Toxicity Species differences

There are many different examples of species differences in the toxicity of foreign compounds, some of which are commercially useful to man, as in the case of pesticides and antibiotic drugs where there is exploitation of selective toxicity. Species differences in toxicity are often related to differences in the metabolism and disposition of a compound, and an understanding of such differences is extremely important in the safety evaluation of compounds in relation to the extrapolation of toxicity from animals to man and hence risk assessment. 

Species Tested. In addition to the variation in susceptibiUty to chemically induced toxicity among members within a given population, there may be marked differences between species with respect to the relative potency of a given material to produce toxic injury. These species differences may reflect variations in physiological and biochemical systems, differences in distribution and metaboHsm, and differences in uptake and excretory capacity. 

Exposure studies have been made using mice and rats (257). These experiments have demonstrated species differences in butadiene toxicity and carcinogenicity. Butadiene was found to be a potent carcinogen in the mouse, but only a weak carcinogen in the rat. The interpretations have focused on differences in toxification rates and detoxification metaboHsms as causative factors (257). The metaboHsm is beHeved to proceed through intermediates involving butadiene monoepoxide and butadiene diepoxide (257). A similar mechanism has been proposed for its biodegradation pathway (258). 

Chambers JE, Carr RE. 1995. Biochemical mechanisms contributing to species differences in insecticidal toxicity. Toxicology 105 291-304. 

Thompson HM, Langton SD, Hart ADM. 1995. Prediction of inter-species differences in the toxicity of organophosphorus pesticides to wildlife—a biochemical approach. Comp Biochem Physiol 111C 1-12. 

In general, it is easier to use models such as these to predict the distribution of chemicals (i.e., relationship between exposure and tissue concentration) than it is to predict their toxic action. The relationship between tissue concentration and toxicity is not straightforward for a diverse group of compounds, and depends on their mode of action. Even with distribution models, however, the picture can be complicated by species differences in metabolism, as in the case of models for bioconcentration and bioaccumulation (see Chapter 4). Rapid metabolism can lead to lower tissue concentrations than would be predicted from a simple model based on values. Thus, such models need to be used with caution when dealing with different species. 

Selective toxicity (selectivity) Difference in toxicity of a chemical toward different species, strains, sexes, age groups, etc. 

Effects of Metaboiism on Toxicity. Metabolism plays an important role in the toxicity of trichloroethylene because many of its metabolites are themselves toxic. Many differences among species in their responses to trichloroethylene exposure may be attributed to differences in the rates at which they metabolize the parent compound (Dekant et al. 1986b Prout et al. 1985). 

Different metal species vary in their biological reactivity.98 99 For example, the free ionic form of a metal may act by substituting a cofactor for a vital enzyme. Hydroxylated metal ions have been suggested to bind to the cell surface and alter the net charge of the cell to reduce its viability.101 Because different species may have different effects on biological processes, some species may be more toxic than others. There is a paucity of information in the literature regarding the relative toxicity of different metal species. 

Developmental Toxicity. No information is available on developmental effects of acrylonitrile in humans by any route of exposure. Acrylonitrile is teratogenic and embryotoxic in rats both by the oral and inhalation routes of exposure. Developmental studies on other animal species have not been conducted. Because species differences for acute acrylonitrile toxicity and metabolism have been demonstrated, additional developmental studies in other species using various dose levels would be valuable in evaluating the potential for acrylonitrile to cause developmental effects in humans. Because the available oral study was conducted by gavage, additional studies are needed to determine if these effects will occur following ingestion of drinking water or food. 

Kleeman, J.M., J.R. Olson, and R.E. Peterson. 1988. Species differences in 2.3.7.8-tctrachIorodibenz.o-p-d 10xin toxicity and biotransformation in fish. Fundament. Appl. Toxicol. 10 206-213. 

Major structural or physiological differences in the alimentary tract (e.g., species differences or surgical effects) can give rise to modifications of toxicity. For example, ruminant animals may metabolize toxicants in the GI tract in a way that is unlikely to occur in nonruminants. 

Species Differences. Species differences in metabolism are amongst the principal reasons that there are species differences in toxicity. Differences in cytochrome P450 is one of the most common reasons for differences in metabolism. For example, Monostory et al. (1997) recently published a paper comparing the metabolism of panomifene (a tamoxifen analog) in four different species. These data serve to address that the rates of metabolism in the non-human species was most rapid in the dog and slowest in the mouse. Thus, one should not a priori make any assumptions about which species will have the more rapid metabolism. Of the seven metabolites, only one was produced in all four species. Both the rat and the dog produced the two metabolites (M5 and M6) produced by human microsomes. So how does one decide which species best represents humans One needs to consider the chemical structure of the metabolites and the rates at which they are produced. In this particular case, M5 and M6 were relatively minor metabolites in the dog, which produced three other metabolites in larger proportion. The rat produced the same metabolites at a higher proportion, with fewer other metabolites than the dog. Thus, in this particular instance, the rat, rather than the dog, was a better model. Table 18.8 offers a comparison of excretion patterns between three species for a simple inorganic compound. 

The PBPK model development for a chemical is preceded by the definition of the problem, which in toxicology may often be related to the apparent complex nature of toxicity. Examples of such apparent complex toxic responses include nonlinearity in dose-response, sex and species differences in tissue response, differential response of tissues to chemical exposure, qualitatively and/or quantitatively difference responses for the same cumulative dose administered by different routes and scenarios, and so on. In these instances, PBPK modeling studies can be utilized to evaluate the pharmacokinetic basis of the apparent complex nature of toxicity induced by the chemical. One of the values of PBPK modeling, in fact, is that accurate description of target tissue dose often resolves behavior that appears complex at the administered dose level. 

For the derivation of the PNEC several approaches have been proposed. Generally these can be categorised into three distinct assessments a conservative, a distributional, and a mixture toxicity approach. In conservative approaches, usually the most (realistic) sensitive endpoint such as LC50 or the known no observed effect concentration (NOEC) is taken and divided by an uncertainty factor (10-100). The selected uncertainty factor value depends on the type of endpoint and the number of available data, and is applied to account for laboratory to field extrapolations, species differences in sensitivities, and similar uncertainties. In distributional approaches, a series of, or all available, literature data are taken and a selected cut-off value is applied to the distribution of these data. The cut-off value may be, e.g., the concentration value that will protect 95% of the species (tested). In general, again an uncertainty factor (usually of 10) is then applied to take into account species differences. In the mixture toxicity approach, a similar mode of action is assumed for the assessment of the combined (additive) effect of the mixture. All relevant mixture components are scaled relative to the most potent one. This results in relative potencies for each component. The total effect of the mixture is then evaluated by... 

Compound (X) and its salts are effective systemic insecticides for various species of red spider mites. Absorption by foliage seems to be rapid and different toxicities to different groups of insects and mites is claimed.1 The l.d. 50 for rats is 1-5 mg./kg. 

Toxicity of nanoparticles is a much more complicated issue as compared with organic fluorophores Nanoparticles may be nanotoxic, they may contain cytotoxic elements or compounds, or their surface ligands/coating may contain toxic species. Nanotoxicity refers to the ability of a substance to be intrinsically cytotoxic due to its size (and independent of its constituent materials). The most prominent example of nanotoxicity is asbestos. Even though there are no systematic studies on the nanotoxicity of different nanocrystals available the results from several cytotoxicity studies suggest that nanotoxicity is not dominating for nanoparticular reporters [85, 86]. 

Naphthalene and its homologs are less acutely toxic than benzene but are more prevalent for a longer period during oil spills. The toxicity of different crude oils and refined oils depends not only on the total concentration of hydrocarbons but also the hydrocarbon composition in the water-soluble fraction (WSF) of petroleum, water solubility, concentrations of individual components, and toxicity of the components. The water-soluble fractions prepared from different oils wiU vary in these parameters. Water-soluble fractions (WSFs) of refined oils (e.g.. No. 2 fuel oil and bunker C oil) are more toxic than water-soluble fraction of crude oil to several species of fish (killifish and salmon). Compounds with either more rings or methyl substitutions are more toxic than less substituted compounds, but tend to be less water soluble and thus less plentiful in the water-soluble fraction. 

---