ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Toxicol.
Sec. In Vitro Toxicology
Readiness of the in vitro Alveolar Macrophage Assay (AMA): An Interlaboratory Comparison Using 12 Blinded Particles
- ET
Emanoela Tha 1
- AV
Antje Vennemann
- VM
Vanessa Marani 2
- OG
Oliver Gräb
- AV
Andreas Verlohner 1
- LM
Lan Ma-Hock 1
- IM
Inka Marie Spyridonov 1
- PW
Pamina Weber 2
- AC
Aline Chary 2
- TS
Tommaso Serchi 2
- RL
Robert LANDSIEDEL 1
- MW
Martin Wiemann
1. BASF SE, Ludwigshafen, Germany
2. Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Abstract
Inhaled particles can induce persistent pulmonary inflammation when macrophage-mediated clearance mechanisms are overwhelmed. Distinguishing particles that trigger biological activity through intrinsic toxicity from those acting primarily via particle overload represents a central challenge in inhalation toxicology and regulatory safety assessment. Mechanistically anchored new approach methodologies (NAMs) that capture key macrophage responses may therefore provide valuable tools for particle hazard identification while reducing reliance on animal testing. The alveolar macrophage assay (AMA) was developed as an in vitro method to assess particle-induced macrophage activation using four biological endpoints reflecting oxidative stress, lysosomal activation, cytotoxicity, and inflammatory signaling. Previous work demonstrated predictivity of the AMA for short-term inhalation outcomes of nanomaterials. However, broader application of the method requires evidence that the assay can be reliably transferred across laboratories and produce reproducible results with a wide variety of particles. In the present study, an interlaboratory ring-study was conducted to evaluate the transferability and reproducibility of the AMA. Twelve blinded particles were tested in three independent laboratories using standardized protocols and predefined acceptance criteria. Across laboratories, comparable dose-response patterns were observed for most endpoints, and seven of the twelve particles were consistently classified as either biologically active or passive according to the established data interpretation procedure (DIP). Sources of variability were identified, including differences in assay sensitivity, and limitations related to dose metrics and partially soluble particles. A main source of variability was the fetal bovine serum (FBS), highlighting the urgent need for transition to animal-component-free and chemically defined culture media to improve reproducibility of in vitro methods. Taken together, the results demonstrate that the AMA can be successfully transferred across laboratories and generate reproducible biological responses when strict standardization and quality criteria are applied, which underlines the importance of good in vitro method practice (GIVIMP). These findings represent an important step toward the validation of the AMA and support its use as a NAM for mechanism-based hazard assessment and grouping of particles in inhalation toxicology.
Summary
Keywords
alveolar macrophages, In vitro method, inhalation toxicity, NAMs, reproducibility, Respirable particles
Received
31 March 2026
Accepted
14 July 2026
Copyright
© 2026 Tha, Vennemann, Marani, Gräb, Verlohner, Ma-Hock, Spyridonov, Weber, Chary, Serchi, LANDSIEDEL and Wiemann. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Martin Wiemann
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.