DOCSLIB.ORG

“Six-Pack” Testing Strategy: Influx of Modern in Vitro Techniques Gertrude-Emilia Costin, Ph.D., M.B.A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
“Six-Pack” Testing Strategy: Influx of Modern in Vitro Techniques Gertrude-Emilia Costin, Ph.D., M.B.A Modernizing the “six-pack” testing strategy: influx of modern in vitro techniques Gertrude-Emilia Costin, Ph.D., M.B.A. Institute for In Vitro Sciences, Inc. (IIVS) NorCal SOT Fall Symposium 2017 The 3Rs 28 September 2017, San Francisco, CA, USA Perspectives, challenges, common goals and working together Safety/ Testing Labs Labeling/ Industry/ Regulatory Manufacturer Agency Consumer/ End-user Safety Presentation Outline Current regulatory climate – global acceptance of in vitro methods The reductionist concept of in vitro methods Drivers of in vitro methods advancement Beyond the “six-pack” battery of acute toxicity tests Acute oral toxicity Acute dermal toxicity (oral vs dermal route comparison) Acute inhalation toxicity Ocular irritation (the EPA OPP testing strategy) Skin irritation/corrosion Skin sensitization Modernizing the “six-pack” testing strategy: influx of modern in vitro techniques Current regulatory climate – global acceptance of in vitro methods The reductionist concept of in vitro models 1940s 1990s Whole animal Organ - Eyeball Tissue - Cornea Cell culture (Rabbit) (Enucleated chicken or (Resected bovine (Statens Seruminstitut rabbit eye) cornea) Rabbit cornea cells) “Less is more” Retinal Pigment Epithelium Semi-permeable Membrane Vascular network Nutrient channels Fibrinogen- endothelial cell administration channel Body-on-a-chip Organ-on-a-chip Tissue construct Cell culture (Human organotypic (Human retina) (Human EpiCorneal™ (Normal human microtissues) model) corneal epithelial cells) 2010s 2000s G.-E. Costin and H. A. Raabe. In vitro toxicology models. In: The Role of the Study Director in Non-clinical Studies. Pharmaceuticals, Chemicals, Medical Devices, and Pesticides. (Eds. William Brock, Barbara Mounho and Lijie Fu), John Wiley and Sons (2014). G.-E. Costin. Advances in science: next generation of lab tools, models and testing platforms used in predictive toxicology. Molecular Life 2017; 1(1), 22- 28, doi: 10.26600/MolLife.1.1.3.2017. Available at: http://molecular-life.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Advances-science-next-generation-lab-tools-models- testing-platforms-used-predictive-toxicology.pdf. Drivers of in vitro methods advancement Industry Public CROs R In vitro methods Regulatory Trade Agencies Refinement Associations Animal Academia Welfare Groups Ongoing evolution on so many levels • Improve scientific basis for testing using human-derived test models • Reduce the number of animals for testing • Increase predictivity • Reduce time, price • Harmonize requirements and prediction models http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/pubhealth/evalatm/test-method-evaluations/project-milestones/index.html#atc-inh. http://alttox.org/mapp/table-of-validated-and-accepted-alternative-methods/. Beyond the “six-pack” battery of acute toxicity tests Acute oral rat Skin Acute irritation dermal rabbit rabbit PESTICIDES Ocular Acute irritation inhalation rabbit rat Skin sensitization guinea pig mouse The modern in vitro toxicology perspective EPA Health Effects Test Guidelines OPPTS 870.1000 Acute Toxicity Testing-Background. Acute oral toxicity – CRO’s perspective Test system: normal human keratinocytes (NHEKs) or Balbc 3T3 mouse fibroblasts Assay endpoints: cell viability [by Neutral Red Uptake (NRU) assay] Data calculation: estimated log LD50 mmol/kg = 0.435 x log mean NRU50 mM + 0.625 For initial dose setting OECD Guidance Document 129 Pre-testing: Solubility Treatment assessment Cell seeding Dilution/Dosing termination Solvent addition NHEK 3T3 NRU addition Plate reading Acute dermal toxicity – Regulatory perspective (oral vs dermal route comparison) Efforts to use a single route • 2013, US EPA OPP, National Toxicology Program (NTP) Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM): retrospective analysis of oral and dermal acute lethality studies focused on formulated pesticides products considering the EPA pesticide categorization scheme. Acute dermal toxicity – Regulatory perspective (oral vs dermal route comparison) The dataset of rat acute oral and acute dermal Data analysis LD50 studies included: • For 57% of the 592 formulations, the • 592 formulated pesticide products, representing results of both oral and dermal acute 316 active ingredients toxicity studies fall within the same • all four Toxicity Categories Toxicity Category. • 13 different formulated pesticide product types • For 38% of the formulations, the oral study falls within a lower (i.e., more protective) Toxicity Category. • Thus, for 95% of the formulations in the analysis, if the dermal study had not been available and labelling had been based only on the Toxicity Category for the oral acute toxicity study, the PPE requirements on the labelling would have been equally protective or more protective. • For the remaining 5%, factors other than the dermal acute toxicity may influence PPE labeling requirements. The agency has used this analysis to support a policy statement in Section 3.0 to waive all acute lethality dermal studies for formulated pesticide products. Creton et al. Acute toxicity testing of chemicals – Opportunities to avoid redundant testing and use alternative approaches. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 40: 50-83 (2010). Seidle et al. Examining the regulatory value of multi-route mammalian acute systemic toxicity studies. ALTEX 28, 2/11 (2011). Moore et al. Can acute dermal systemic toxicity tests be replaced with oral tests? Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 66: 30-37 (2013). Acute inhalation toxicity – CRO’s perspective Efforts for in vitro methods development Cell lines/tissues/explants Endpoints Smoke exposure systems • Bronchial epithelial cells • Cytotoxicity • Reconstructed tissues • mRNA (MUC5AC) • Protein expression: IL-6, IL-8, MMP-1 • Gene expression and microarrays • Cellular glutathione levels EpiAirway model (MatTek Corporation) Normal, human-derived tracheal/bronchial epithelial cells Precision Cut Lung Slice (PCLS) MucilAir model (Epithelix) Alveolar spaces; H&E staining, Primary epithelial cells co- 40x magnification* cultured with human airway fibroblasts Thorne D, Adamson J. A review of in vitro cigarette smoke exposure systems. Exp Toxicol Pathol 65, 1183-1193 (2013). http://www.mattek.com http://www.epithelix.com *Image courtesy of Dr. Khalid Amin, University of Minnesota, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology Acute inhalation toxicity – Regulatory perspective Voluntary pilot program underway where registrants may send the in vivo acute lethality study for oral and inhalation formulation/product testing as currently required and simultaneously submit the calculations using the GHS dose additive mixtures equation. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-04/documents/session-3-2st-century-toxicology-update.pdf. http://www.piscltd.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Acute-Inhalation-Workshop_2016_ALowit.pdf. https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/epa-releases-guidance-voluntary-pilot-program-reduce-animal-testing. Ocular irritation - the EPA OPP testing strategy A continuum of sensitivity *Clorox *Colgate Palmolive *Dial *EcoLabs *JohnsonDiversey (currently SealedAir) *P&G *SC Johnson *The Accord Group *Institute for In Vitro Sciences (IIVS) GHS 1 GHS 2 GHS Non-classified EPA I EPA II EPA III EPA IV Multiple in vitro assays Multiple in vitro assays Extreme Severe Moderate Mild Very Mild Household Color Cosmetics Cleaning Products Industrial Chemicals Currently, one in vitro assay is not sufficient for all eye irritation categories – therefore a bottom-up/top-down strategy was proposed Antimicrobial Cleaning Products (AMCP) Labeling Requirements AMCPs quick facts • Contain ~275 different active ingredients. • Are marketed as sprays, liquids, concentrated powders, and gases. • More than 5000 are currently registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and sold in the marketplace. Antimicrobial claim The vast majority of the household and The product is now EPA regulated commercial cleaning products do not (animal testing for safety is required). have to go through a registration process before they are marketed. Both EPA and industry agreed to work Companies decide how to assure safety together to build a predictive and – generally without using animals (in conservative in vitro strategy designed vitro). to replace the requirement for Draize rabbit eye irritation data with non- animal methods. http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/factsheets/antimic.htm. Ocular irritation - the EPA OPP testing strategy BOVINE CORNEAL OPACITY AND PERMEABILITY (BCOP) ASSAY Test system: Viable corneas maintained in culture Assay endpoints: opacity and permeability Data calculation: In Vitro Score = Opacity + (15 x Fluor OD490) OECD TG 437 US EPA OPP policy (3-2-2015): Use of an alternate testing framework for classification of eye irritation potential of EPA pesticide products - 40CFR Part 158W for AMCPs (anti-microbial cleaning products) Corneal Excision Initial Test Substance Fluorescein Permeability Fixing the Mounting Opacity Exposure Rinsing Addition Endpoint Corneas BCOP Assay Overall Performance PREDICTIVITY LIMITATIONS LABELING APPLICABILITY • Only 2 of 61 materials (8%) • If the anti-microbial cleaning product • The BCOP assay does were under-predicted. is a High Solvent (>5 solvent) differentiate between EPA formulation, it should be tested in the Category I and II materials, • All of the EPA toxicity Category BCOP assay using a 3 minute so it is most useful in this IV materials are over-predicted exposure instead of the normal 10 higher range. as Category III since the BCOP minute exposure. does
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alternative Testing Approaches in Environmental Safety Assessment
    Alternative Testing Approaches in Environmental Safety Assessment Technical Report No. 97 ISSN-0773-8072-97 Brussels, December 2005 Alternative Testing Approaches in Environmental Safety Assessment ECETOC TECHNICAL REPORT No. 97 © Copyright - ECETOC AISBL European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals 4 Avenue E. Van Nieuwenhuyse (Bte 6), B-1160 Brussels, Belgium. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, copied, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. Applications to reproduce, store, copy or translate should be made to the Secretary General. ECETOC welcomes such applications. Reference to the document, its title and summary may be copied or abstracted in data retrieval systems without subsequent reference. The content of this document has been prepared and reviewed by experts on behalf of ECETOC with all possible care and from the available scientific information. It is provided for information only. ECETOC cannot accept any responsibility or liability and does not provide a warranty for any use or interpretation of the material contained in the publication. ECETOC TR No. 97 Alternative Testing Approaches in Environmental Safety Assessment Alternative Testing Approaches in Environmental Safety Assessment CONTENTS SUMMARY 1 1. INTRODUCTION 3 2. BACKGROUND 5 2.1 Definitions 5 2.1.1 Definition of a protected animal 5 2.1.2 Ethical considerations of animal use 6 2.1.3 The three Rs 6 2.2 Information needs 7 2.2.1 The use of fish in ecotoxicology 7 2.2.2 Numbers of fish used 8 2.2.3 Regulatory tests - chemicals 8 2.2.4 REACH and its impact on the use of fish 9 2.2.5 Regulatory tests - effluents 9 2.3 Potential for alternatives 10 2.3.1 Reduction 10 2.3.2 Refinement 11 2.3.3 Replacement 11 2.4 Report structure 13 2.4.1 Atmosphere 14 2.4.2 Terrestrial hazard assessment 14 3.
    [Show full text]
  • ECETOC Guidance on Dose Selection
    ECETOC Guidance on Dose Selection Technical Report No. 138 EUROPEAN CENTRE OFOR EC TOXICOLOGY AND TOXICOLOGY OF CHEMICALS ECETOC Guidance on Dose Selection ECETOC Guidance on Dose Selection Technical Report No. 138 Brussels, March 2021 ISSN-2079-1526-138 (online) ECETOC TR No. 138 1 ECETOC Guidance on Dose Selection 224504 ECETOC Technical Report No. 138 © Copyright – ECETOC AISBL European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals Rue Belliard 40, B-1040 Brussels, Belgium. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, copied, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. Applications to reproduce, store, copy or translate should be made to the Secretary General. ECETOC welcomes such applications. Reference to the document, its title and summary may be copied or abstracted in data retrieval systems without subsequent reference. The content of this document has been prepared and reviewed by experts on behalf of ECETOC with all possible care and from the available scientific information. It is provided for information only. ECETOC cannot accept any responsibility or liability and does not provide a warranty for any use or interpretation of the material contained in the publication. ECETOC TR No. 138 2 ECETOC Guidance on Dose Selection ECETOC Guidance on Dose Selection Table of Contents 1. SUMMARY 6 2. INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND AND PRINCIPLES 9 2.1. Background and Principles 9 2.2. Current Regulatory Framework and Guidance 10 2.2.1. Historical perspectives and the evolution of test guidelines 10 2.2.2.
    [Show full text]
  • Interaction Profile
    INTERACTION PROFILE FOR: PERSISTENT CHEMICALS FOUND IN FISH (CHLORINATED DIBENZO-p-DIOXINS, HEXACHLOROBENZENE, p,p’-DDE, METHYLMERCURY, and POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry May 2004 iii ACKNOWLEDGMENT The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) wishes to thank the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for its support in the production of this Interaction Profile. v PREFACE The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) mandates that the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) shall assess whether adequate information on health effects is available for the priority hazardous substances. Where such information is not available or under development, ATSDR shall, in cooperation with the National Toxicology Program, initiate a program of research to determine these health effects. The Act further directs that where feasible, ATSDR shall develop methods to determine the health effects of substances in combination with other substances with which they are commonly found. To carry out the legislative mandate, ATSDR’s Division of Toxicology (DT) has developed and coordinated a mixtures program that includes trend analysis to identify the mixtures most often found in environmental media, in vivo and in vitro toxicological testing of mixtures, quantitative modeling of joint action, and methodological development for assessment of joint toxicity. These efforts are interrelated. For example, the trend analysis suggests mixtures of concern for which assessments need to be conducted. If data are not available, further research is recommended. The data thus generated often contribute to the design, calibration or validation of the methodology.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Selected in Vitro Assays for Assessing the Toxicity of Chemicals and Their Mixtures
    COMPARISON OF SELECTED IN VITRO ASSAYS FOR ASSESSING THE TOXICITY OF CHEMICALS AND THEIR MIXTURES Rola Azzi A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Chemical Safety and Applied Toxicology Laboratories School of Safety Science Faculty of Science The University of New South Wales June 2006 Certificate of Originality Certificate of Originality I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to the best of my knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another person, nor material which to a substantial extent has been accepted for the award of any degree at UNSW or any other education institution, except where due acknowledgment is made in the thesis. Any contributions made to the research by others, which whom I have worked, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis. I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project’s design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged. Rola Azzi June 2006 i Acknowledgments Acknowledgments I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to my supervisor Dr Amanda Hayes for her assistance, constant encouragement and expertise. Without her support and guidance this project would not have been possible. I am also grateful to Associate Professor Chris Winder, for his constant support, advice, and scientific expertise throughout my work on this project. I would also like to express my sincerest gratitude and appreciation to my uncle, Associate Professor Rachad Saliba, who was a constant support during the writing of this thesis, and was devoted to helping me grasp the science of statistics, and its ability to transform numbers into a story.
    [Show full text]
  • Toxicological Profile for Zinc
    TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILE FOR ZINC U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry August 2005 ZINC ii DISCLAIMER The use of company or product name(s) is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. ZINC iii UPDATE STATEMENT A Toxicological Profile for Zinc, Draft for Public Comment was released in September 2003. This edition supersedes any previously released draft or final profile. Toxicological profiles are revised and republished as necessary. For information regarding the update status of previously released profiles, contact ATSDR at: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Division of Toxicology/Toxicology Information Branch 1600 Clifton Road NE Mailstop F-32 Atlanta, Georgia 30333 ZINC vi *Legislative Background The toxicological profiles are developed in response to the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 (Public law 99-499) which amended the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA or Superfund). This public law directed ATSDR to prepare toxicological profiles for hazardous substances most commonly found at facilities on the CERCLA National Priorities List and that pose the most significant potential threat to human health, as determined by ATSDR and the EPA. The availability of the revised priority list of 275 hazardous substances was announced in the Federal Register on November 17, 1997 (62 FR 61332). For prior versions of the list of substances, see Federal Register notices dated April 29, 1996 (61 FR 18744); April 17, 1987 (52 FR 12866); October 20, 1988 (53 FR 41280); October 26, 1989 (54 FR 43619); October 17, 1990 (55 FR 42067); October 17, 1991 (56 FR 52166); October 28, 1992 (57 FR 48801); and February 28, 1994 (59 FR 9486).
    [Show full text]
  • Toxicological Profile for Copper
    TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILE FOR COPPER U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry September 2004 COPPER ii DISCLAIMER The use of company or product name(s) is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. COPPER iii UPDATE STATEMENT A Toxicological Profile for Copper, Draft for Public Comment was released in September 2002. This edition supersedes any previously released draft or final profile. Toxicological profiles are revised and republished as necessary. For information regarding the update status of previously released profiles, contact ATSDR at: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Division of Toxicology/Toxicology Information Branch 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop F-32 Atlanta, Georgia 30333 COPPER vii QUICK REFERENCE FOR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS Toxicological Profiles are a unique compilation of toxicological information on a given hazardous substance. Each profile reflects a comprehensive and extensive evaluation, summary, and interpretation of available toxicologic and epidemiologic information on a substance. Health care providers treating patients potentially exposed to hazardous substances will find the following information helpful for fast answers to often-asked questions. Primary Chapters/Sections of Interest Chapter 1: Public Health Statement: The Public Health Statement can be a useful tool for educating patients about possible exposure to a hazardous substance. It explains a substance’s relevant toxicologic properties in a nontechnical, question-and-answer format, and it includes a review of the general health effects observed following exposure. Chapter 2: Relevance to Public Health: The Relevance to Public Health Section evaluates, interprets, and assesses the significance of toxicity data to human health.
    [Show full text]
  • (GIVIMP) for the Development and Implementation of in Vitro Methods for 829 Regulatory Use in Human Safety Assessment
    1 2 Draft GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON GOOD IN VITRO METHOD PRACTICES (GIVIMP) 3 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF IN VITRO METHODS FOR 4 REGULATORY USE IN HUMAN SAFETY ASSESSMENT 5 6 FOREWORD 7 8 A guidance document on Good In Vitro Method Practices (GIVIMP) for the development and 9 implementation of in vitro methods for regulatory use in human safety assessment was 10 identified as a high priority requirement. The aim is to reduce the uncertainties in cell and 11 tissue-based in vitro method derived predictions by applying all necessary good scientific, 12 technical and quality practices from in vitro method development to in vitro method 13 implementation for regulatory use. 14 The draft guidance is coordinated by the European validation body EURL ECVAM and has 15 been accepted on the work plan of the OECD test guideline programme since April 2015 as a 16 joint activity between the Working Group on Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) and the 17 Working Group of the National Coordinators of the Test Guidelines Programme (WNT). 18 The draft document prepared by the principal co-authors has been sent in September 2016 to 19 all 37 members of the European Union Network of Laboratories for the Validation of 20 Alternative Methods (EU-NETVAL1) and has been subsequently discussed at the EU- 21 NETVAL meeting on the 10th of October 2016. 22 By November/December 2016 the comments of the OECD Working Group on GLP and 23 nominated experts of the OECD WNT will be forwarded to EURL ECVAM who will 24 incorporate these and prepare an updated version.
    [Show full text]
  • Toxicity and Hazard of Pesticides
    Pesticide Toxicity and Hazard April, 2017 Introduction Pesticide applicators should understand the hazards and risks associated with the pesticides they use. Pesticides vary greatly in toxicity. Toxicity depends on the chemical and physical properties of a substance, and may be defined as the quality of being poisonous or harmful to animals or plants. Pesticides have many different modes of action, but in general cause biochemical changes which interfere with normal cell functions. The toxicity of any compound is related to the dose. A highly toxic substance causes severe symptoms of poisoning with small doses. A substance with a low toxicity generally requires large doses to produce mild symptoms. Even common substances like coffee or salt become poisons if large amounts are consumed. Toxicity can be either acute or chronic. Acute toxicity is the ability of a substance to cause harmful effects which develop rapidly following exposure, i.e. a few hours or a day. Chronic toxicity is the ability of a substance to cause adverse health effects resulting from long-term exposure to a substance. There is a great range in the toxicity of pesticides to humans. The relative hazard of a pesticide is dependent upon the toxicity of the pesticide, the dose and the length of time exposed. The hazard in using a pesticide is related to the likelihood of exposure to harmful amounts of the pesticide. The toxicity of a pesticide can’t be changed but the risk of exposure can be reduced with the use of proper personal protective equipment (PPE), proper handling and application procedures. Pesticide Toxicity Some pesticides are dangerous after one large dose (acute toxicity).
    [Show full text]
  • Acute Toxicity Testing Without Animals: More Scientific and Less of a Gamble
    WellBeing International WBI Studies Repository 3-2005 Acute Toxicity Testing Without Animals: More Scientific and Less of a Gamble Gillian R. Langley British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection Follow this and additional works at: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/appamet Part of the Bioethics and Medical Ethics Commons, Design of Experiments and Sample Surveys Commons, and the Laboratory and Basic Science Research Commons Recommended Citation Langley, G. (2005). Acute toxicity testing without animals. London, UK: BUAV. This material is brought to you for free and open access by WellBeing International. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Acute Toxicity Testing Without Animals ~ “more scientific and less of a gamble” Report by Dr Gill Langley MA PhD MIBiol CBiol March 2005 British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) 16a Crane Grove London N7 8NN United Kingdom Email: [email protected] Web: www.buav.org Contents Foreword 3 1. Introduction 4 2. The Case Against Acute Toxicity Tests on Animals 5 2.1 Human relevance of acute toxicity tests on animals 6 2.2 Reliability of acute toxicity tests on animals 9 2.3 Practicalities of acute toxicity testing on animals 10 2.4 Animal suffering in acute toxicity tests 11 3. Classification and Labelling 11 4. High-throughput Prioritisation – Not Mass Animal Testing 12 5. Existing Data, Read-across and (Q)SARs for Acute Toxicity 13 5.1 Existing data 14 5.2 Read-across 14 5.3 (Q)SARs 15 6. Non-Animal Tests for Acute Toxicity 15 6.1 Rapid screening for acute toxicity 16 6.2 Fuller assessment for acute toxicity 17 6.2.1 Absorption in vitro and in silico 18 6.2.2 Plasma levels and target organ effects in vitro 19 6.2.3 Metabolism in vitro 20 6.2.4 Toxicokinetic modelling 20 7.
    [Show full text]
  • In Vitro Toxicology Cytotoxicity and Mechanism
    In vitro Toxicology Cytotoxicity and Mechanism Introduction ImQuest BioSciences offers a panel of in vitro assays to evaluate the cyto- toxicity and mechanism of cytotoxicity of potential pharmaceutical prod- ucts. In vitro cytotoxicity assays are used to predict the toxicity of com- pounds as well as to identify potential safety and development problems prior to in vivo safety and toxicology evaluations. Together with infor- mation on the drug candidate’s efficacy and pharmaceutical properties, the results may be used to select lead compounds that will be given pref- erence for progression to animal studies and IND-directed development. In addition, in vitro toxicity assays provide preliminary information about the mechanisms of toxicity likely to be observed during in vivo studies. To assess the effects of test compounds on cell viability, cell proliferation and macromolecule synthesis, ImQuest’s cytotoxicity evaluations are per- formed with a number of human immune system cell types and cell types representative of the major functional organ systems. Examples of these cell types include: peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), mono- cyte-macrophages, dendritic cells, bone marrow progenitor cells, primary hepatocytes, induced pluripotent stem cell (iPS) cardiomyocytes, iPS neu- Technological advances rons and renal proximal tubule cells (RPTEC). have increased the effec- tiveness of in vitro toxi- Mechanism of cytotoxicity assays are used to evaluate the effect of test cology analysis: compounds on the cell cycle, mitochondrial respiration and function, Pluripotent stem cells apoptosis, membrane integrity and oxidative stress. These assays are that can be directed to used to analyze the predominant areas where a test compound may exert differentiate into various an adverse effect.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternatives to and Reduction of Animal Use in Biomedical Research, Education and Testing
    WellBeing International WBI Studies Repository 1990 Alternatives to and Reduction of Animal Use in Biomedical Research, Education and Testing John M. Frazier Johns Hopkins University Alan M. Goldberg Johns Hopkins University Follow this and additional works at: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/acwp_arte Part of the Bioethics and Medical Ethics Commons, Laboratory and Basic Science Research Commons, and the Research Methods in Life Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Frazier, J. M., & Goldberg, A. M. (1990). Alternatives to and reduction of animal use in biomedical research, education and testing. Alternatives to laboratory animals: ATLA. This material is brought to you for free and open access by WellBeing International. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Alternatives to and Reduction of Animal Use in Biomedical Research, Education and Testing John M. Frazier and Alan M. Goldberg Johns Hopkins University KEYWORDS animal experimentation, animal testing, alternatives ABSTRACT Biomedical endeavours can be divided into three major categories: research, education, and testing. Within the context of each of these categories, activities involving whole animals have made major contributions and will continue to do so in the future. However, with technological developments in the areas of biotechnology and computers, new methods are already reducing the use of whole animals in certain areas. This article discusses the general tissues of alternatives and then focuses on the development of new approaches to toxicity testing. Introduction In recent years, societal concerns over the use of animals in various biomedical activities have significantly increased. The ethical issues involved are not new; however, increased awareness of these issues in the scientific community has led to an increased emphasis on the development of new approaches to conducting these traditional activities (1).
    [Show full text]
  • Determination of Medium Lethal Dose (LD50) and Acute Toxicity of Formulation Cytoreg®, an Ionic Mixture of Strong and Weak Acids
    Latin American Journal of Development, Curitiba, v. 3, n. 3, p. 1121-1126, mai./jun. 2021. ISSN 2674-9297 Determination of medium lethal dose (LD50) and acute toxicity of formulation Cytoreg®, an ionic mixture of strong and weak acids. DOI: 10.46814/lajdv3n3-010 Recebimento dos originais: 01/05/2021 Aceitação para publicação: 30/06/2021 Rosa De Jesus Full Professor, Faculty of Sciences, Department of Biology, Director of the Bioterium, University of Los Andes Institute of Scientific Research and High Technology Service (INDICASAT AIP). Panamá. Email: [email protected] Nelson Vicuña-Fernández Full Professor, Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Los Andes Andrés Osorio Research Assistant, Bioterium of the University of Los Andes Chemists from Cytorex de Venezuela S.A, a subsidiary of Cytorex International Inc. David Martucci Company Researches from Cytorex de Venezuela S.A, a subsidiary of Cytorex International Inc. Lewis Pozo Company Researches from Cytorex de Venezuela S.A, a subsidiary of Cytorex International Inc. Carlos García A Company Researches from Cytorex de Venezuela S.A, a subsidiary of Cytorex International Inc. William Jimenez Company Researches from Cytorex de Venezuela S.A, a subsidiary of Cytorex International Inc. ABSTRACT A series of toxicological and pharmacological tests were started in the bioterium of the University of Los Andes, in order to evaluate a new formulation for therapeutic purposes. The present work reports the results found regarding the LD50 and the acute toxicity of this formulation produced by Cytorex of Venezuela, S.A. The new formulation supplied in liquid form, containing a variety of acid atoms whose conjugated bases have different electrical charges.
    [Show full text]