Literature DB >> 11893398

Methods of in vitro toxicology.

G Eisenbrand1, B Pool-Zobel, V Baker, M Balls, B J Blaauboer, A Boobis, A Carere, S Kevekordes, J-C Lhuguenot, R Pieters, J Kleiner.   

Abstract

In vitro methods are common and widely used for screening and ranking chemicals, and have also been taken into account sporadically for risk assessment purposes in the case of food additives. However, the range of food-associated compounds amenable to in vitro toxicology is considered much broader, comprising not only natural ingredients, including those from food preparation, but also compounds formed endogenously after exposure, permissible/authorised chemicals including additives, residues, supplements, chemicals from processing and packaging and contaminants. A major promise of in vitro systems is to obtain mechanism-derived information that is considered pivotal for adequate risk assessment. This paper critically reviews the entire process of risk assessment by in vitro toxicology, encompassing ongoing and future developments, with major emphasis on cytotoxicity, cellular responses, toxicokinetics, modelling, metabolism, cancer-related endpoints, developmental toxicity, prediction of allergenicity, and finally, development and application of biomarkers. It describes in depth the use of in vitro methods in strategies for characterising and predicting hazards to the human. Major weaknesses and strengths of these assay systems are addressed, together with some key issues concerning major research priorities to improve hazard identification and characterisation of food-associated chemicals.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11893398     DOI: 10.1016/s0278-6915(01)00118-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Food Chem Toxicol        ISSN: 0278-6915            Impact factor:   6.023


  35 in total

1.  Assessment of cytotoxicity, genotoxicity and 7-ethoxyresorufin-O-deethylase (EROD) induction in sediment extracts from New Zealand urban estuaries.

Authors:  Patrick Heinrich; Lara L Petschick; Grant L Northcott; Louis A Tremblay; James M Ataria; Thomas Braunbeck
Journal:  Ecotoxicology       Date:  2017-01-12       Impact factor: 2.823

2.  Genotoxicity and cytotoxicity of glass ionomer cements on Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells.

Authors:  Daniel Araki Ribeiro; Mariangela Esther Alencar Marques; Daisy Maria Favero Salvadori
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 3.896

Review 3.  Evaluation of in vitro assays for assessing the toxicity of cigarette smoke and smokeless tobacco.

Authors:  Michael D Johnson; Jodi Schilz; Mirjana V Djordjevic; Jerry R Rice; Peter G Shields
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 4.254

4.  An optimization protocol for Swiss 3T3 feeder cell growth-arrest by Mitomycin C dose-to-volume derivation strategy.

Authors:  Rishi Man Chugh; Madhusudan Chaturvedi; Lakshmana Kumar Yerneni
Journal:  Cytotechnology       Date:  2017-01-21       Impact factor: 2.058

5.  Photodynamic Inactivation Mediated by Erythrosine and its Derivatives on Foodborne Pathogens and Spoilage Bacteria.

Authors:  Natália Norika Yassunaka; Camila Fabiano de Freitas; Bruno Ribeiro Rabello; Patrícia Regina Santos; Wilker Caetano; Noboru Hioka; Tania Ueda Nakamura; Benício Alves de Abreu Filho; Jane Martha Graton Mikcha
Journal:  Curr Microbiol       Date:  2015-04-30       Impact factor: 2.188

6.  Thirdhand smoke: Chemical dynamics, cytotoxicity, and genotoxicity in outdoor and indoor environments.

Authors:  Vasundhra Bahl; Hyung Jun Shim; Peyton Jacob; Kristen Dias; Suzaynn F Schick; Prue Talbot
Journal:  Toxicol In Vitro       Date:  2015-12-10       Impact factor: 3.500

7.  Cytogenetic damage induced by mouthrinses formulations in vivo and in vitro.

Authors:  Viviane Carlin; Mariza A Matsumoto; Patricia P Saraiva; André Artioli; Celina T F Oshima; Daniel Araki Ribeiro
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2011-05-06       Impact factor: 3.573

8.  Comparison of transgenic Gerbera hybrida lines and traditional varieties shows no differences in cytotoxicity or metabolic fingerprints.

Authors:  Miia Marika Ainasoja; Leena Lyydia Pohjala; Päivi Sirpa Marjaana Tammela; Panu Juhani Somervuo; Pia Maarit Vuorela; Teemu Heikki Teeri
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2008-01-30       Impact factor: 2.788

9.  A toxicology suite adapted for comparing parallel toxicity responses of model human lung cells to diesel exhaust particles and their extracts.

Authors:  Jane Turner; Mark Hernandez; John E Snawder; Alina Handorean; Kevin M McCabe
Journal:  Aerosol Sci Technol       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.908

10.  Nanoparticle toxicity by the gastrointestinal route: evidence and knowledge gaps.

Authors:  Ingrid L Bergin; Frank A Witzmann
Journal:  Int J Biomed Nanosci Nanotechnol       Date:  2013
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.