An in-vitro toxicity testing - a reliable alternative to toxicity testing by reduction, replacement and refinement of animals.
Keywords:
Reduction, Replacement and Refinement (3Rs)Abstract
In the past few years, many in vitro methods for animal toxicity testing have been developed, validated, as a alternative to whole animal tests and it gained regulatory acceptance due to ethical and scientific concerns regarding the use of animals. These alternative methods are developed and validated using Reduction, Replacement and Refinement - 3Rs approach. A range of non animal methods are available which includes: Physiology based Pharmacokinetic modeling, computerized modeling, use of non mammalian models, variety of cell and tissue cultures, endpoint assays, microarray technology, human clinical trials utilizing microdosing and epidemiological studies, use of –omics technologies. These non animal models may generate more reliable, faster and cheaper results and may also provide mechanistic depth. Considerable progress in the development of alternative methods have been made in some fields such as dermal toxicity, ocular toxicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, carcinogenicity, hepatotoxicity, neurotoxicity, biologicals testing. There is still a lack of 3Rs alternatives for systemic and long-term toxicity. New approaches such as integrated tiered strategies have been developed. This article reviews the alternative technologies in assessing the human risks and providing protection against the hazards. There is a need for the implementation, validation and rapid regulatory acceptance to meet the emerging testing needs.
References
Maugh TM. Chemicals: How many are there? Science
; 199:162.
National Research Council, Toxicity Testing: Strategies
to Determine Needs and Priorities, (National Academy
of Sciences, Washington), 1984.
Goldberg AM, Rowan AN. Conceptual Approaches to
Alternate Methods in Toxicological Testing. Def Sci J
April 1987; 37(2): 99-1 12.
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.
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.
Russell WMS, Burch RL. The Principles of Humane
Experimental Technique, 238pp. London UK: Methuen
Gad SC. Recent Developments in Replacing, Reducing,
and Refining Animal Use in Toxicologic Research and
Testing. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol 1990; 15:8-16.
ECVAM (European Centre for the Validation of
Alternative Methods), Joint Research Centre, European
Commission Directorate General (undated). Validated
methods accessed 31. Aug. 2008.
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.
Knight A. Non-Animal Methodologies within
Biomedical Research and Toxicity Testing.
Combes R. Developing, validating and using test
batteries and tiered (hierarchical) testing schemes.
ATLA 2007; 35:375-378.
Wishart DS. Improving early drug discovery through
ADME modeling: an overview. Drugs R. D. 2007;
(6):349-362.
Sklarew M. Toxicity Testing in Animals: Alternative
Models. Environmental Health Perspectives 1993;
(4).
Gad SC, Chengeus CP. Acute Toxicology: Principles
and Methods. Telford Press, Caldwell, NJ. 1988.
Luttun A, Verfaillie CM. A perspective on stem cells as
a tool for in vitro testing. ALTEX 2006; 23 Sp.
Issue:388-392.
Huggins J. Alternatives to animal testing: research,
trends, validation, regulatory acceptance. ALTEX 2003;
(1):3-61.
Murthy B. Relevance of in vitro toxicology studies in
risk assessment. ALTEX 2007; 24(3):174-177.
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.
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-
Chamberlain M, Gad SC, Gautheron P and Prinsen
MK. Food and Chem Toxicol 1997; 35(1):23.
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.
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;
:325-334.
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;
:343-354.
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-
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.
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.
Ohuchi J, Kasai Y, Sakamoto K, Ohnuma M, Kitamura
M, Kawasaki Y, et al. Interlaboratory validation of the
in vitro eye irritation tests for cosmetic ingredients (6)
evaluation of MATREX TM. Toxicol. In vitro 1999;
:153-162.
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 CornePack. Toxicol.
In vitro 1999; 13:163-173.
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.
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.
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;
:207-212.
Luepke NP. Hen’s egg chorioallantoic membranes test
for irritation potential. Food Chem. Toxicol. 1985;
:287-291.
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.
Osborne R, Perkins MA and Roberts DA. Development
and intralaboratory evaluation of an in vitro human cellbased test to aid ocular assessments. Fundam. Appl.
Toxicol 1995; 28:139-153.
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;
:871-929.
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.
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.
-74.
Weinberg EH, Springer ST. J. Soc. Cosmet. Chem.
; 32:303-315.
Tenenbaum S, Dinardo J, Morris WE, Wolf BA and
Schgetzinger RW. Cell Biol. Toxicol. 1984; 1:1-6.
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.
Morrison WL, McAuliffe DJ, Parrish JA and Bloch
KB. Invest. Dennatol 1982; 78:460-463.
Kao J, Hall J and Holland JM. Toxicol. Appl.
Pharmacol. 1983; 68:206-217.
Fouts JR. Trendsin Pharma. Sci. 1982; 3:164-166.
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.
Roguet R. Use of skin cell cultures for in vitro
assessment of corrosion and cutaneous irritancy. Cell
Biol. Toxicol. 1999; 15:63-75.
ECVAM [European Centre for the Validation of
Alternative Methods] Scientific Advisory Committee.
Statement on the scientific validity of the EpiskinTM
Test (an in vitro test for skin corrosivity). 10th Meeting
of ECVAM held March 31, 1998.
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.
ECVAM [European Centre for the Validation of
Alternative Methods] Scientific Advisory Committee.
b.
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.
ECVAM [European Centre for the Validation of
Alternative Methods] Scientific Advisory Committee.
b. 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.
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.
OECD. OECD Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals,
No. 406:Skin Sensitization. Paris: Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development 1992
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.
Annon. OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals,
Draft Guideline 421: Reproduction/Developmental
Toxicity Screening Test 1993, pp. 8. Paris: OECD.
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;
:343-354.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Newall DR, Beedles KE. The stem cell test: a novel in
vitro assay for teratogenic potential. Toxicol. In vitro
; 8: 697-701.
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.
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 Shortterm Bioassays in the Analysis of Complex
Environmental Mixtures III.Plenum Press, New York,
pp. 393-405.
New DAT. Whole embryo culture and the study of
mammalian embryos during organogenesis. Biol. Rev.
; 53:81-122.
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.
Jelinek R, Peterka M and Rychter Z. Chick
embryotoxicity screening test (CHEST)-130 substances
tested. Ind J Exp Biol 1985; 23: 588-595.
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.
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;
:1203-1209.
Sakai A. BALB/c 3T3 cell transformation assays for the
assessment of chemical carcinogenicity. AATEX 2007;
, Special Issue: 367-373.
Oshiro Y, Balwierz PS, et al. Experimental design for
the C3H10T1/2 transformation assay. J Appl Toxicol
; 8(4):255-260.
ECETOC (European Centre for Ecotoxicology and
Toxicology of Chemicals). Aneuploidy: ECETOC
Monograph No. 27. Brussels, Belgium: ECETOC 1997.
Parry EM. and Parry JM. In vitro cytogenetics and
aneuploidy. In D.H. Phillips and S. Venitt (eds.),
EnvironmentalMutagenesis (121-139). Oxford, UK:
Bios Scientific Publishers, 1995.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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:
–684.
Berry MN, Grivell AR, Grivell MB and Phillips JW.
Isolated hepatocytes-past, present and future. Cell Biol
Toxicol 1997; 13:223–233.
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.
Hisom HC, Georgoff I. Quantitative assay for albuminproducing liver cells after simian virus 40
transformation of rat hepatocytes maintained in
chemically defined medium. Proc Natl Acad Sci U.S.A
; 1:201-247.
Abouna GM, Ashcroft T and Hull C. The assessment of
function of the isolated perfused porcine liver. Br J
Surg 1969; 56:289–295.
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
; 22:706–712.
Ghantous HN, Fernando J, Gandolfi AJ and Brendel K.
Biotransformation of halothane in guinea pig liver
slices. Drug Metab Disp 1990; 18:514-518.
Vickers AE. Use of human organ slices to evaluate the
biotransformation and drug-induced side-effects of
pharmaceuticals. CellBiol Toxicol 1994; 10:407–414.
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.
Gahwiler BH. Organotypic monolayer cultures of
nervous tissue. J. Neurosci. Meth 1981; 4:229-342.
Honneger P, Richelson. Biochemical differentiation of
aggregating cell cultures of different fetal rat brain
regions. Brain Res 1977; 133:329-339.
Walum E, Hansson E and Harvey AL. In vitro testing
of neurotoxicity. ATLA 1989; 18:153-179.
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.
Atterwill CK. Brain reaggregate culturesin
neurotoxicological investigations: adaptionaland
neurodegenerative processes following lesions. Mol
Toxicol 1987; 1:489-502.
Veronesi B. The use of cell culture for evaluating
neurotoxicity. In: Neurotoxicology (Tilson H, Mitchell
C, eds). New York: Raven Press 1992; 21-49.
Stanness KA, GuatteoE and Janigro D. A dynamic
model of the blood brain barrier in vitro.
Neurotoxicology 1996; 17:481-496.
Veronesi B. Characterization of the MDCK cell line for
screening neurotoxicants. Neurotoxicology 1996;
:433-444.
Metz B, et al. Reduction of animal use in human
vaccine quality control. Vaccine 2002; 20:2411-2430.
Hendriksen CFM. Animal models in vaccinology. In:
Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science Volume II:
Animal Models, 2nd Edition, CRC Press, Boca Raton,
Florida, USA, editors Jann Hau and Gerald Van
Hoosier, pp.1-14.
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;
: 43-48.
Hendriksen C. Three Rs achievements in vaccinology.
AATEX 2007; 14(Special Issue):575-579.
Watanabe M. Required effort to evolve Toxicity
testing using in vitro methods. AATEX 1995; 3:81-84.
Balls M. Replacement of animal procedures:
alternatives in research, education and testing.
Laboratory Animals 1994; 28:193-211.
Zeiger E, Stokes WS. Validating new toxicology tests
for regulatory acceptance. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol
; 27:32-37.
Liebsech M, Spielmann H. Currently available in vitro
methods used in the regulatory toxicology. Toxicology
Letters 2002; 127:127-134.
Kniewald J, Kmetie I, Gaurina-Srèek V and Kniewald
Z. Alternative models for toxicity of xenobiotics.
Alternatives to toxicity testing 2005; 56:195-204.
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.
