Are in vitro tests suitable for regulatory use?

Toxicological Sciences

Volumn 111, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 233-237

  Hartung, Thomas ^a,d   Daston, George ^b,c  

^a Johns Hopkins University   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KONSTANZ   (Germany)

^c PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY   (United States)

^d EuroTox   (United States)

Author keywords

Advances in toxicology; Animal testing; Cell culture; Critical review; In vivo

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL WELFARE; ARTICLE; CELL FUNCTION; CELLULAR STRESS RESPONSE; EXPERIMENTAL ANIMAL; GENOTOXICITY; HEALTH HAZARD; HUMAN; IN VITRO STUDY; LAW; METHODOLOGY; MOLECULAR INTERACTION; NONHUMAN; REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY; RESEARCH ETHICS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION; SYNTHESIS; TOXICITY TESTING; TOXICOLOGY;

ANIMALS; MODELS, ANIMAL; TOXICITY TESTS;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 70349292567     PISSN: 10966080     EISSN: 10960929     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfp149     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Abbot, A. (2005). More than a cosmetic change. Nature 438, 144-146.
2. Ames, B. N., and Gold, L. S. (1990). Chemical carcinogenesis: Too many rodent carcinogens. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 87, 7772-7776.
3. Basketter, D. A., York, M., McFadden, J. P., and Robinson, M. K. (2004). Determination of skin irritation potential in the human 4-h patch test. Contact Dermatitis 51, 1-4.
4. Bottini, A. A., and Hartung, T. (2009). Food for thought...on economic mechanisms of animal testing. Altern. Anim. Exp. 26 3-16.
5. Bremer, S., Pellizzer, C., Hoffmann, S., Seidle, T., and Hartung, T. (2007). The development of new concepts for assessing reproductive toxicity applicable to large scale toxicological programs. Curr. Pharm. Des. 13, 3047-3058.
6. Bremer, S., Balduzzi, D., Cortvrindt, R., Daston, G., Eletti, B., Galli, A., Huhtaniemi, I., Laws, S., Lazzari, G., Liminga, U., et al. (2005). The effects of chemicals on mammalian fertility. The report and recommendations of ECVAM Workshop 53 - The first strategic workshop of the EU ReProTect Project. Altern. Lab. Anim. 33, 391-416.
7. Buehring, G. C., Eby, E. A., and Eby, M. J. (2004). Cell line cross-contamination: How aware are mammalian cell culturists of the problem and how to monitor it? In Vitro Cell Dev. Biol. Anim 40 211-215.
8. Coecke, S., Ahr, H., Blaauboer, B. J., Bremer, S., Casati, S., Castell, J., Combes, R., Corvi, R., Crespi, C. L., Cunningham, M. L., et al. (2006). Metabolism: A bottleneck in in vitro toxicological test development. Altern. Lab. Anim. 34, 49-84.
9. Coecke, S., Balls, M., Bowe, G., Davis, J., Gstraunthaler, G., Hartung, T., Hay, R., Merten, O.-W., Price, A., Schechtman, L., Stacey, G., and Stokes, W. (2005). Guidance on good cell culture practice. Altern. Lab. Anim. 33, 261-287.
10. Ekwall, B., Clemedson, C., Crafoord, B., Ekwall, B., Hallander, S., Walum, E., and Bondesson, I. (1998). MEIC evaluation of acute systematic toxicity Part V. Rodent and human toxicity data for the 50 reference chemicals. Altern. Lab. Anim. 26, 571-616.
11. Ennever, F. K., and Lave, L. B. (2003). Implications of the lack of accuracy of the lifetime rodent bioassay for predicting from carcinogenicity. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 38, 52-57.
12. Ennever, F. K., Noonan, T. J., and Rosenkranz, H. S. (1987). The predictivity of animal bioassays and short-term genotoxicity tests for carcinogenicity and non-carcinogenicity to humans. Mutagenesis 2, 73-78.
13. Festing, M. F. (1993). Genetic variation in outbred rats and mice and its implications for toxicological screening. J. Exp. Anim. Sci. 35, 210-220.
14. Frank, S. A., and Nowak, M. A. (2004). Problems of somatic mutation and cancer. Bioessays 26, 291-299.
15. Fung, V. A., Barrett, J. C., and Huff, J. (1995). The carcinogenesis bioassay in perspective: Application in identifying human cancer hazards. Environ. Health Perspect. 103, 680-683.
16. Gaylor, D. W. (2005). Are tumor incidence rates from chronic bioassays telling us what we need to know about carcinogens? Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 41, 128-133.
17. Gold, L. S., Slone, T. H., and Ames, B. N. (1998). What do animal cancer tests tell us about human cancer risk?: Overview of analyses of the carcinogenic potency database. Drug Metab. Rev. 30, 359-404.
18. Gottmann, E., Kramer, S., Pfahringer, B., and Helma, C. (2001). Data quality in predictive toxicology: Reproducibility of rodent carcinogenicity experiments. Environ. Health Perspect. 109, 509-514.
19. Hartung, T. (2009a). Toxicology for the twenty-first century. Nature 460, 208-212.
20. Hartung, T. (2009b). A toxicology for the 21st century-Mapping the road ahead. Toxicol. Sci., 109, 18-23.
21. Hartung, T. (2008a). Towards a new toxicology - Evolution or revolution? Altern. Lab. Anim. 36, 635-639.
22. Hartung, T. (2008b). Food for thought... on animal tests. Altern. Anim. Exp. 25, 3-9.
23. Hartung, T. (2008c). Food for thought... on alternative methods for cosmetics safety testing. Altern. Anim. Exp. 25, 147-162.
24. Hartung, T., and Leist, M. (2008). Food for thought... on the evolution of toxicology and phasing out of animal testing. Altern. Anim. Exp. 25, 91-96.
25. Hartung, T. (2007a). Food for thought... on cell culture. Altern. Anim. Exp. 24, 143-147.
26. Hartung, T. (2007b). Food for thought... on validation. Altern. Anim. Exp. 24, 67-72.
27. Hartung, T., Balls, M., Bardouille, C., Blanck, O., Coecke, S., Gstraunthaler, G., and Lewis, D. (2002). Report of ECVAM task force on good cell culture practice (GCCP). Altern. Lab. Anim. 30, 407-414.
28. Haseman, J. K., Huff, J. E., Zeiger, E., and McConnell, E. E. (1987). Comparative results of 327 chemical carcinogenicity studies. Environ. Health Perspect. 74, 229-235.
29. Hoffmann, S., Edler, L., Gardner, I., Gribaldo, L., Hartung, T., Klein, C., Liebsch, M., Sauerland, S., Schechtman, L., Stammati, A., and Nikolaidis, E. (2008b). Points of reference in validation - The report and recommendations of ECVAM Workshop. Altern. Lab. Anim. 36 343-352.
30. Hoffmann, S., Saliner, A. G., Patlewicz, G., Eskes, C., Zuang, V., and Worth, A. P. (2008a). A feasibility study developing an integrated testing strategy assessing skin irritation potential of chemicals. Toxicol. Lett. 180, 9-20.
31. Hoffmann, S., and Hartung, T. (2006). Towards an evidence-based toxicology. Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 25, 497-513.
32. Hoffmann, S., and Hartung, T. (2005). Diagnosis: Toxic! - Trying to apply approaches of clinical diagnostics and prevalence in toxicology considerations. Toxicol. Sci. 85, 422-428.
33. Huff, J. E. (1999). Long-term chemical carcinogenesis bioassays predict human cancer hazards. Issues, controversies, and uncertainties. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 895, 56-79.
34. Kacew, S., and Festing, M. F. (1996). Role of rat strain in the differential sensitivity to pharmaceutical agents and naturally occurring substances. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 47, 1-30.
35. Kirkland, D., Aardema, M., Henderson, L., and Müller, L. (2005). Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens. I. Sensitivity, specificity and relative predictivity. Mutat. Res. 584, 1-256.
36. Kuiper, H. A., Kleter, G. A., Noteborn, H. P. J. M., and Kok, E. J. (2001). Assessment of the food safety issues related to genetically modified foods. Plant J. 27, 503-528.
37. Lave, L. B., Ennever, F. K., Rosenkranz, H., and Omenn, G. S. (1988). Information value of the rodent bioassay. Nature 336, 631-633.
38. Leist, M., Hartung, T., and Nicotera, P. (2008). The dawning of a new age of toxicology. Altern. Anim. Exp. 25, 103-114.
39. Lin, J. H. (2007). Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic variability: A daunting challenge in drug therapy. Curr. Drug Metab. 8, 109-136.
40. Lovell, D. P. (1993). Impact of pharmacogenetics on toxicological studies. Statistical implications. J. Exp. Anim. Sci. 35, 259-281.
41. MacLeod, R. A. F., Dirks, W. G., Matsuo, Y., Kaufmann, M., Milch, H., and Drexler, H. G. (1999). Widespread intraspecies cross-contamination of human tumor cell lines arising at source. Int. J. Cancer 83 555-563.
42. Markovic, O., and Markovic, N. (1998). Cell cross-contamination in cell cultures: The silent and neglected danger. In Vitro Cell Dev. Biol. Anim. 34, 1-8.
43. Matthews, R. A. J. (2008). Medical progress depends on animal models - Doesn't it? J. R. Soc. Med. 101, 95-98.
44. Ponten, J. (2001). Cell biology of precancer. Eur. J. Cancer 37 (Suppl. 8), 97-113.
45. Purchase, I. F. H. (2004). Fraud, errors and gamesmanship in experimental toxicology. Toxicology 202, 1-20.
46. Rietjens, I. M. C. M., and A link, G. M. (2006). Future of toxicology low-dose toxicology and risk-benefit analysis. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 19, 977-981.
47. Service, R. F. (2008). Nanotechnology. Can high-speed tests sort out which nanomaterials are safe? Science 321, 1036-1037.
48. Shanks, N., Greek, R., and Greek, J. (2009). Are animal models predictive for humans? Philos. Ethics Humanities Med. 4, 2 Available from: http://www.peh-med.com/content/4/1/2
49. York, M., and Steiling, W. (1998). A critical review of the assessment of eye irritation potential using the Draize rabbit eye test. J. Appl. Toxicol. 18, 233-240.