An in-vitro toxicity testing - A reliable alternative to toxicity testing by reduction, replacement and refinement of animals

International Journal of Advances in Pharmaceutical Sciences

Volumn 1, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 15-31

  Bhanushali, M ^a   Bagale, V ^a   Shirode, A ^a   Joshi, Y ^a   Kadam, V ^a  

^a BHARATI VIDYAPEETH S COLLEGE OF PHARMACY   (India)

Author keywords

Reduction; Replacement and Refinement (3Rs)

Indexed keywords

COSMETIC; TOXIN;

ALTERNATIVE METHOD; ANALYTIC METHOD; ANIMAL WELFARE; ARTICLE; ASSAY; BIOMEDICINE; BIOTECHNOLOGY; CARCINOGEN TESTING; CELL ASSAY; CELL TRANSFORMATION; COMPUTER MODEL; CYTOTOXICITY TEST; DRUG LEGISLATION; EXPERIMENTAL ANIMAL; GENOMICS; GENOTOXICITY; GLYCOBIOLOGY; HEALTH HAZARD; HUMAN; IN VITRO STUDY; IN VITRO TOXICITY TESTING; INTOXICATION; ISOLATED ORGAN; LIPIDOMICS; LIVER CELL; LIVER TOXICITY; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METABOLOMICS; MICROARRAY ANALYSIS; NERVE CELL; NEUROTOXICITY; NONHUMAN; ORGAN PERFUSION; PROTEOMICS; RELIABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SKIN IRRITATION; SKIN TOXICITY; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; TISSUE SECTION; TOXICITY TESTING; TOXICOKINETICS; TOXIN ANALYSIS; TRANSCRIPTOMICS; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 79952023229     PISSN: None     EISSN: 09761055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5138/ijaps.2010.0976.1055.01002     Document Type: Article

References (105)

1. Maugh TM. Chemicals: How many are there? Science 1978; 199:162.
2. National Research Council, Toxicity Testing: Strategies to Determine Needs and Priorities, (National Academy of Sciences, Washington), 1984.
3. Goldberg AM, Rowan AN. Conceptual Approaches to Alternate Methods in Toxicological Testing. Def Sci J April 1987; 37(2): 99-112.
4. Balls M, Goldberg AM, Fentem JH, Broadhead CL, Burch RL, Festing MFW, et al. The Three Rs: the way forward. The report and recommendations of ECVAM workshop 11. ATLA 1995; 23:838-866.
5. Fielder RJ, Atterwill CK, Anderson D, Boobis AR, Botham P, Chamberlain M, et al. BTS Working Party report on in vitro toxicology. Human and Experimental Toxicology 1997; 16:1-40.
6. Russell WMS, Burch RL. The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, 238pp. London UK: Methuen 1959.
7. Gad SC. Recent Developments in Replacing, Reducing, and Refining Animal Use in Toxicologic Research and Testing. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol 1990; 15:8-16.
8. ECVAM (European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods), Joint Research Centre, European Commission Directorate General (undated). Validated methods accessed 31. Aug. 2008.
9. Comber MH, Walker JD, Watts C and Hermens J. Quantitative structure-activity relationships for predicting potential ecological hazard of organic chemicals for use in regulatory risk assessments. Environ. Toxicol.Chem. 2003; 22:1822-1828.
10. Knight A. Non-Animal Methodologies within Biomedical Research and Toxicity Testing.
11. Combes R. Developing, validating and using test batteries and tiered (hierarchical) testing schemes. ATLA 2007; 35:375-378.
12. Wishart DS. Improving early drug discovery through ADME modeling: an overview. Drugs R. D. 2007; 8(6):349-362.
13. Sklarew M. Toxicity Testing in Animals: Alternative Models. Environmental Health Perspectives 1993; 101(4).
14. Gad SC, Chengeus CP. Acute Toxicology: Principles and Methods. Telford Press, Caldwell, NJ. 1988.
15. Luttun A, Verfaillie CM. A perspective on stem cells as a tool for in vitro testing. ALTEX 2006; 23 Sp. Issue:388-392.
16. Huggins J. Alternatives to animal testing: research, trends, validation, regulatory acceptance. ALTEX 2003; 20 (1):3-61.
17. Murthy B. Relevance of in vitro toxicology studies in risk assessment. ALTEX 2007; 24(3):174-177.
18. Draize JH, Woodward G and Calvery Ho. Methods from the study of irritation and toxicity of substances applied topically to the skin and mucous membranes. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 1944; 82:377-390.
19. Gautheron P, Dukic M, Alix D, SINA JF. Bovine corneal opacity and permeability test: an in vitro assay of ocular irritancy. Fundam Appl Toxicol 1992; 18:442-449.
20. Chamberlain M, Gad SC, Gautheron P and Prinsen MK. Food and Chem Toxicol 1997; 35(1):23.
21. Prinsen MK, Koeter HBWM. Justification of the enucleated eye test with eyes of slaughter house animals as an alternative to the Draize eye irritation test with rabbits. Food Chem. Toxicol 1993; 31:69-76.
22. Jones PA, Bracher M, Marenus K and Kojima H. Performance of the neutral red uptake assay in the COLIPA international validation study on alternatives to the rabbit eye irritation test. Toxicol. In vitro 1999; 13:325-334.
23. Pape WJW, Pfannenbecker U, Argembeaux H, Bracher M, Esdaile DJ, Hagino S, et al. COLIPA validation project on in vitro eye irritation tests for cosmetic ingredients and finished products (phase 1): The red blood cell test for the estimation of acute eye irritation potentials. Present status. Toxicol. In vitro 1999; 13:343-354.
24. Aeschbacher M, Reinhardt CA and Zbinden G. A rapid cell membrane permeability test using fluorescent dyes and flow cytometry. Cell Biol. Toxicol. 1986; 2:247-255.
25. Reader SJ, Blackwell V, O'Hara R, Clothier RH, Griffin G and Balls M. Neutral red release from preloaded cells as an in vitro approach to testing for eye irritancy potential. Toxicol. In vitro 1990; 4:264-266.
26. Okumara H, Arashima M, Ohuchi J, Kasai Y, Tsukumo K, Kakishima H, et al. Interlaboratory validation of the in vitro eye irritation tests for cosmetic ingredients (10) Evaluation of cytotoxicity test on CHL cells. Toxicol in vitro 1999; 13:199-208.
27. TM. Toxicol. In vitro 1999; 13:153-162.
28. Uchiyama T, Akiyama J, Miyai E, Sakamoto K, Takino Y, Ohnuma H, et al. Interlaboratory validation of the in vitro eye irritation tests for cosmetic ingredients (7) Evaluation of cytotoxicity test by Corne Pack. Toxicol. In vitro 1999; 13:163-173.
29. Kristen U, Kappler R. The pollen tube growth test. In: In vitro Testing Protocols. Methods in Molecular Biology. Vol. 43 (O'Hare S, Atterwill CK Ed). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press, 1995.
30. Chiba K, Makino I, Ohuchi J, Kasai Y, Kakishima H, Tsukumo K, et al. Interlaboratory validation of the in vitro eye irritation tests for cosmetic ingredients (9). Evaluation of cytotoxicity test on HeLa cells. Toxicol. In vitro 1999; 13:189-198.
31. North-Root H, Yackovich F, Demetrulias J, Gacula M and Heinze JE. Evaluation of an in vitro cell toxicity test using rabbit corneal cells to predict the eye irritation potential of surfactants. Toxicol Lett 1982; 14:207-212.
32. Luepke NP. Hen's egg chorioallantoic membranes test for irritation potential. Food Chem. Toxicol. 1985; 23:287-291.
33. Bagley DM, Cerven D and Harbell J. Assessment of the chorioallantoic membrane vascular assay (CAMVA) in the COLIPA in vitro eye irritation validation study. Toxicol. In vitro 1999; 13:285-294.
34. Osborne R, Perkins MA and Roberts DA. Development and intralaboratory evaluation of an in vitro human cell-based test to aid ocular assessments. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol 1995; 28:139-153.
35. Balls M, Botham PA, Bruner LH and Spielmann H. The EC/HO international validation study on alternatives to the Draize eye irritation test. Toxicol. In vitro 1995; 9:871-929.
36. Harbell JW, Osborne R, Carr GJ and Peterson A. Assessment of the Cytosensor microphysiometer assay in the COLIPA in vitro eye irritation validation study. Toxicol. In vitro 1999; 13:313-324.
37. Bulich AA. Bioluminescence assays. In Toxicity Testing Using Micro Organisms, Vol. I.G. Bitton and B.J.Dutka (Eds.). CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 57-74.
38. Weinberg EH, Springer ST. J. Soc. Cosmet. Chem. 1981; 32:303-315.
39. Tenenbaum S, Dinardo J, Morris WE, Wolf BA and Schgetzinger RW. Cell Biol. Toxicol. 1984; 1:1-6.
40. McAuliffe DJ, Morrison WL and Parrish JA. An in vitro test for predicting the photosensitizing potential of various chemicals. In Product Safety Evaluation, A.M. Goldberg (Eds), (Mary Ann I,iebert, New York) 1983, pp 285-307.
41. Morrison WL, McAuliffe DJ, Parrish JA and Bloch KB. Invest. Dennatol 1982; 78:460-463.
42. Kao J, Hall J and Holland JM. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 1983; 68:206-217.
43. Fouts JR. Trendsin Pharma. Sci. 1982; 3:164-166.
44. OECD. OECD Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals, No. 404: Acute Dermal Irritation/Corrosion. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development 1992, pp. 6.
45. Roguet R. Use of skin cell cultures for in vitro assessment of corrosion and cutaneous irritancy. Cell Biol. Toxicol. 1999; 15:63-75.
46. TM Test (an in vitro test for skin corrosivity). 10th Meeting of ECVAM held March 31, 1998.
47. Kubilus J, Cannon CL, Neal PJ, Ricker HA and Klausner M. Cytokine response of the Epiderm skin model to topically applied irritants and toxicants. In vitro Toxicol. 1996; 9:157-166.
48. ECVAM [European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods] Scientific Advisory Committee. 1998b.
49. ICCVAM [Interagency Coordinating Committee for the Validation of Alternative Methods]. Corrositex, an in vitro test method for assessing dermal corrosivity potential of chemicals. (NIH publication no. 99-4495). Research Triangle Park NC: NIEHS 1999.
50. ECVAM [European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods] Scientific Advisory Committee. 1998b. Statement on the scientific validity of the Rat Skin Transcutaneous Electrical Resistance (TER) test (an in vitro test for skin corrosivity). 10th Meeting of ECVAM held March 31, 1998.
51. De Brugerolle de Fraissinette A, Picarles V, Chibout S, Kolopp M, Medina J, Burtin P, et al. Predictivity of an in vitro model fro acute and chronic skin irritation (Skin Ethic) applied to the testing of topical vehicles. Cell Biol. Toxicol. 1999; 15:121-135.
52. OECD. OECD Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals, No. 406:Skin Sensitization. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development 1992
53. Kimber I, Hilton J, Dearman RJ, Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, Basketter DA, et al. Assessment of the skin sensitization potential of topical medicaments using the local lymph node assay: An interlaboratory evaluation. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health, Part a 1998; 53:563-579.
54. Annon. OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Draft Guideline 421: Reproduction/Developmental Toxicity Screening Test 1993, pp. 8. Paris: OECD.
55. Braun AG, Nichinson BB, Horowicz PB. Inhibition of tumor cell attachment to concanavallin A-coated surfaces as an assay for teratogenic agents: Approaches to validation. Teratogenesis Carcinog. Mutagen 1982; 2:343-354.
56. Pratt RM, Willis WD. An in vitro screening assay for teratogens using growth inhibition of human embryonic cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A 1985; 82:5791-5794.
57. Mummery CL, Van den Brink CE, Van der Saag Pt and De Laat SW. A short-term screening test for teratogens using differentiating neuroblastoma cells in vitro. Teratology 1984; 29:271-279.
58. Laschinski G, Vogel R. Cytotoxicity test using blastocyst-derived euploid embryonal stem cells: a new approach to in vitro teratogenesis screening. Reproductive Toxicology 1991; 5:57-64.
59. Heuer J, Graeber IM, Pohl I and Spielmann H. An in vitro embryotoxicity assay using the differentiation of embryonic mouse stem cells into haematopoietic cells. Toxicol In vitro 1994; 8:585-587.
60. Newall DR, Beedles KE. The stem cell test: a novel in vitro assay for teratogenic potential. Toxicol. In vitro 1994; 8: 697-701.
61. Daston GP, Baines D and Yonker JE. Chick embryo retinal cell cultures as a screen for developmental toxicity. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 1991; 109: 352-366.
62. Dumont JN, Schultz TW, Buchanan M and Kao G. Frog embryo teratogenesis assay: Xenopus (FETAX)-a short term assay applicable to complex environmental mixtures. In Symposium on the Application of Short-term Bioassays in the Analysis of Complex Environmental Mixtures III. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 393-405.
63. New DAT. Whole embryo culture and the study of mammalian embryos during organogenesis. Biol. Rev. 1978; 53:81-122.
64. Jelinek R. The chick embryotoxicity screening test (CHEST). In: Methods in Prenatal Toxicology (Neubert D, Merker H), Kwasigroch TE, Eds). Stuttgart:G. Thieme 1977; 381-386.
65. Jelinek R, Peterka M and Rychter Z. Chick embryotoxicity screening test (CHEST)-130 substances tested. Ind J Exp Biol 1985; 23: 588-595.
66. Barrett JC, Ts'o POP. Mechanistic studies of neoplastic transformation of cells in culture. In: Polycyclic Hydrocarbons and Cancer (Gelboin H, Ts'o POP, eds). New York: Academic Press 1978; 235-267.
67. Isfort RJ, Cody DB, Kerckaert GA and LeBoeuf RA. Growth factor responsiveness and alterations in growth factor homeostasis in Syrian hamster embryo cells during in vitro transformation. Carcinogenesis 1994; 15:1203-1209.
68. Sakai A. BALB/c 3T3 cell transformation assays for the assessment of chemical carcinogenicity. AATEX 2007; 14, Special Issue: 367-373.
69. Oshiro Y, Balwierz PS, et al. Experimental design for the C3H10T1/2 transformation assay. J Appl Toxicol 1988; 8(4):255-260.
70. ECETOC (European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals). Aneuploidy: ECETOC Monograph No. 27. Brussels, Belgium: ECETOC 1997.
71. Parry EM. and Parry JM. In vitro cytogenetics and aneuploidy. In D.H. Phillips and S. Venitt (eds.), Environmental Mutagenesis (121-139). Oxford, UK: Bios Scientific Publishers, 1995.
72. Dearfield KL, Auletta AE, Cimino MC and Moore MM. Considerations in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's testing approach for mutagenicity. Mutat. Res.1991; 258: 259-283.
73. OECD. OECD Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals, No. 473: In vitro Mammalian Chromosome Aberration Test. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development 1997; 1(4):1-10.
74. Honda M, Hayashi M, Shimada H, Tanaka N, Waurika S, Awoke T, Yamamotoet KI et al. Evaluation of the mouse lymphoma tk assay (microwell method) as an alternative to the in vitro chromosomal aberration test. Mutagenesis 1999; 14(1):5-22.
75. OECD. OECD Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals, No. 480: Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Gene Mutation Assay. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development 1997; 1(4):1-5.
76. OECD. OECD Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals, No. 480: Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Mitotic Recombination Assay. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, original guideline adopted 23 October 1986.
77. Mortelmans K, Riccio ES. The bacterial tryptophan reverse mutation assay with Escherichia coli WP2. Mutation Research/Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis 2000; 455(1-2):61-69.
78. OECD. OECD Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals, No. 482: DNA Damage and Repair, Unscheduled DNA Synthesis in Mammalian Cells in vitro. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, original guideline adopted 23 October 1986.
79. Howard RB, Christensen AK, Gibbs FA and Pesch LA. The enzymatic preparation of isolated intact parenchymal cells from rat liver. J Cell Biol 1967; 35: 675-684.
80. Berry MN, Grivell AR, Grivell MB and Phillips JW. Isolated hepatocytes-past, present and future. Cell Biol Toxicol 1997; 13:223-233.
81. Cox JW, Dring LG, Ginsberg LC, Larson PG, Constable DA and Ulrich RG. Distribution and disposition of trospectomycin sulfate in the in vivo rat, perfused rat liver, and cultured rat hepatocytes. Drug Metab Dispos 1990; 18:726-731.
82. Hisom HC, Georgoff I. Quantitative assay for albumin-producing liver cells after simian virus 40 transformation of rat hepatocytes maintained in chemically defined medium. Proc Natl Acad Sci U.S.A 1984; 1:201-247.
83. Abouna GM, Ashcroft T and Hull C. The assessment of function of the isolated perfused porcine liver. Br J Surg 1969; 56:289-295.
84. Smith PF, Krack G, McKee RL, Johnson DG, Gandol AJ, Hruby VJ, et al. Maintenance of adult rat liver slices in dynamic organ culture. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol 1986; 22:706-712.
85. Ghantous HN, Fernando J, Gandolfi AJ and Brendel K. Biotransformation of halothane in guinea pig liver slices. Drug Metab Disp 1990; 18:514-518.
86. Vickers AE. Use of human organ slices to evaluate the biotransformation and drug-induced side-effects of pharmaceuticals. CellBiol Toxicol 1994; 10:407-414.
87. Ladefoged O, Lam HR, Ostergaard G, Nielsen E and Arlien Soborg P. Neurotoxicology: Review of Definitions, Methodology and Criteria. Copenhagen: Danish Environmental Protection Agency, 1995.
88. Gahwiler BH. Organotypic monolayer cultures of nervous tissue. J. Neurosci. Meth 1981; 4:229-342.
89. Honneger P, Richelson. Biochemical differentiation of aggregating cell cultures of different fetal rat brain regions. Brain Res 1977; 133:329-339.
90. Walum E, Hansson E and Harvey AL. In vitro testing of neurotoxicity. ATLA 1989; 18:153-179.
91. Schubert D, Humphreys S, Baroni C and Cohn M. In vitro differentiation of a mouse neuroblastoma. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A 1969; 64:316-323.
92. Atterwill CK. Brain reaggregate culturesin neurotoxicological investigations: adaptionaland neurodegenerative processes following lesions. Mol Toxicol 1987; 1:489-502.
93. Veronesi B. The use of cell culture for evaluating neurotoxicity. In: Neurotoxicology (Tilson H, Mitchell C, eds). New York: Raven Press 1992; 21-49.
94. Stanness KA, Guatteo E and Janigro D. A dynamic model of the blood brain barrier in vitro. Neurotoxicology 1996; 17:481-496.
95. Veronesi B. Characterization of the MDCK cell line for screening neurotoxicants. Neurotoxicology 1996; 17:433-444.
96. Metz B, et al. Reduction of animal use in human vaccine quality control. Vaccine 2002; 20:2411-2430.
97. nd Edition, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, editors Jann Hau and Gerald Van Hoosier, pp.1-14.
98. Hendriksen CFM. Refinement, Reduction, and Replacement of Animal Use for Regulatory Testing: Current best scientific practices for the evaluation of safety and potency of biologicals. ILAR Journal 2002; 43: 43-48.
99. Hendriksen C. Three Rs achievements in vaccinology. AATEX 2007; 14(Special Issue):575-579.
100. Watanabe M. Required effort to evolve Toxicity testing using in vitro methods. AATEX 1995; 3:81-84.
101. Balls M. Replacement of animal procedures: alternatives in research, education and testing. Laboratory Animals 1994; 28:193-211.
102. Zeiger E, Stokes WS. Validating new toxicology tests for regulatory acceptance. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol 1998; 27:32-37.
103. Liebsech M, Spielmann H. Currently available in vitro methods used in the regulatory toxicology. Toxicology Letters 2002; 127:127-134.
104. Kniewald J, Kmetie I, Gaurina-Srèek V and Kniewald Z. Alternative models for toxicity of xenobiotics. Alternatives to toxicity testing 2005; 56:195-204.
105. Fentem J, Chamberlain M and Sangster B. The Feasibility of Replacing Animal Testing for Assessing Consumer Safety: A Suggested Future Direction. ATLA 2004; 32:617-623.