Food for thought... on validation. A puzzle or a mystery: An approach founded on new science

Altex

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 3-8

  Wilcox, Neil ^a   Goldberg, Alan ^b  

^a CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND RESEARCH   (United States)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

21st century toxicity testing; In vitro; Test method validation

Indexed keywords

RELIABILITY; REPRODUCIBILITY; REVIEW; TOXICITY TESTING; VALIDATION PROCESS; ANIMAL; ANIMAL TESTING ALTERNATIVE; ARTICLE; METHODOLOGY; STANDARD;

ANIMAL TESTING ALTERNATIVES; ANIMALS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TOXICITY TESTS;

EID: 79958256220     PISSN: 09467785     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. Balls, M., Botham, P., Cordier, A. et al. (1990). Report and recommendations of an international workshop on promotion of the regulatory acceptance of validated non-animal toxicity test procedures, ATLA 18, 339-344.
2. Balls, M., Blaauboer, B., Fentem, J. et al. (1995). Practical aspects of the validation of toxicity test procedures. ECVAM Workshop Report 5, ATLA 23, 129-147.
3. Crofton, K. M., Mundy, W. R., Lein, P. J. et al. (2011). Recommendations for developing alternative test methods for screening and prioritization of chemicals for developmental neurotoxicity. ALTEX 28, 9-15.
4. Frazier, J. M. (1990). Scientific criteria for validation of in vitro toxicity tests. OECD Environment Monographs No. 36, 62pp.
5. Gladwell, M. (2009). What the dog saw: and other adventures. New York: Little, Brown and Company.
6. Goldberg, A. M. (ed.) (1987). In Vitro Toxicology - Approaches to Validation. Vol. 5. New York: Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
7. Goldberg, A. M., Frazier, J. M., Brusick, D. et al. (1993). Framework for validation and implementation of in vitro toxicity tests. In Vitro Cell Dev. Biol. Anim. 29A, 688-692. (Pubitemid 23315940)
8. Goldberg, A. M., Zurlo, J. and Epstein, L. D. (1997a). Validation revisited. In L. F. M. van Zutphen and M. Balls (eds.), Animal alternatives, welfare and ethics. Developments in Animal and Veterinary Sciences 27 (1077-1082). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Pub Co.
9. Goldberg, A. M., Zurlo, J. and Epstein, L. (1997b). A modular approach to validation - a work in progress. In H. Salem and S. A. Katz (eds.), Advances in animal alternatives for safety and efficacy testing. Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis Publishers.
10. Hartung, T., Bremer, S., Casati, S. et al. (2004). Modular approach to the ECVAM principles on test validity. ATLA 32, 467-472. (Pubitemid 40128842)
11. st century? ALTEX 27, 253-263.
12. ICCVAM (1999). Evaluation of the validation status of toxicological methods: General guidelines for submissions to ICCVAM. NIH Publication No. 99-4496.
13. Kruszewski, F. H., Walker, T. L. and Dipasquale, L. C. (1997). Evaluation of a human corneal epithelial cell line as an in vitro model for assessing ocular irritation. Fundamental and Applied Toxicology 36, 130-140.
14. Locke, P. and Goldberg, A. M. (2006). Alternatives in toxicology. In S. Green (ed.), Toxicology and the Regulatory Process: Alternatives to Animals in Toxicology (245-257). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
15. McKim, J. M., Keller, D. J. and Gorski, J. R. (2010). A new in vitro method for identifying chemical sensitizers combining peptide binding with ARE/EpRE-mediated gene expression in human skin cells. Cutan. Ocul. Toxicol. 29, 171-192.
16. st Century: A Vision and a Strategy. Washington, DC, USA: The National Academies Press.
17. OECD Guidelines for Testing of Chemicals, Section 4, Heath Effects. http://lysander.sourceoecd.org/vl=9036126/cl=26/nw=1/rpsv/cw/vhosts/ oecdjournals/1607310x/v1n4/contp1-1.htm
18. st century. ALTEX 28, 17-44.