The prospects of replacing animal experiments with other types of toxicological studies are considered, and the use of human data and in vitro experiments are discussed. Ongoing validation studies of in vitro methods for evaluation of acute toxicity, local irritation, target organ toxicity, tumour promotion and teratogenicity are presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson D.Genetic toxicology. In Experimental Toxicology - The Basic Principles. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry, 1990.
2.
Kesler REStructural requirements for initiation of Limulus amebocyte lysate gelation by lipoteichoic acids. FEMS Microbiology Letters1983; 20: 343-6.
3.
Phillips JC, Gibson WB, Yam J., Alden CL & Hard GCSurvey of the QSAR and in vitro approaches for developing non-animal methods to supersede the in vivo LD50 test. Food and Chemical Toxicology1990; 28: 375-94.
4.
Ekwall B., Bondesson I., Hellberg S. et al. Validation of in vitro cytotoxicity tests - past and present strategies. Alternatives To Laboratory Animals1991; 19: 226-33.
5.
Balls M. & Horner SAThe FRAME interlaboratory programme on in vitro cytotoxicology. Food and Chemical Toxicology1985; 23: 209-13.
6.
Clothier RH, Hulme LM, Smith M. & Balls M.Comparison of the in vitro cytotoxicities and acute in vivo toxicities of 59 chemicals. MolecularToxicology1987; 1: 571-7.
7.
Ekwall B., Bondesson I., Castell JV et al. Cytotoxicity evaluation of the first ten MEIC Chemicals: acute lethal toxicity in man predicted by cytotoxicity in five cellular assays and by oral LD50 tests in rodents. Alternatives To Laboratory Animals1989; 17: 83-100.
8.
Gordon VC, Kelly CP & Bergman HCApplications of the EYETEX TM method. Toxicology In Vitro1990; 4: 314-7.
9.
van Erp Yhm & Weterings Pjjm.Eye irritancy screening for classification of chemicals. Toxicology In Vitro1990; 4: 267-9.
10.
Flint OPIn vitro alternatives to ocular toxicity testing: report of a meeting organized by the industrial in vitro toxicology group. In Vitro Toxicology1990; 3: 281-91.
11.
Reader SJ, Blackwell V., O'Hara R., Clothier RH & Balls M.A vital dye release method for assessing the short-term cytotoxic effects of chemicals and formulations. Alternatives To Laboratory Animals1989; 17: 28-33.
12.
Shaw AJ, Clothier RH & Balls M.Loss of trans-epithelial impermeability of a confluent monolayer of Madin-Darby canine kidney cells as a determinant of ocular irritancy potential. Alternatives To Laboratory Animals1990; 18: 145-51.
13.
Balls M., Atkinson KA & Gordon VCComplementation in the development, validation and use of non-animal test batteries, with particular reference to ocular irritation. Alternatives To Laboratory Animals1991; 19: 429-31.
14.
Borenfreund E. & Puerner JAToxicity determined in vitro by morphological alterations and neutral red absorption. Toxicology Letters1985; 24: 119-24.
15.
Burton Abg, York M. & Lawrence RSThe in vitro assessment of severe eye irritants. Food and Cosmetic Toxicology1981; 19: 471-80.
16.
Booman KA, Cascieri TM, Demetrulias J. et al. In vitro methods for estimating eye irritancy of cleaning products. Phase I: Preliminary assessment. Journal of Toxicology - Cutaneous & OcularToxicology1988; 7: 173-85.
17.
Booman KA, Cascieri TM, Demetrulias J. et al. The SDA validation programme: Comparison of in vitro data with Draize test data. Journal of Toxicology - Cutaneous & OcularToxicology1989; 8: 35-49.
18.
Gettings SD & McEwen GN. Development of potential alternatives to the Draize eye test: The CTFA evaluation of alternatives program. Alternatives To Laboratory Animals1990; 17: 317-24.
19.
Gettings SD, Dipasquale LC, Bagley DM et al. The CTFA evaluation of alternatives programme: An evaluation of in vitro alternatives to the Draize primary eye irritancy test (phase I) Hydro-alcoholic formulations; A preliminary communication. In Vitro Toxicology1990; 3: 293-302.
20.
Spielmann H., Gerner I., Kalweit S. et al. Interlaboratory assessment of alternatives to the Draize eye irritation test in Germany. Toxicology In Vitro1991; 5: 539-42.
21.
Commission of the European Communities.Collaborative study on the evaluation of alternative methods to the eye irritation test. Brussels: CEC, 1991.
Young JR, How MJ, Walker AP & Worth Whm.Classification as corrosive or irritant to skin of preparations containing acidic or alkaline substances, without testing on animals. Toxicology in Vitro1988; 2: 19-26.
24.
Oliver Gja, Pemberton MA & Rhodes C.An in vitro model for identifying skin-corrosive chemicals. I. Initial validation . Toxicology in Vitro1988; 2: 7-17.
25.
Barlow A., Hirst R. & Pemberton MARefinement of an in vitro test for the identification of skin corrosive chemicals . Toxicology Methods1991; 1: 106-15.
26.
Commission of the European Communities.Collaborative study on the relationship between in vivo primary irritation and in vitro experimental models. Luxembourg, CEC, 1989.
27.
Ekwall B. & Acosta D.In vitro comparative toxicity of selected drugs and chemicals in HeLa cells, Chang liver cells and rat hepatocytes. Drug and ChemicalToxicology1982; 5: 219-31.
28.
Autrup H. & Dragsted L.Overview of tumor promotors and test systems to identify promotors. Copenhagen, Nordisk Ministerråd, 1987.
29.
Working Party Report from the National Food Agency of Denmark.Embryo-Foetal Damage and Chemical Substances . Copenhagen, National Food Agency of Denmark, 1989.
30.
Ecetoc.Alternative approaches for the assessment of reproductive toxicity (with emphasis on embryotoxicity/teratogenicity). Monograph No. 12. ECETOC, Brussels, 1989.
31.
NTP (US - National Toxicology Programme).Evaluation of two in vitro teratology test systems. Final Report. Washington, DC, National Toxicology Programme, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NTP-86-372, 1986.
