In Vitro and In Vivo Models to Assess the Immune-Related Effects of Nanomaterials

Abstract

The immunological safety of drugs, nanomaterials and contaminants is a central point in the regulatory evaluation and safety monitoring of working and public places and of the environment. In fact, anomalies in immune responses may cause diseases and hamper the physical and functional integrity of living organisms, from plants to human beings. In the case of nanomaterials, many experimental models are used for assessing their immunosafety, some of which have been adopted by regulatory bodies. All of them, however, suffer from shortcomings and approximations, and may be inaccurate in representing real-life responses, thereby leading to incomplete, incorrect or even misleading predictions. Here, we review the advantages and disadvantages of current nanoimmunosafety models, comparing in vivo vs. in vitro models and examining the use of animal vs. human cells, primary vs. transformed cells, complex multicellular and 3D models, organoids and organs-on-chip, in view of implementing a reliable and personalized nanoimmunosafety testing. The general conclusion is that the choice of testing models is key for obtaining reliable predictive information, and therefore special attention should be devoted to selecting the most relevant and realistic suite of models in order to generate relevant information that can allow for safer-by-design nanotechnological developments.

Hematological and serum biochemical parameters and profiling of cytokine genes in lumpy skin disease in Vrindavani cattle

“…The natural outbreak of LSD in animals and assessment of immune response provides better opportunity to gain deeper insights into the genetic basis of disease resilience in natural hosts (bovines for LSD) under near-uniform environmental conditions. Assessment of different aspects of an immune response against pathogenic agent using unnatural hosts and in vitro models is reported to be different from results under in vivo models using natural hosts (Urbina et al 2003;Boraschi et al 2021). The imperfect correlation between studies involving in vivo and in vitro models is due to host-pathogen interactions and the microenvironment within the host, which are missing under in vitro models (Rojas-Caraballo et al 2014).…”

Health Benefits of Antioxidant Bioactive Compounds in the Fruits and Leaves of Lonicera caerulea L. and Aronia melanocarpa (Michx.) Elliot

“…Because various interactions may occur over time among the carrier, active substance, and biological environment, such studies are a mandatory requirement. At the cellular level, the impact of the nanomaterials used as carriers, being inorganic or biopolymer nanoparticles, can promote undesirable reactions that change the delicate balance between anti-inflammatory and inflammatory mechanisms [ 199 ]. Thus, in order to be officially approved as medicinal products, controlled release systems must be subjected to in vitro and in vivo tests on toxicology within the preclinical development phase.…”

Melissa officinalis: Composition, Pharmacological Effects and Derived Release Systems—A Review

“…In order to evaluate the toxicity and safety of a system, long-term toxicity studies are required, as various interactions may occur between the active substance, the material, and the biological environment, in time. At the cellular level, various reactions may occur as a result of the encounter with the nanomaterial, such that various changes in the balance between inflammatory and anti-inflammatory mechanisms can be identified [ 149 ]. Toxicological analyzes are critical, and play a key role in the development of new systems [ 150 ].…”