ECVAM and new technologies for toxicity testing

Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology

Volumn 745, Issue , 2012, Pages 154-180

  Bouvier D'Yvoire, Michel ^a   Bremer, Susanne ^b   Casati, Silvia ^b   Ceridono, Mara ^b   Coecke, Sandra ^b   Corvi, Raffaella ^b   Eskes, Chantra ^c   Gribaldo, Laura ^b   Griesinger, Claudius ^b   Knaut, Holger ^d   Linge, Jens P ^b   Roi, Annett ^a   Zuang, Valérie ^a  

^a EUROPEAN COMMISSION   (Belgium)

^b JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE   (Italy)

^c SeCAM ^*  (Switzerland)

^d NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COSMETIC;

ARTICLE; CARCINOGENICITY; CORROSION; EYE IRRITATION; GENOTOXICITY; HEMATOPOIESIS; HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING; HUMAN; IN VIVO STUDY; NEUROTOXICITY; NONHUMAN; PHOTOTOXICITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCTIVE TOXICITY; SKIN ABSORPTION; SKIN IRRITATION; SKIN SENSITIZATION; SKIN TOXICITY; TOXICITY TESTING; TOXICOKINETICS;

ANIMAL TESTING ALTERNATIVES; ANIMALS; CARCINOGENICITY TESTS; DERMATITIS, PHOTOTOXIC; HEMATOPOIESIS; HUMANS; IRRITANTS; NERVOUS SYSTEM; REPRODUCTION; SKIN ABSORPTION; TOXICITY TESTS;

EID: 84859963780     PISSN: 00652598     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-3055-1_10     Document Type: Article

References (112)

1. Committee on Toxicity Testing and Assessment of Environmental Agents, National Research Council. Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2007: Available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record-id-11970#toc.
2. Adler S, Basketter D, Creton S et al. Alternative (non-animal) methods for cosmetics testing: current status and future prospects-2010. Arch Toxicol 2011; 85:367-485.
3. Bremer S, Balduzzi D, Cortvrindt R et al. The effects of chemicals on mammalian fertility. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2005; 33:391-416.
4. OECD. Information webpage on work on endocrine disruptors. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2011: Available at: http://www.oecd.org/document/61/0,3746,en- 2649-34377-2348733-1-1-1-1,00.html.
5. EC ECVAM. Statement on the Scientific Validity of the Embryonic Stem Cell Test (EST)-an In Vitro Test for Embryotoxicity. Ispra: European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, 2001: Available at http://ecvam.jrc.it/ publication/Embryotoxicity-statements.pdf.
6. Genschow E, Spielmann H, Scholz G et al. The ECVAM international validation study on in vitro embryotoxicity tests: results of the definitive phase and evaluation of prediction models. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2002; 30(2):151-176.
7. Marx-Stoelting P, Adriaens E, Ahr HJ et al. A review of the implementation of the embryonic stem cell test (EST). The report and recommendations of an ECVAM/ReProTect Workshop. Altern Lab Anim -ATLA 2009; 37(3):313-328.
8. Kirkland D, Aardema M, Henderson L et al. Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and noncarcinogens I. Sensitivity, specificity and relative predictivity. Mutat Res 2005; 584:1-256.
9. Maurici D, Aardema M, Corvi R et al. Genotoxicity and mutagenicity. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2005; 33(Suppl 1):117-130.
10. Aardema MJ, Barnett BC, Khambatta Z et al. International prevalidation studies of the EpiDerm 3D human reconstructed skin micronucleus (RSMN) assay: transferability and reproducibility. Mutat Res 2010; 701(2):123-131.
11. Kirkland D, Pfuhler S, Tweats D et al. How to reduce false positive results when undertaking in vitro genotoxicity testing and thus avoid unnecessary follow-up animal tests: report of an ECVAM workshop. Mutat Res 2007; 628:31-55.
12. Hastwell PW, Chai LL, Roberts KJ et al. High-specificity and high-sensitivity genotoxicity assessment in a human cell line: validation of the GreenScreen HC GADD45a-GFP genotoxicity assay. Mutat Res 2006; 607:160-175.
13. Coecke S, Ahr H, Blaauboer BJ et al. Metabolism: a bottleneck in in vitro toxicological test development. The report and recommendations of ECVAM workshop 54. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2006; 34(1):49-84.
14. Azqueta A, Meier S, Priestley C et al. The influence of scoring method on variability in results obtained with the comet assay. Mutagenesis 2011; 26(3):393-399.
15. Hayashi M, MacGregor JT, Gatehouse DG et al. In vivo erythrocyte micronucleus assay. Validation and regulatory acceptance of automated scoring and the use of rat peripheral blood reticulocytes, with discussion on nonhematopoietic target cells and a single dose-level limit test. Mutat Res 2007; 627:10-30.
16. Pfuhler S, Kirkland D, Kasper P et al. Reduction of use of animals in regulatory genotoxicity testing: identification and implementation opportunities-report from an ECVAM workshop. Mutat Res 2009; 680(1-2):31.
17. Yamasaki H, Mesnil M, Nakasawa H. Interaction and distinction of genotoxic and nongenotoxic events in carcinogenesis. Toxicol Lett 1992; 64-65:597-604.
18. Vanparys PH, Corvi R, Aardema M et al. ECVAM prevalidation of three cell transformation assays. ALTEX 2010; 27:267-270.
19. EC ECVAM. ESAC opinion based on the ESAC peer review of an ECVAM-coordinated prevalidation study concerning three protocols of the Cell Transformation Assay (CTA) for in vitro carcinogenicity testing. Ispra: European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, 2011.
20. EC ECVAM. ESAC Working Group Peer Review Consensus Report on an ECVAM-coordinated study concerning three protocols of the Cell Transformation Assay (CTA) for in vitro carcinogenicity testing. Ispra: European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, 2011.
21. EC ECVAM. ECVAM recommendation on the in vitro Cell Transformation Assay for carcinogenicity testing. Ispra: European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, 2011.
22. Walsh MJ, Bruce SW, Pant K et al. Discrimination of a transformation phenotype in Syrian golden hamster embryo (SHE) cells using ATR-FTIR spectroscopy. Toxicol 2009; 258:33-38.
23. Urani C, Stefanini FM, Bussinelli L et al. Image analysis and automatic classification of transformed foci. J Microsc 2009; 234:269-279.
24. Poth A, Kunz S, Heppenheimer A. Bhas cell transformation assay as a predictor of carcinogenicity. ALTEX 2007; 14 (Special Issue):519-521.
25. Ao L, Liu JY, Liu WB et al. Comparison of gene expression profiles in BALB/c 3T3 transformed foci exposed to tumor promoting agents. Toxicol In Vitro 2010; 24:430-438.
26. Rohrbeck A, Salinas G, Maaser K et al. Toxicogenomics applied to in vitro carcinogenicity testing with Balb/c 3T3 cells revealed a gene signature predictive of chemical carcinogens. Toxicol Sci 2010; 118:31-41.
27. Thierbach R, Steinberg P. Automated soft agar assay for the high-throughput screening of anticancer compounds. Anal Biochem 2009; 87:318-320.
28. Ohmori K, Umeda M, Tanaka N et al. Non-Genotoxic Carcinogen Study Group in the Environmental Mutagen Society of Japan. An inter-laboratory collaborative study by the Non-Genotoxic Carcinogen Study Group in Japan, on a cell transformation assay for tumour promoters using Bhas 42 cells. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2005; 33(6):619-639.
29. Combes R, Balls M, Curren R et al. Cell transformation assays as predictors of human carcinogenicity. ECVAM Workshop Report 39. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 1999; 27(5):745-767.
30. Aubrecht J, Caba E. Gene expression profile analysis: an emerging approach to investigate mechanisms of genotoxicity. Pharmacogenomics 2005; 6:419-428.
31. Ellinger-Ziegelbauer H, Stuart B, Wahle B et al. Comparison of the expression profiles induced by genotoxic and nongenotoxic carcinogens in rat liver. Mutat Res 2005; 575:61-84.
32. Corvi R, Ahr HJ, Albertini S et al. Meeting report: Validation of toxicogenomics-based test systems: ECVAM-ICCVAM/NICEATM considerations for regulatory use. Environ Health Perspect 2006; 114:420-429.
33. Basketter D, Casati S, Gerberick F et al. Subchapter 3.4. Skin Sensitisation. In: Eskes C, Zuang V, eds. Alternative (non-animal) Methods for Cosmetics Testing: Current Status and Future Prospects. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2005; 33(Suppl 1):83-103.
34. Casati S, Aeby P, Basketter DA et al. Dendritic cells as a tool for the predictive identification of skin sensitisation hazard. The report and recommendations of ECVAM workshop 51. Altern Lab Anim- ATLA 2005; 33(1):47-62.
35. Natsch A, Bauch C, Foertsch L et al. The intra- and inter-laboratory reproducibility and predictivity of the KeratinoSens assay to predict skin sensitizers in vitro: results of a ring-study in five laboratories. Toxicol In Vitro 2011; 25(3):733-744.
36. EC. Manual of Decisions for Implementation of the 6th and 7th Amendments to Directive 67/548/EEC on Dangerous Substances. Updated version of July 2004 (EUR 20519). Ispra: European Chemicals Bureau, European Commission JRC, 2004.
37. Eskes C, Bessou S, Bruner L et al. Subchapter 3.3. Eye Irritation. In: Eskes C, Zuang V, eds. Alternative (non-animal) Methods for Cosmetics Testing: Current Status and Future Prospects. Altern Lab Anim- ATLA 2005; 33(Suppl 1):47-81.
38. Scott L, Eskes C, Hoffmann S et al. A proposed eye irritation testing strategy to reduce and replace in vivo studies using Bottom-Up and Top-Down approaches. Toxicol In Vitro 2010; 24(1):1-9.
39. Maurer JK, Parker RD, Jester JV. Extent of initial corneal injury as the mechanistic basis for ocular irritation: key findings and recommendations for the development of alternative assays. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2002; 36:106-117.
40. Garle MJ, Fry JR. Sensory nerves, neurogenic inflammation and pain: missing components of alternative irritation strategies? A review and a potential strategy. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2003; 31(3):295-316.
41. EC ECVAM. ESAC Statement on the scientific validity of the Episkin test (an in vitro test for skin corrosivity). Ispra: European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, 1998: Available at: http://ecvam.jrc.it/ publication/EPISKIN-statement.pdf.
42. EC ECVAM. ESAC Statement on the scientific validity of the rat skin transcutaneous electrical resistance (TER) test (an in vitro test for skin corrosivity). Ispra: European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, 1998: Available at: http://ecvam.jrc.it/publication/TER-statement.pdf.
43. EC ECVAM. ESAC Statement on the application of the EpiDerm human skin model for skin corrosivity testing. Ispra: European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, 2000: Available at: http://ecvam.jrc.it/publication/ EpiDerm-statement.pdf.
44. EC ECVAM. ESAC Statement on the application of the Corrositex assay for skin corrosivity testing. Ispra: European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, 2000. Available at: http://ecvam.jrc. it/publication/CRTX- statement.pdf.
45. EC ECVAM. ESAC Statement on the Application of the SkinethicTM Human Skin Model. Ispra: European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, 2006: Available at: http://ecvam.jrc.it/publication/ESAC25-statement-SKINETHIC- correction-on181206-C.pdf
46. EC ECVAM. ESAC Statement on the scientific validity of an in vitro test method for skin corrosivity testing. Ispra: European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, 2009: Available at: http://ecvam.jrc.it/publication/ ESAC30-skincorrosion-revised-20100921.pdf.
47. EC ECVAM. ESAC Statement on the validity of in vitro tests for skin irritation. Ispra: European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, 2007: Available at: http://ecvam.jrc.it/publication/ESAC26- statement- SkinIrritation-20070525-C.pdf.
48. EC ECVAM. ESAC Statement on the scientific validity of in vitro tests for skin irritation testing. Ispra: European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, 2008: Available at: http://ecvam.jrc.it/publication/ESAC- Statement-SkinEthic+EpiDerm%20FINAL%200812-01.pdf.
49. Willis CM, Stephens CJ, Wilkinson JD. Epidermal damage induced by irritants in man: a light and electron microscopic study. J Invest Dermatol 1989; 93:695-699.
50. Willis CM, Stephens CJ, Wilkinson JD. Selective expression of immune-associated surface antigens by keratinocytes in irritant contact dermatitis. J Invest Dermatol 1991; 96:505-511.
51. Spiekstra SW, Toebak MJ, Sampat-Sardjoepersad S et al. Induction of cytokine (interleukin-1alpha and tumor necrosis factor-alpha) and chemokine (CCL20, CCL27 and CXCL8) alarm signals after allergen and irritant exposure. Exp Dermatol 2005; 14:109-116.
52. Fluhr JW, Darlenski R, Angelova-Fischer I et al. Skin irritation and sensitization: mechanisms and new approaches for risk assessment. Skin Pharmacol Physiol 2008; 21:124-135.
53. EC ECVAM. ESAC Statement on the performance under UN GHS of three in vitro assays for skin irritation testing and the adaptation of the reference chemicals and defined accuracy values of the ECVAM skin irritation performances standards. Ispra: European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, 2009: Available at: http://ecvam.jrc.it/publication/ESAC31-skin-irritation- statement-20090922.pdf.
54. Griesinger C, Barroso J, Zuang V et al. Explanatory background document to the OECD draft test guideline on in vitro skin irritation testing. Ispra: European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, 2009.
55. Prudovsky I, Mandinova A, Soldi R et al. The nonclassical export routes: FGF1 and IL-1alpha point the way. J Cell Sci 2003; 116(24):4871-4881.
56. Nickel W. The mystery of nonclassical protein secretion. A current view on cargo proteins and potential export routes. Eur J Biochem 2003; 270:2109-2119.
57. Borlon C, Godard P, Eskes C et al. The usefulness of toxicogenomics for predicting acute skin irritation on in vitro reconstructed human epidermis. Toxicology 2007; 241:157-166.
58. Zuang V, Eskes C, Griesinger C et al. ECVAM key area topical toxicity: update on activities. AATEX 2007; 14(Special Issue):523-528.
59. EC-ECVAM. ECVAM Technical Report 2006-2007. Ispra: European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, 2008: Available at: http://ecvam.jrc.it/ publication/ECVAM%20Technical%20Report%202006- 2007%20final.pdf.
60. Smijs TG, Bouwstra JA. Focus on skin as a possible port of entry for solid nanoparticles and the toxicological impact. J Biomed Nanotechnol 2010; 6(5):469-484.
61. Baroli B. Penetration of nanoparticles and nanomaterials in the skin: fiction or reality? J Pharm Sci. 2010; 99(1):21-50.
62. Schroeter A, Engelbrecht T, Neubert RH et al. New nanosized technologies for dermal and transdermal drug delivery. A review. J Biomed Nanotechnol 2010; 6(5):511-528.
63. Steiling W, Kreutz J, Hofer H. Percutaneous penetration/dermal absorption of hair dyes in vitro. Toxicol In Vitro 2001; 15(4-5):565-570.
64. OECD. OECD guideline for the testing of chemicals Nr. 427. Skin absorption: in vivo method. Paris: Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development, 2004.
65. OECD. OECD guideline for the testing of chemicals Nr. 428. Skin absorption: in vitro method. Paris: Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development, 2004.
66. OECD. OECD series on testing and assessment Nr. 28. Guidance document on the conduct of skin absorption studies. Paris: Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development, 2004.
67. Van der Sandt JJM, Meuling WJA, Elliott GR et al. Comparative in vitro-in vivo percutaneous absorption of pesticide propoxur. Toxicol Sci 2000; 58:15-22.
68. Barbero AM, Frasch HF. Pig and guinea pig skin as surrogates for human in vitro penetration studies: a quantitative review. Toxicol In Vitro 2009; 23(1):1-13.
69. Ng SF, Rouse JJ, Sanderson FD et al. Validation of a static Franz diffusion cell system for in vitro permeation studies. AAPS Pharm Sci Tech 2010; 11(3):1432-1441.
70. EDETOX Project. Evaluations and predictions of dermal absorption of toxic chemicals. Newcastle-Upon-Tyne: EDETOX Project, 2004: Available at: http://research.ncl.ac.uk/edetox/EDETOX%20PDF%20Amended.pdf.
71. Williams FM. EDETOX Evaluations and predictions of dermal absorption of toxic chemicals. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2004; 77(2):150-151.
72. van de Sandt JJ, van Burgsteden JA, Cage S et al. In vitro predictions of skin absorption of caffeine, testosterone and benzoic acid: a multi-centre comparison study. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2004; 39(3):271-281.
73. Chilcott RP, Barai N, Beezer AE et al. Inter- and intralaboratory variation of in vitro diffusion cell measurements: an international multicenter study using quasi-standardized methods and materials. J Pharm Sci 2005; 94(3):632-638.
74. Schmook FP, Meingassner JG, Billich A. Comparison of human skin or epidermis models with human and animal skin in in-vitro percutaneous absorption. Int J Pharm 2001; 215(1-2):51-56.
75. Zghoul N, Fuchs R, Lehr CM, Schaefer UF. Reconstructed skin equivalents for assessing percutaneous drug absorption from pharmaceutical formulations. ALTEX 2001; 18(2):103-6.
76. Netzlaff F, Lehr CM, Wertz PW et al. The human epidermis models EpiSkin, SkinEthic and EpiDerm: an evaluation of morphology and their suitability for testing phototoxicity, irritancy, corrosivity and substance transport. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 2005; 60(2):167-178.
77. Schafer-Korting M, Mahmoud A, Lombardi Borgia S et al. Reconstructed epidermis and full-thickness skin for absorption testing: influence of the vehicles used on steroid permeation. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2008; 36(4):441-52.
78. Ackermann K, Borgia SL, Korting HC et al. The Phenion full-thickness skin model for percutaneous absorption testing. Skin Pharmacol Physiol 2010; 23(2):105-112.
79. Schafer-Korting M, Bock U, Gamer A et al. Reconstructed human epidermis for skin absorption testing: results of the German prevalidation study. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2006; 34(3):283-294.
80. Schafer-Korting M, BockU, Diembeck W et al. The use ofreconstructed human epidermis for skin absorption testing: Results of the validation study. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2008; 36(2):161-187.
81. Van Gele M, Geusens B, Brochez L et al. Three-dimensional skin models as tools for transdermal drug delivery: challenges and limitations. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 2011; 8(6):705-720.
82. Mitragotri S, Anissimov YG, Bunge AL et al. Mathematical models of skin permeability: An overview. Int J Pharm 2011; 418(1):115-29.
83. Ghafourian T, Samaras EG, Brooks JD et al. Validated models for predicting skin penetration from different vehicles. Eur J Pharm Sci 2010; 41(5):612-616.
84. Spielmann H, Balls M, Brand M et al. EC/COLIPA project on in vitro phototoxicity testing: first results obtained with the Balb/c 3T3 cell phototoxicity assay. Toxicol In Vitro 1994; 8:793-796.
85. Spielmann H, Balls M, Dupuis J et al. The international EU/COLIPA In vitro phototoxicity validation study: results of phase II (blind trial), part 1: the 3T3 NRU phototoxicity test. Toxicol In Vitro 1998; 12:305-327.
86. EC. Commission Directive 2000/33/EC of 25 April 2000 adapting to technical progress for the 27th time Council Directive 67/548/EC on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances. Annex V B.41 Phototoxicity-in vitro 3T3 NRU phototoxicity test. Off J Eur Comm 2000; L136:98-107.
87. OECD. OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals Nr. 432. In vitro 3T3 NRU phototoxicity test. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2004.
88. Edwards SM, Donnelly TA, Sayre RM et al. Quantitative in vitro assessment of phototoxicity using a human skin model, Skin2. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed 1994; 10:111-117.
89. Liebsch M, Barrabas C, Traue T et al. Entwicklung eines in vitro Tests auf dermale Phototoxizitaet in einem Modell menschlicher Epidermis (EpiDermTM). ALTEX 1997; 14:165-174.
90. Liebsch M, Döring B, Donelly TA et al. Application of the human dermal model Skin2 ZK 1350 to phototoxicity and skin corrosivity testing. Toxicol In Vitro 1995; 9:557-562.
91. Api AM. In vitro assessment of phototoxicity. In Vitro Toxicol 1997; 10:339-350.
92. Liebsch M, Traue D, Barrabas C et al. Prevalidation of the EpiDerm phototoxicity test. In: Clark D, Lisansky S, Macmillan R, eds. Alternatives to Animal Testing II: Proceedings of the Second International Scientific Conference Organised by the European Cosmetic Industry. Brussels/Newbury: CPL Press, 1999: 160-166.
93. Jones PA, King AV, Lovell W et al. Phototoxicity testing using 3-D reconstructed human skin models. In: Clark D, Lisansky S, Macmillan R, eds. Alternatives to Animal Testing II: Proceedings of the Second International Scientific Conference Organised by the European Cosmetic Industry. Brussels/Newbury: CPL Press, 1999:160-166.
94. EMEA. Note for guidance on photosafety testing (CPMP/SWP/398/01). London: European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products, 2002 Available at: http://www.ema.europa.eu/ docs/en-GB/document-library/Scientific-guideline/2009/09/WC500003353.pdf.
95. Kejlovà K, Jrovà D, Bendovà H et al. Phototoxicity of bergamot oil assessed by in vitro techniques in combination with human patch tests. Toxicol In Vitro 2007; 21(7):1298-303.
96. Lynch AM, Smith MD, Lane AS et al. An evaluation of chemical photoreactivity and the relationship to photogenotoxicity. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2010; 58(2):219-223.
97. Blaauboer BJ, Bayliss MK, Castell JV et al. The use of biokinetics and in vitro methods in toxicological risk evaluation. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 1996; 24(4):473-497.
98. Blaauboer BJ. The necessity of biokinetic information in the interpretation of in vitro toxicity data. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2002; 30(Suppl 2):85-91.
99. Boobis A, Gundert-Remy U, Kremers P et al. In silico prediction of ADME and pharmacokinetics. Report of an expert meeting organised by COST B15. Eur J Pharm Sci 2002; 17:183-193.
100. Parrott N, Paquereau N, Coassolo P et al. An evaluation of the utility of physiologically based models of pharmacokinetics in early drug discovery. J Pharm Sci 2005; 94:2327-2343.
101. EPA. Approaches for the application of Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) Models and supporting data in risk assessment. EPA/600/R-05/043F. Washington, DC: US Enivronmental Protection Agency, 2007.
102. Parrott N, Jones H, Paquereau N et al. Application of full physiological models for pharmaceutical drug candidate selection and extrapolation of pharmacokinetics to man. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 2005; 96:193-199.
103. Theil FP, Guentert TW, Haddad S et al. Utility of physiologically based pharmacokinetic models to drug development and rational drug discovery candidate selection. Toxicol Lett 2003; 138:29-49.
104. Jones HM, Parrott N, Jorga K et al. A novel strategy for physiologically based predictions of human pharmacokinetics. Clin Pharmacokinet 2006; 45:511-542.
105. Pessina A, Albella B, Bayo M et al. Application of the CFU-GM assay to predict acute drug-induced neutropenia: an international blind trial to validate a prediction model for the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of myelosuppressive xenobiotics. Toxicol Sci 2003; 75:355-367.
106. Davila JC, Cezar GG, Thiede M et al. Use and application of stem cells in toxicology. Toxicol Sci 2004; 79:214-223.
107. Crosta G, Fumarola L, Malerba I et al. Scoring CFU-GM colonies in vitro by data fusion: A first account. Exp Hematol 2007; 35(1):1-12.
108. Burczynski ME, Dorner AJ. Transcriptional profiling of peripheral blood cells in clinical pharmacogenomic studies. Pharmacogenomics 2006; 7:187-202.
109. Parng C, Seng WL, Semino C et al. Zebrafish: a preclinical model for drug screening. Assay Drug Dev Technol 2002; 1:41-48.
110. van Vliet E, Morath S, Eskes C et al. A novel in vitro metabolomics approach for neurotoxicity testing, proof of principle for methyl mercury chloride and caffeine. Neurotoxicology 2008; 29(1):1-12.
111. van Vliet E, Stoppini L, Balestrino M et al. Electrophysiological recording of re-aggregating brain cell cultures on multi-electrode arrays to detect acute neurotoxic effects. Neurotoxicology 2007; 28(6):1136-1146.
112. Roi AJ, Flego M. ECVAMs Database Service on Alternative Methods (DB-ALM)-Online. ALTEX 2006; 23(Special Issue):177-180.