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.
Keywords: cell lines; experimental models; immunosafety; immunotoxicity; in vitro models; in vivo models; nanomaterials; organoids; organs-on-chip; personalized testing.