kupffer cells), kidney (monkey Cos-1 and human HEK293 cells), lung (human bronchial 16HBE14o cells) and placenta (human BeWo b30), we were interested in which in vitro cell model is sufficient to detect positive (genotoxic) and negative (non-genotoxic) responses. All in vitro studies were harmonized, i.e. NPs from the same batch, and identical dispersion protocols (for TiO2 NPs, two dispersions were used), exposure time, concentration range, culture conditions and time-courses were used. The results from the statistical evaluation show that OC-Fe3O4 and TiO2 NPs are genotoxic in the experimental conditions used. When all NPs were included in the analysis, no differences were seen among cell lines - demonstrating the usefulness of the assay in all cells to identify genotoxic and non-genotoxic NPs. The TK6 cells, human lymphocytes, BeWo b30 and kidney cells seem to be the most reliable for detecting a dose-response.