Engineering tissue alternatives to animals: Applying tissue engineering to basic research and safety testing

Regenerative Medicine

Volumn 4, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 579-592

  Holmes, Anthony ^a   Brown, Robert ^b   Shakesheff, Kevin ^c  

^a National Centre for the Replacement   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

3Rs; Alternative; Animal model; In vitro; NC3Rs; Regenerative medicine; Replacement; Safety testing; Stem cells; Tissue engineering

Indexed keywords

ALLERGIC ASTHMA; BASIC RESEARCH; BIOREACTOR; BIOTECHNOLOGY; CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE LUNG DISEASE; DIABETES MELLITUS; DISEASE MODEL; ENDOCRINE CELL; HUMAN; IMMUNOTOXICITY; IN VITRO STUDY; INSULIN RELEASE; LYMPH NODE; NONHUMAN; PANCREAS ISLET BETA CELL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SAFETY; TISSUE ENGINEERING; ANIMAL TESTING ALTERNATIVE; ASTHMA; BIOLOGICAL THERAPY; IMMUNOLOGY; METHODOLOGY; RESEARCH;

ANIMAL TESTING ALTERNATIVES; ASTHMA; DIABETES MELLITUS; HUMANS; LYMPH NODES; RESEARCH; TISSUE ENGINEERING; TISSUE THERAPY;

EID: 70349764058     PISSN: 17460751     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2217/rme.09.26     Document Type: Review

References (107)

1. Langer R, Vacanti JP: Tissue engineering. Science 260, 920-926 (1993).
2. Kola I, Landis J: Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 3, 711-715 (2004).
3. Dickson M, Gagnon JP: Key factors in the rising cost of new drug discovery and development. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 3, 417-429 (2004).
4. Combes R, Balls M, Bansil L et al.: An assessment of progress in the use of alternatives in toxicity testing since the publication of the report of the second FRAME Toxicity Committee (1991). Altern. Lab. Anim. 30, 365-406 (2002).
5. Fentem J, Chamberlain M, Sangster B: The feasibility of replacing animal testing for assessing consumer safety: a suggested future direction. Altern. Lab. Anim. 32, 617-623 (2004).
6. EU: Directive 2003/15/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 27 February 2003 amending council directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to cosmetic products. Official J. EU L66, 26-35 (2003).
7. Liebsch M, Spielmann H: Currently available in vitro methods used in the regulatory toxicology. Toxicol. Lett. 127, 127-134 (2002).
8. Klausner M, Ayehunie S, Breyfogle BA, Wertz PW, Bacca L, Kubilus J: Organotypic human oral tissue models for toxicological studies. Toxicol. In Vitro 21, 938-949 (2007).
9. Kaluzhny Y, Thornton-d'Argembeau L, Kandarova H, Hayden P, Klausner M: Expanded utilization of the EpiOcular™ human corneal tissue model for ocular irritation testing. Toxicol. Lett. 180, S107 (2008).
10. Mehling A, Kleber M, Hensen H: Comparative studies on the ocular and dermal irritation potential of surfactants. Food Chem. Toxicol. 45, 747-758 (2007).
11. Valore EV, Wiley DJ, Ganz T: Reversible deficiency of antimicrobial polypeptides in bacterial vaginosis. Infect. Immun. 74, 5693-5702 (2006).
12. Masungi C, Borremans C, Willems B et al.: Usefulness of a novel Caco-2 cell perfusion system. I. In vitro prediction of the absorption potential of passively diffused compounds. Pharm. J. Sci. 93, 2507-2521 (2004).
13. Leonard AK, Sileno AP, Brandt GC, Foerder CA, Quay SC, Costantino HR: In vitro formulation optimization of intranasal galantamine leading to enhanced bioavailability and reduced emetic response in vivo. Int. Pharm. J. 335, 138-146 (2007).
14. Berube K, Aufderheide M, Breheny D et al.: In vitro models of inhalation toxicity and disease. The report of a FRAME workshop. Altern. Lab. Anim. 37, 89-141 (2009).
15. McLaughlin CR, Osborne R, Hyatt A et al.: Tissue engineered models for in vitro studies. In: Fundamentals of Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine. Meyer U et al. (Eds). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Germany (2009).
16. Chirino AJ, Ary ML, Marshall SA: Minimizing the immunogenicity of protein therapeutics. Drug Discov. Today 9, 82-90 (2004).
17. Maxwell G, Aleksic M, Aptula A et al.: Assuring consumer safety without animal testing: a feasibility case study for skin sensitisation. Altern. Lab. Anim. 36, 557-568 (2008).
18. Kimber I, Basketter DA, Gerberick GF, Dearman RJ: Allergic contact dermatitis. Int. Immunopharmacol. 2, 201-211 (2002).
19. White JM, White IR, Kimber I, Basketter DA, Buckley DA, McFadden JP: Atopic dermatitis and allergic reactions to individual fragrance chemicals. Allergy 64, 312-316 (2009).
20. Stills HF Jr: Adjuvants and antibody production: dispelling the myths associated with Freund's complete and other adjuvants. ILAR J. 46, 280-293 (2005).
21. Kimber I, Basketter DA, Berthold K et al.: Skin sensitization testing in potency and risk assessment. Toxicol. Sci. 59, 198-208 (2001).
22. Steiling W, Basketter D, Berthold K et al.: Skin sensitisation testing - new perspectives and recommendations. Food Chem. Toxicol. 39, 293-301 (2001).
23. Basketter DA, Evans P, Fielder RJ, Gerberick GF, Dearman RJ, Kimber I: Local lymph node assay - validation, conduct and use in practice. Food Chem. Toxicol. 40, 593-598 (2002).
24. Ryan CA, Chaney JG, Kern PS et al.: The reduced local lymph node assay: the impact of group size. Appl. J. Toxicol. 28, 518-523 (2008).
25. Kimber I, Dearman RJ, Betts CJ et al.: The local lymph node assay and skin sensitization: a cut-down screen to reduce animal requirements? Contact Derm. 54, 181-185 (2006).
26. Dean JH, Twerdok LE, Tice RR, Sailstad DM, Hattan DG, Stokes WS: ICCVAM evaluation of the murine local lymph node assay. Conclusions and recommendations of an independent scientific peer review panel. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 34, 258-273 (2001).
27. Dearman RJ, Basketter DA, Kimber I: Local lymph node assay: use in hazard and risk assessment. Appl. J. Toxicol. 19, 299-306 (1999).
28. Kimber I, Dearman RJ, Basketter DA, Ryan CA, Gerberick GF: The local lymph node assay: past, present and future. Contact Derm. 47, 315-328 (2002).
29. Basketter DA, Gerberick GF, Kimber I: The local lymph node assay: current position in the regulatory classification of skin sensitizing chemicals. Cutan. Ocul. Toxicol. 26, 293-301 (2007).
30. Carfi M, Gennari A, Malerba I et al.: In vitro tests to evaluate immunotoxicity: a preliminary study. Toxicology 229, 11-22 (2007).
31. Wagner W, Walczak-Drzewiecka A, Slusarczyk A, Biecek P, Rychlewski L, Dastych J: Fluorescent cell chip a new in vitro approach for immunotoxicity screening. Toxicol. Lett. 162, 55-70 (2006).
32. Szameit S, Vierlinger K, Farmer L, Tuschl H, Noehammer C: Microarray-based in vitro test system for the discrimination of contact allergens and irritants: identification of potential marker genes. Clin. Chem. 54, 525-533 (2008).
33. Maxwell G, Aleksic M, Aputla A et al.: Assuring consumer safety without animal testing: a feasibility case study for skin sensitisation. Altern. Lab. Anim. 36, 557-568 (2008).
34. Savulescu J, Spriggs M: The hexamethonium asthma study and the death of a normal volunteer in research. Med. J. Ethics 28, 3-4 (2002).
35. Hopkin, M: Can super-antibody drugs be tamed. Nature 440, 855-856 (2006).
36. Goodyear, M: Learning from the TGN1412 trial. BMJ 332, 677-678 (2006).
37. Anon.: Regulation no. 1907/2006 of the European parliament and the council of 18 December 2006 concerning the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH), establishing a European chemicals agency, amending directive 1999/45/EC and repealing council regulation (EEC) no. 793/93 and commission regulation (EC) no. 1488/94 as well as council directive 76/769/EEC and commission directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC and 2000/21/EC. Official Journal of the European Union L396, 1-849 (2006).
38. Giese C, Demmler CD, Ammer R et al.: A human lymph node in vitro - challenges and progress. Artif. Organs 30, 803-808 (2006).
39. Giese C, Marx U: Artificial human lymph node: a device for generation of human antibodies and testing for immune functions in vitro. In: Cell Technology for Cell Products: Proceedings of the 19th ESACT Meeting. Harrogate, UK, June 5-8, 2005. Smith R (Ed.). Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, The Netherlands (2007).
40. Lacy PE, Young DA, Fink CJ: Studies on insulin secretion in vitro from isolated islets of the rat pancreas. Endocrinology 83, 1155-1161 (1968).
41. Shibata A, Ludvigsen CW Jr, Naber SP, McDaniel ML, Lacy PE: Standardization of a digestion-filtration method for isolation of pancreatic islets. Diabetes 25, 667-672 (1976).
42. de la Tour D, Halvorsen T, Demeterco C et al.: β-cell differentiation from a human pancreatic cell line in vitro and in vivo. Mol. Endocrinol. 15, 476-483 (2001).
43. Narushima M, Kobayashi N, Okitsu T et al.: A human β-cell line for transplantation therapy to control Type 1 diabetes. Nat. Biotechnol. 23, 1274-1282 (2005).
44. Bosco D, Orci L, Meda P: Homologous but not heterologous contact increases the insulin secretion of individual pancreatic β-cells. Exp. Cell. Res. 184, 72-80 (1989).
45. Halban PA, Powers SL, George KL, Bonner-Weir S: Spontaneous reassociation of dispersed adult rat pancreatic islet cells into aggregates with three-dimensional architecture typical of native islets. Diabetes 36, 783-790 (1987).
46. Rogers GJ, Hodgkin MN, Squires PE: E-cadherin and cell adhesion: a role in architecture and function in the pancreatic islet. Cell. Physiol. Biochem. 20, 987-994 (2007).
47. Vozzi C, Ullrich S, Charollais A, Philippe J, Orci L, Meda P: Adequate connexin-mediated coupling is required for proper insulin production. Cell. J. Biol. 131, 1561-1572 (1995).
48. Luther MJ, Davies E, Muller D et al.: Cell-to-cell contact influences proliferative marker expression and apoptosis in MIN6 cells grown in islet-like structures. Am. Physiol. J. Endocrinol. Metab. 288, E502-E509 (2005).
49. 2+ and insulin secretory responses of MIN6 pseudoislets. Diabetes 48, 1402-1408 (1999).
50. Jones PM, Mann FM, Persaud SJ, Wheeler-Jones CP: Mastoparan stimulates insulin secretion from pancreatic β-cells by effects at a late stage in the secretory pathway. Mol. Cell. Endocrinol. 94, 97-103 (1993).
51. Kurucz I, Szelenyi I: Current animal models of bronchial asthma. Curr. Pharm. Des. 12, 3175-3194 (2006).
52. Barnes PJ: Therapeutic strategies for allergic diseases. Nature 402, B31-B38 (1999).
53. Bryan SA, Leckie MJ, Hansel TT, Barnes PJ: Novel therapy for asthma. Expert Opin. Investig. Drugs 9, 25-42 (2000).
54. Bryan SA, O'Connor BJ, Matti S et al.: Effects of recombinant human interleukin-12 on eosinophils, airway hyper-responsiveness, and the late asthmatic response. Lancet 356, 2149-2153 (2000).
55. Henig NR, Aitken ML, Liu MC, Yu AS, Henderson WR Jr: Effect of recombinant human platelet-activating factor-acetylhydrolase on allergen-induced asthmatic responses. Am. Respir. J. Crit. Care Med. 162, 523-527 (2000).
56. D'Amato G, Liccardi G, Noschese P, Salzillo A, D'Amato M, Cazzola M: Anti-IgE monoclonal antibody (omalizumab) in the treatment of atopic asthma and allergic respiratory diseases. Curr. Drug Targets Inflamm. Allergy 3, 227-229 (2004).
57. Nowak D: Management of asthma with anti-immunoglobulin E: a review of clinical trials of omalizumab. Respir. Med. 100, 1907-1917 (2006).
58. Plosker GL, Keam SJ: Omalizumab: a review of its use in the treatment of allergic asthma. BioDrugs 22, 189-204 (2008).
59. Borish LC, Nelson HS, Corren J et al.: Efficacy of soluble IL-4 receptor for the treatment of adults with asthma. Allergy J. Clin. Immunol. 107, 963-970 (2001).
60. Leckie MJ, ten Brinke A, Khan J et al.: Effects of an interleukin-5 blocking monoclonal antibody on eosinophils, airway hyper-responsiveness, and the late asthmatic response. Lancet 356, 2144-2148 (2000).
61. Wenzel S, Wilbraham D, Fuller R, Getz EB, Longphre M: Effect of an interleukin-4 variant on late phase asthmatic response to allergen challenge in asthmatic patients: results of two Phase 2a studies. Lancet 370, 1422-1431 (2007).
62. Wenzel S, Holgate ST: The mouse trap: it still yields few answers in asthma. Am. Respir. J. Crit. Care Med. 174, 1173-1176; discussion 1176-1178 (2006).
63. Wright JL, Churg A: Animal models of COPD: barriers, successes, and challenges. Pulm. Pharmacol. Ther. 21, 696-698 (2008).
64. Zosky GR, Sly PD: Animal models of asthma. Clin. Exp. Allergy 37, 973-988 (2007).
65. Coleman RA: Current animal models are not predictive for clinical asthma. Pulm. Pharmacol. Ther. 12, 87-89 (1999).
66. Persson CG: Con: mice are not a good model of human airway disease. Am. Respir. J. Crit. Care Med. 166, 6-7; discussion 8 (2002).
67. Persson CG, Erjefalt JS, Korsgren M, Sundler F: The mouse trap. Trends. Pharmacol. Sci. 18, 465-467 (1997).
68. Polosa R, Puddicombe SM, Krishna MT et al.: Expression of c-erbB receptors and ligands in the bronchial epithelium of asthmatic subjects. Allergy J. Clin. Immunol. 109, 75-81 (2002).
69. Salvi S, Semper A, Blomberg A et al.: Interleukin-5 production by human airway epithelial cells. Am. Respir. J. Cell Mol. Biol. 20, 984-991 (1999).
70. Lee JY, Park SW, Chang HK et al.: Disintegrin A and metalloproteinase 33 protein in patients with asthma: relevance to airflow limitation. Am. Respir. J. Crit. Care Med. 173, 729-735 (2006).
71. Pourazar J, Blomberg A, Kelly FJ et al.: Diesel exhaust increases EGFR and phosphorylated C-terminal Tyr 1173 in the bronchial epithelium. Part. Fibre Toxicol. 5, 8 (2008).
72. Elston WJ, Whittaker AJ, Khan LN et al.: Safety of research bronchoscopy, biopsy and bronchoalveolar lavage in asthma. Eur. Respir. J. 24, 375-377 (2004).
73. Henderson RF: Use of bronchoalveolar lavage to detect respiratory tract toxicity of inhaled material. Exp. Toxicol. Pathol. 57(Suppl. 1), 155-159 (2005).
74. Bucchieri F, Puddicombe SM, Lordan JL et al.: Asthmatic bronchial epithelium is more susceptible to oxidant-induced apoptosis. Am. Respir. J. Cell Mol. Biol. 27, 179-185 (2002).
75. Lordan JL, Bucchieri F, Richter A et al.: Cooperative effects of Th2 cytokines and allergen on normal and asthmatic bronchial epithelial cells. Immunol. J. 169, 407-414 (2002).
76. Wark PA, Johnston SL, Bucchieri F et al.: Asthmatic bronchial epithelial cells have a deficient innate immune response to infection with rhinovirus. Exp. J. Med. 201, 937-947 (2005).
77. Verstraelen S, Bloemen K, Nelissen I, Witters H, Schoeters G, Heuvel RV: Cell types involved in allergic asthma and their use in in vitro models to assess respiratory sensitization. Toxicol. In Vitro 22, 1419-1431 (2008).
78. Chakir J, Page N, Hamid Q, Laviolette M, Boulet LP, Rouabhia M: Bronchial mucosa produced by tissue engineering: a new tool to study cellular interactions in asthma. Allergy J. Clin. Immunol. 107, 36-40 (2001).
79. Choe MM, Sporn PH, Swartz MA: An in vitro airway wall model of remodeling. Am. Physiol. J. Lung Cell. Mol. Physiol. 285, L427-L433 (2003).
80. Choe MM, Sporn PH, Swartz MA: Extracellular matrix remodeling by dynamic strain in a three-dimensional tissue-engineered human airway wall model. Am. Respir. J. Cell Mol. Biol. 35, 306-313 (2006).
81. Choe MM, Tomei AA, Swartz MA: Physiological 3D tissue model of the airway wall and mucosa. Nat. Protoc. 1, 357-362 (2006).
82. Paquette JS, Moulin V, Tremblay P et al.: Tissue-engineered human asthmatic bronchial equivalents. Eur. Cell. Mater. 7, 1-11; discussion 1-11 (2004).
83. Rothen-Rutishauser BM, Kiama SG, Gehr P: A three-dimensional cellular model of the human respiratory tract to study the interaction with particles. Am. Respir. J. Cell Mol. Biol. 32, 281-289 (2005).
84. Agu RU, Valiveti S, Paudel KS, Klausner M, Hayden PJ, Stinchcomb AL: Permeation of WIN 55,212-2, a potent cannabinoid receptor agonist, across human tracheobronchial tissue in vitro and rat nasal epithelium in vivo. Pharm. J. Pharmacol. 58, 1459-1465 (2006).
85. Chen SC, Eiting K, Cui K et al.: Therapeutic utility of a novel tight junction modulating peptide for enhancing intranasal drug delivery. Pharm. J. Sci. 95, 1364-1371 (2006).
86. Patton JS, Fishburn CS, Weers JG: The lungs as a portal of entry for systemic drug delivery. Proc. Am. Thorac. Soc. 1, 338-344 (2004).
87. Scheuch G, Kohlhaeufl MJ, Brand P, Siekmeier R: Clinical perspectives on pulmonary systemic and macromolecular delivery. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 58, 996-1008 (2006).
88. Shoyele SA, Cawthorne S: Particle engineering techniques for inhaled biopharmaceuticals. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 58, 1009-1029 (2006).
89. Ambrose JA, Barua RS: The pathophysiology of cigarette smoking and cardiovascular disease: an update. Am. J. Coll. Cardiol. 43, 1731-1737 (2004).
90. Dhala A, Pinsker K, Prezant DJ: Respiratory health consequences of environmental tobacco smoke. Clin. Occup. Environ. Med. 5, 139-156 (2006).
91. Coggins CR: A minireview of chronic animal inhalation studies with mainstream cigarette smoke. Inhal. Toxicol. 14, 991-1002 (2002).
92. Balharry D, Sexton K, Berube KA: An in vitro approach to assess the toxicity of inhaled tobacco smoke components: nicotine, cadmium, formaldehyde and urethane. Toxicology 244, 66-76 (2008).
93. Sexton K, Balharry D, BeruBe KA: Genomic biomarkers of pulmonary exposure to tobacco smoke components. Pharmacogenet. Genomics 18, 853-860 (2008).
94. Fentem JH, Botham PA: ECVAM's activities in validating alternative tests for skin corrosion and irritation. Altern. Lab. Anim. 30(Suppl. 2), 61-67 (2002).
95. Fentem JH: Validation of in vitro tests for skin corrosivity. ALTEX 16, 150-153 (1999).
96. Robinson MK, Cohen C, de Fraissinette Ade B, Ponec M, Whittle E, Fentem JH: Non-animal testing strategies for assessment of the skin corrosion and skin irritation potential of ingredients and finished products. Food Chem. Toxicol. 40, 573-592 (2002).
97. Zuang V, Alonso MA, Botham PA et al.: Skin irritation and corrosion. Altern. Lab. Anim. 33(Suppl. 1), 35-46 (2005).
98. El Ghalbzouri A, Siamari R, Willemze R, Ponec M: Leiden reconstructed human epidermal model as a tool for the evaluation of the skin corrosion and irritation potential according to the ECVAM guidelines. Toxicol. In Vitro 22, 1311-1320 (2008).
99. Hoffmann S, Saliner AG, Patlewicz G, Eskes C, Zuang V, Worth AP: A feasibility study developing an integrated testing strategy assessing skin irritation potential of chemicals. Toxicol. Lett. 180, 9-20 (2008).
100. Hai R, Chu A, Li H, Umamoto S, Rider P, Liu F: Infection of human cytomegalovirus in cultured human gingival tissue. Virol. J. 3, 84 (2006).
101. Adriaens E, Bytheway H, De Wever B et al.: Successful prevalidation of the slug mucosal irritation test to assess the eye irritation potency of chemicals. Toxicol. In Vitro 22, 1285-1296 (2008).
102. Vinardell MP, Mitjans M: Alternative methods for eye and skin irritation tests: an overview. Pharm. J. Sci. 97, 46-59 (2008).
103. Van Goethem F, Adriaens E, Alepee N et al.: Prevalidation of a new in vitro reconstituted human cornea model to assess the eye irritating potential of chemicals. Toxicol. In Vitro 20, 1-17 (2006).
104. Takahashi K, Yamanaka S: Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell 126, 663-676 (2006).
105. Wernig M, Meissner A, Foreman R et al.: In vitro reprogramming of fibroblasts into a pluripotent ES-cell-like state. Nature 448, 318-324 (2007).
106. Pampaloni F, Reynaud EG, Stelzer EH: The third dimension bridges the gap between cell culture and live tissue. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 8, 839-845 (2007).
107. Verveer PJ, Swoger J, Pampaloni F, Greger K, Marcello M, Stelzer EH: High-resolution three-dimensional imaging of large specimens with light sheet-based microscopy. Nat. Methods 4, 311-313 (2007).