TrevanJ.W. (1927). The error of determination of toxicity. Proceedings of the Royal Society (London) Series B 101, 483–514.
2.
ZbindenG., & Flury-RoversiM. (1981). Significance of the LD50 test for the toxicological evaluation of chemical substances. Archives of Toxicology47, 77–99.
3.
BallsM. (1991). Why modification of the LD50 test will not be enough. Laboratory Animals25, 198–206.
4.
BallsM., & FentemJ.H. (1993). The on-going process to replace the LD50 test. Humane Innovations and Alternatives7, 544–547.
5.
OECD (2001). OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals No. 420: Acute Oral Toxicity — Fixed Dose Procedure, 14 pp. Paris, France: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
6.
OECD (2001). OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals No. 423: Acute Oral Toxicity — Acute Toxic Class Method, 14 pp. Paris, France: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
7.
OECD (2001). OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals No. 425: Acute Oral Toxicity — Up-and-Down Procedure, 26 pp. Paris, France: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
8.
OECD (1987). OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals No 401: Acute Oral Toxicity (Deleted in 2002), 7 pp. Paris, France: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
9.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) (2003). Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS), 6 pp. New York, NY, USA, and Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations.
10.
OECD (2000). Environmental Health and Safety Monograph Series on Testing and Assessment No. 19: Guidance Document on the Recognition Assessment and Use of Clinical Signs as Humane Endpoints for Experimental Animals Used in Safety Evaluation, 39 pp. Paris, France: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
11.
OECD (2001). Environmental Health and Safety Monograph Series on Testing and Assessment No. 24: Guidance Document on Acute Oral Toxicity Testing, 24 pp. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
12.
Van der HeuvelM.J., ClarkD.G., FielderR.J., KoundakjianP.P., OlivierG.J.A., PellingD., TomlinsonN.J., & WalkerA.P. (1990). The international validation of a fixed-dose procedure as an alternative to the classical LD50 test. Food and Chemical Toxicology28, 469–482.
13.
OECD (2004). Draft Test Guideline on Acute Inhalation Toxicity — Fixed Dose Procedure, 24 pp. Paris, France: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
14.
LowryO.H., RosebroughN.J., FarrA.L., & RandallR.J. (1951). Protein measurement with the folin phenol reagent title. Journal of Biological Chemistry193, 265–275.
15.
DierickxP. (1989). Cytotoxicity testing of 114 compounds by the determination of the protein content in Hep G2 cell cultures. Toxicology in Vitro3, 189–193.
16.
ClemedsonC., McFarlane-AbdullaE., AnderssonM., BarileF.A., CallejaM.C., ChesnéC., ClothierR., CottinM., CurrenR., Daniel-SzolgayE., DierickxP., FerroM., FiskesjöG., Garza-OcanasL., Gómez-LechónM.J., GüldenM., IsomaaB., JanusJ., JudgeP., KahruA., KempR.B., KerszmanG., KristenU., KunimotoM., KärenlampiS., LavrijsenK., LewanL., LiliusH., OhnoT., PersooneG., RoguetR., RomertL., SawyerT., SeibertH., ShrivastavaR., StammatiA., TanakaN., Torres AlanisO., VossJ-U., WakuriS., WalumE., WangX., ZuccoF, & EkwallB. (1996). MEIC evaluation of acute systemic toxicity: Part I. Methodology of 68 in vitro toxicity assays used to test the first 30 reference chemicals. ATLA24, 251–272.
17.
KangasL., GronroosM., & NieminenA.L. (1984). Bioluminescence of cellular ATP: a new method for evaluating cytotoxicity agents in vitro.Medical Biology62, 338–343.
18.
WakuriS., IzumiJ., SasakiK., TanakaN., & OnoH. (1993). Cytotoxicity study of 32 MEIC chemicals by colony formation and ATP assays, Toxicology in Vitro7, 517–521.
19.
PaulJ. (1975). In Cell and Tissue Culture, 430 pp. Edinburgh: Churchill-Livingstone.
20.
EkwallB., & SandströmB. (1978). Combined toxicity to HeLa cells of 30 drug pairs, studied by a two-dimensional microtitre method. Toxicology Letters2, 285–292.
21.
BorenfreundE., & PuernerJ. (1985). Toxicity determination in vitro by morphological alterations and neutral red absorption. Toxicology Letters24, 119–124.
LiebschM., & SpielmannH. (1995). Balb/c 3T3 cytotoxicity test. In Methods and Molecular Biology, Vol. 43, In Vitro Toxicity testing Protocols (ed. O'HareS., AtterwillC.K.), pp. 177–87. Totowa, NJ, USA: Humana Press.
24.
SpielmannH., LiebschM., KalweitS., MoldenhauerF., WirnsbergerT., HolzhutterH.G., SchneiderB., GlaserS., GernerI., PapeW., KreilingR., KrauserK., MiltenburgerH.G., SteilingW., LuepkeN.P., MullerN., KreuzerH., MurmannP., SpenglerJ., Bertram-NeisE., SiegemundB., & WiebelF.J. (1996). Results of a validation study in Germany in two in vitro alternatives to the Draize eye irritation test, the HET-CAM test and the 3T3 NRU cytotoxicity test. ATLA24, 741–58.
25.
SpielmannH., GenschowE., LiebschM., & HalleW. (1999). Determination of the starting dose for acute oral toxicity (LD50) testing in the Up and Down Procedure (UDP) from cytotoxicity data. ATLA27, 957–66.
26.
BorenfreundE., & PuernerJ. (1984). A simple quantitative procedure using monolayer cultures for cytotoxicity assays (HTD/NR-90). Journal of Tissue Culture Methods9, 7–9.
27.
HeimannR., & RiceR.H. (1983). Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon toxicity and induction of metabolism in cultivated esophageal and epidermal keratinocytes. Cancer Research43, 4856.
28.
ShrivastavaR., JohnG.W., RispatG., ChevalierA., & MassinghamR. (1991). Can the in vivo maximum tolerated dose be predicted using in vitro techniques? A working hypothesis. ATLA19, 393–402.
29.
ShrivastavaR., DelomenieC., ChevalierA., JohnG., EkwallB., WalumE., & MassinghamR. (1992). Comparison of in vivo acute lethal potency and in vitro cytotoxicity of 48 chemicals. Cell Biology and Toxicology8, 157–170.
30.
DuffT., CarterS., FeldmanG., McEwanG., PfallerW., RhodesP., RyanM., & HawksworthG. (2002). Transepithelial resistance and inulin permeability as endpoints in in vitro nephrotoxicity testing. ATLA30, Suppl. 2, 53–59.
31.
PfallerW., & TroppmairE. (2000). Renal transepithelial resistance (TER) and paracellular permeability (PCP) are reliable endpoints to screen for nephrotoxicity. In Progress in the Reduction Refinement and Replacement of Animal Experimantation, Vol. 1 (ed. BallsM., van ZellerA-M., & HalderM.), pp. 291–304. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science BV.
32.
DeardenJC., BarrattM.D., BenigniR., BristolD.W., CombesR.D., & CroninM.T.D. (1997). The development and validation of expert systems for predicting toxicity. The report and recommendations of an ECVAM/ECB workshop (ECVAM workshop 24). ATLA25, 223–252.
CroninM.T.D., JaworskaJ.S., WalkerJ.D., ComberM.H.I., WattsC.D., & WorthA.P. (2003). Use of QSARs in International Decision-Making Frameworks to Predict Health Effects of Chemical Substances. Environmental Health Perspectives111, 1391–1401.
35.
ICCVAM (2001). Report of the International Workshop on In Vitro Methods for Assessing Acute Systemic Toxicity, NIH Publication no. 01-4499, 370 pp. Research Triangle Park. NC. USA: NIEHS. Website http:/iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/methods/invidocs/finalall.pdf (Accessed 10.2.05).