ArticleArchives of toxicology2025
Relevance of kinetic interactions and co-formulants for plant protection product liver toxicity in vitro.
Article in Archives of toxicology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Plant protection product (PPP) risk assessment predominantly focuses on the active substances, at least with respect to the regulatory data requirements. The reason is that for threshold values for the ready-to-use formulations one would need significantly more animal data. Given the high number of formulations, this is not a realistic option, be it for capacity, cost, or animal welfare. Thus, any extension of the data for evaluating formulations should ideally first make maximum use of other approaches. Using an adverse outcome pathway (AOP)-guided approach, we, therefore, investigated the potential mixture effects of two active substances (difenoconazole and mandipropamid) by focusing on the qualitative and quantitative toxicokinetic effects on metabolism. Since difenoconazole is a potential liver steatogen, cytotoxicity and liver triglyceride accumulation in HepaRG cells were used as primary endpoints. In addition, transcriptomics and biochemical analyses were conducted to investigate potential effects on gene expression and inhibition of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes. CA was observed for cytotoxicity of the formulated product-equivalent active substance mixture (1:1); the mixture with a higher concentration of the CYP3A4 inhibitor demonstrated a more than additive effect. Furthermore, modulation of the expression and activity of CYP and steatosis-related nuclear receptors, such as PXR, AhR, and CAR, was observed in the mixtures and the formulated product. Overall, the findings highlight that toxicokinetic interactions between active substances play a vital role in PPP mixture effects and that co-formulants also contribute to this effect. Moreover, this study demonstrates that more than additive effects from kinetic interaction require the enhancer to be within the concentration ranges that potentially saturate CYP enzyme activity. In conclusion, the current findings suggest that a comprehensive PPP risk assessment must consider additive effects between active substances as well as the contribution of co-formulants to adverse effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.