The state of in vitro science for use in bioaccumulation assessments for fish

Through the concerted evaluations of thousands of commercial substances for the qualities of persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity as a result of the United Nations Environment Program's Stockholm Convention, it has become apparent that fewer empirical data are available on bioaccumulation than other endpoints and that bioaccumulation models were not designed to accommodate all chemical classes. Due to the number of chemicals that may require further assessment, in vivo testing is cost prohibitive and discouraged due to the large number of animals needed. Although in vitro systems are less developed and characterized for fish, multiple high-throughput in vitro assays have been used to explore the dietary uptake and elimination of pharmaceuticals and other xenobiotics by mammals. While similar processes determine bioaccumulation in mammalian species, a review of methods to measure chemical bioavailability in fish screening systems, such as chemical biotransformation or metabolism in tissue slices, perfused tissues, fish embryos, primary and immortalized cell lines, and subcellular fractions, suggest quantitative and qualitative differences between fish and mammals exist. Using in vitro data in assessments for whole organisms or populations requires certain considerations and assumptions to scale data from a test tube to a fish, and across fish species. Also, different models may incorporate the predominant site of metabolism, such as the liver, and significant presystemic metabolism by the gill or gastrointestinal system to help accurately convert in vitro data into representative whole-animal metabolism and subsequent bioaccumulation potential. The development of animal alternative tests for fish bioaccumulation assessment is framed in the context of in vitro data requirements for regulatory assessments in Europe and Canada.

Molecular and serological diagnosis of Bartonella infection in 61 dogs from the United States

Molecular diagnosis of canine bartonellosis can be extremely challenging and often requires the use of an enrichment culture approach followed by PCR amplification of bacterial DNA. HYPOTHESES: (1) The use of enrichment culture with PCR will increase molecular detection of bacteremia and will expand the diversity of Bartonella species detected. (2) Serological testing for Bartonella henselae and Bartonella vinsonii subsp. berkhoffii does not correlate with documentation of bacteremia. ANIMALS: Between 2003 and 2009, 924 samples from 663 dogs were submitted to the North Carolina State University, College of Veterinary Medicine, Vector Borne Diseases Diagnostic Laboratory for diagnostic testing with the Bartonella α-Proteobacteria growth medium (BAPGM) platform. Test results and medical records of those dogs were retrospectively reviewed. METHODS: PCR amplification of Bartonella sp. DNA after extraction from patient samples was compared with PCR after BAPGM enrichment culture. Indirect immunofluorescent antibody assays, used to detect B. henselae and B. vinsonii subsp. berkhoffii antibodies, were compared with PCR. RESULTS: Sixty-one of 663 dogs were culture positive or had Bartonella DNA detected by PCR, including B. henselae (30/61), B. vinsonii subsp. berkhoffii (17/61), Bartonella koehlerae (7/61), Bartonella volans-like (2/61), and Bartonella bovis (2/61). Coinfection with more than 1 Bartonella sp. was documented in 9/61 dogs. BAPGM culture was required for PCR detection in 32/61 cases. Only 7/19 and 4/10 infected dogs tested by IFA were B. henselae and B. vinsonii subsp. berkhoffii seroreactive, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Dogs were most often infected with B. henselae or B. vinsonii subsp. berkhoffii based on PCR and enrichment culture, coinfection was documented, and various Bartonella species were identified. Most infected dogs did not have detectable Bartonella antibodies.