Alternatives to Conventional Toxicology Testing

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

The need for developing alternatives for animal testing for assessing chemical risk has come from ethical considerations, legislation, and recognition that alternative methods can offer better science. Historically, testing on animals was the only method for assessing chemical risk, but now more precise methods are being developed because of the tremendous advances made in the understanding of the mechanisms of toxicity. Currently, models using tissue culture methods for measuring cell death in clonal cell lines, and in skin-equivalent models, have been accepted by regulators. The inherent need in toxicology to predict dose is being met with models for assessing transport and metabolism. More complex responses, such as those exhibited by the immune and nervous systems, pose even greater challenges. To meet these challenges, computer models that simulate cellular interactions will likely be needed in addition to cell culture models. Indeed, an understanding of systems biology coordinated with valid alternative methods has the potential to characterize chemical toxicity: identifying molecular targets; analyzing the effect on downstream pathways; modeling the metabolic response; and predicting the whole-organism response. In summary, tools are now available that have the potential to more accurately assess chemical risk using a humane and efficient approach.The concept of alternative models in toxicity testing had been based on the principle of the 3Rs - replacement, refinement, and reduction - that were described by Russell and Burch (1959). Refinement refers to improving animal welfare by minimizing actual or potential pain and distress throughout the life span of the animal, or using animals lower on the phylogenetic scale. Replacement refers to avoiding or replacing animals in methods where animals have been traditionally used, generally this includes in vitro models, and in silico models based, in part, on information from genomic and proteomic databases. Reduction refers to the most effective experimental design, in other words the right number of animals for the statistical power required and the correct species for the question being asked. As we will discuss in this chapter, alternative methods will have beneficial roles beyond the 3Rs. High-throughput methods and models based on human tissue will enable both industry and government to screen large numbers of chemicals and obtain results that more comprehensively and accurately predict human responsiveness.There are many considerations when developing tests including their scientific basis and predictive capacities, which are important during method development. Additionally, validation criteria must be considered. This chapter will focus on the science of replacement alternatives.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationToxicology Testing and Evaluation
PublisherElsevier Inc.
Pages247-259
Number of pages13
Volume3
ISBN (Print)9780080468686
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 12 2010

Fingerprint

Toxicology
Computer Simulation
Animal Testing Alternatives
Animal Rights
Animal Welfare
Systems Biology
Legislation
Proteomics
Nervous System
Immune System
Industry
Cell Death
Research Design
Cell Culture Techniques
Databases
Pain
Cell Line
Skin

Keywords

  • Alternative methods
  • Computer models
  • Humane science
  • Systems biology
  • Tissue culture
  • Toxicity
  • Toxicokinetics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Bressler, J., Bader, J., & Goldberg, A. (2010). Alternatives to Conventional Toxicology Testing. In Toxicology Testing and Evaluation (Vol. 3, pp. 247-259). Elsevier Inc.. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-046884-6.00324-9

Alternatives to Conventional Toxicology Testing. / Bressler, Joseph; Bader, J.; Goldberg, Alan.

Toxicology Testing and Evaluation. Vol. 3 Elsevier Inc., 2010. p. 247-259.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Bressler, J, Bader, J & Goldberg, A 2010, Alternatives to Conventional Toxicology Testing. in Toxicology Testing and Evaluation. vol. 3, Elsevier Inc., pp. 247-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-046884-6.00324-9
Bressler J, Bader J, Goldberg A. Alternatives to Conventional Toxicology Testing. In Toxicology Testing and Evaluation. Vol. 3. Elsevier Inc. 2010. p. 247-259 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-046884-6.00324-9
Bressler, Joseph ; Bader, J. ; Goldberg, Alan. / Alternatives to Conventional Toxicology Testing. Toxicology Testing and Evaluation. Vol. 3 Elsevier Inc., 2010. pp. 247-259
@inbook{f1dec44ee6474b2d8408e9b2770c6b66,
title = "Alternatives to Conventional Toxicology Testing",
abstract = "The need for developing alternatives for animal testing for assessing chemical risk has come from ethical considerations, legislation, and recognition that alternative methods can offer better science. Historically, testing on animals was the only method for assessing chemical risk, but now more precise methods are being developed because of the tremendous advances made in the understanding of the mechanisms of toxicity. Currently, models using tissue culture methods for measuring cell death in clonal cell lines, and in skin-equivalent models, have been accepted by regulators. The inherent need in toxicology to predict dose is being met with models for assessing transport and metabolism. More complex responses, such as those exhibited by the immune and nervous systems, pose even greater challenges. To meet these challenges, computer models that simulate cellular interactions will likely be needed in addition to cell culture models. Indeed, an understanding of systems biology coordinated with valid alternative methods has the potential to characterize chemical toxicity: identifying molecular targets; analyzing the effect on downstream pathways; modeling the metabolic response; and predicting the whole-organism response. In summary, tools are now available that have the potential to more accurately assess chemical risk using a humane and efficient approach.The concept of alternative models in toxicity testing had been based on the principle of the 3Rs - replacement, refinement, and reduction - that were described by Russell and Burch (1959). Refinement refers to improving animal welfare by minimizing actual or potential pain and distress throughout the life span of the animal, or using animals lower on the phylogenetic scale. Replacement refers to avoiding or replacing animals in methods where animals have been traditionally used, generally this includes in vitro models, and in silico models based, in part, on information from genomic and proteomic databases. Reduction refers to the most effective experimental design, in other words the right number of animals for the statistical power required and the correct species for the question being asked. As we will discuss in this chapter, alternative methods will have beneficial roles beyond the 3Rs. High-throughput methods and models based on human tissue will enable both industry and government to screen large numbers of chemicals and obtain results that more comprehensively and accurately predict human responsiveness.There are many considerations when developing tests including their scientific basis and predictive capacities, which are important during method development. Additionally, validation criteria must be considered. This chapter will focus on the science of replacement alternatives.",
keywords = "Alternative methods, Computer models, Humane science, Systems biology, Tissue culture, Toxicity, Toxicokinetics",
author = "Joseph Bressler and J. Bader and Alan Goldberg",
year = "2010",
month = "8",
day = "12",
doi = "10.1016/B978-0-08-046884-6.00324-9",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9780080468686",
volume = "3",
pages = "247--259",
booktitle = "Toxicology Testing and Evaluation",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Alternatives to Conventional Toxicology Testing

AU - Bressler, Joseph

AU - Bader, J.

AU - Goldberg, Alan

PY - 2010/8/12

Y1 - 2010/8/12

N2 - The need for developing alternatives for animal testing for assessing chemical risk has come from ethical considerations, legislation, and recognition that alternative methods can offer better science. Historically, testing on animals was the only method for assessing chemical risk, but now more precise methods are being developed because of the tremendous advances made in the understanding of the mechanisms of toxicity. Currently, models using tissue culture methods for measuring cell death in clonal cell lines, and in skin-equivalent models, have been accepted by regulators. The inherent need in toxicology to predict dose is being met with models for assessing transport and metabolism. More complex responses, such as those exhibited by the immune and nervous systems, pose even greater challenges. To meet these challenges, computer models that simulate cellular interactions will likely be needed in addition to cell culture models. Indeed, an understanding of systems biology coordinated with valid alternative methods has the potential to characterize chemical toxicity: identifying molecular targets; analyzing the effect on downstream pathways; modeling the metabolic response; and predicting the whole-organism response. In summary, tools are now available that have the potential to more accurately assess chemical risk using a humane and efficient approach.The concept of alternative models in toxicity testing had been based on the principle of the 3Rs - replacement, refinement, and reduction - that were described by Russell and Burch (1959). Refinement refers to improving animal welfare by minimizing actual or potential pain and distress throughout the life span of the animal, or using animals lower on the phylogenetic scale. Replacement refers to avoiding or replacing animals in methods where animals have been traditionally used, generally this includes in vitro models, and in silico models based, in part, on information from genomic and proteomic databases. Reduction refers to the most effective experimental design, in other words the right number of animals for the statistical power required and the correct species for the question being asked. As we will discuss in this chapter, alternative methods will have beneficial roles beyond the 3Rs. High-throughput methods and models based on human tissue will enable both industry and government to screen large numbers of chemicals and obtain results that more comprehensively and accurately predict human responsiveness.There are many considerations when developing tests including their scientific basis and predictive capacities, which are important during method development. Additionally, validation criteria must be considered. This chapter will focus on the science of replacement alternatives.

AB - The need for developing alternatives for animal testing for assessing chemical risk has come from ethical considerations, legislation, and recognition that alternative methods can offer better science. Historically, testing on animals was the only method for assessing chemical risk, but now more precise methods are being developed because of the tremendous advances made in the understanding of the mechanisms of toxicity. Currently, models using tissue culture methods for measuring cell death in clonal cell lines, and in skin-equivalent models, have been accepted by regulators. The inherent need in toxicology to predict dose is being met with models for assessing transport and metabolism. More complex responses, such as those exhibited by the immune and nervous systems, pose even greater challenges. To meet these challenges, computer models that simulate cellular interactions will likely be needed in addition to cell culture models. Indeed, an understanding of systems biology coordinated with valid alternative methods has the potential to characterize chemical toxicity: identifying molecular targets; analyzing the effect on downstream pathways; modeling the metabolic response; and predicting the whole-organism response. In summary, tools are now available that have the potential to more accurately assess chemical risk using a humane and efficient approach.The concept of alternative models in toxicity testing had been based on the principle of the 3Rs - replacement, refinement, and reduction - that were described by Russell and Burch (1959). Refinement refers to improving animal welfare by minimizing actual or potential pain and distress throughout the life span of the animal, or using animals lower on the phylogenetic scale. Replacement refers to avoiding or replacing animals in methods where animals have been traditionally used, generally this includes in vitro models, and in silico models based, in part, on information from genomic and proteomic databases. Reduction refers to the most effective experimental design, in other words the right number of animals for the statistical power required and the correct species for the question being asked. As we will discuss in this chapter, alternative methods will have beneficial roles beyond the 3Rs. High-throughput methods and models based on human tissue will enable both industry and government to screen large numbers of chemicals and obtain results that more comprehensively and accurately predict human responsiveness.There are many considerations when developing tests including their scientific basis and predictive capacities, which are important during method development. Additionally, validation criteria must be considered. This chapter will focus on the science of replacement alternatives.

KW - Alternative methods

KW - Computer models

KW - Humane science

KW - Systems biology

KW - Tissue culture

KW - Toxicity

KW - Toxicokinetics

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85012832072&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85012832072&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/B978-0-08-046884-6.00324-9

DO - 10.1016/B978-0-08-046884-6.00324-9

M3 - Chapter

AN - SCOPUS:85012832072

SN - 9780080468686

VL - 3

SP - 247

EP - 259

BT - Toxicology Testing and Evaluation

PB - Elsevier Inc.

ER -