Literature DB >> 20574900

Biokinetic modeling and in vitro-in vivo extrapolations.

Bas J Blaauboer1.   

Abstract

The introduction of in vitro methodologies in the toxicological risk assessment process requires a number of prerequisites regarding both the toxicodynamics and the biokinetics of the compounds under study. In vitro systems will need to be relevant for measuring those structural and physiological changes that are good indicators for adverse effects. Furthermore, the dose metric found to have an effect in the in vitro system should be relevant. One element in defining the appropriate dose metric is related to the kinetic behavior of the compound in the in vitro system: binding to proteins, binding to plastic, evaporation, and the interaction between the culture medium and the cells. Ways to measure and model "in vitro biokinetics" are described. Second, the appropriate dose metric in vitro, e.g., the effective concentration, will need to be extrapolated to relevant in vivo exposure scenarios. The application of physiologically based biokinetic modelling is essential in such extrapolations. The parameters needed to build these models often can be estimated based on nonanimal data, namely chemical properties (QSARs) and in vitro experiments.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20574900     DOI: 10.1080/10937404.2010.483940

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev        ISSN: 1093-7404            Impact factor:   6.393


  39 in total

1.  Incorporating human dosimetry and exposure into high-throughput in vitro toxicity screening.

Authors:  Daniel M Rotroff; Barbara A Wetmore; David J Dix; Stephen S Ferguson; Harvey J Clewell; Keith A Houck; Edward L Lecluyse; Melvin E Andersen; Richard S Judson; Cornelia M Smith; Mark A Sochaski; Robert J Kavlock; Frank Boellmann; Matthew T Martin; David M Reif; John F Wambaugh; Russell S Thomas
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2010-07-16       Impact factor: 4.849

Review 2.  Chemical compounds from anthropogenic environment and immune evasion mechanisms: potential interactions.

Authors:  Julia Kravchenko; Emanuela Corsini; Marc A Williams; William Decker; Masoud H Manjili; Takemi Otsuki; Neetu Singh; Faha Al-Mulla; Rabeah Al-Temaimi; Amedeo Amedei; Anna Maria Colacci; Monica Vaccari; Chiara Mondello; A Ivana Scovassi; Jayadev Raju; Roslida A Hamid; Lorenzo Memeo; Stefano Forte; Rabindra Roy; Jordan Woodrick; Hosni K Salem; Elizabeth P Ryan; Dustin G Brown; William H Bisson; Leroy Lowe; H Kim Lyerly
Journal:  Carcinogenesis       Date:  2015-05-22       Impact factor: 4.944

Review 3.  In vitro to in vivo extrapolation for high throughput prioritization and decision making.

Authors:  Shannon M Bell; Xiaoqing Chang; John F Wambaugh; David G Allen; Mike Bartels; Kim L R Brouwer; Warren M Casey; Neepa Choksi; Stephen S Ferguson; Grazyna Fraczkiewicz; Annie M Jarabek; Alice Ke; Annie Lumen; Scott G Lynn; Alicia Paini; Paul S Price; Caroline Ring; Ted W Simon; Nisha S Sipes; Catherine S Sprankle; Judy Strickland; John Troutman; Barbara A Wetmore; Nicole C Kleinstreuer
Journal:  Toxicol In Vitro       Date:  2017-12-05       Impact factor: 3.500

4.  The Next Generation Blueprint of Computational Toxicology at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Authors:  Russell S Thomas; Tina Bahadori; Timothy J Buckley; John Cowden; Chad Deisenroth; Kathie L Dionisio; Jeffrey B Frithsen; Christopher M Grulke; Maureen R Gwinn; Joshua A Harrill; Mark Higuchi; Keith A Houck; Michael F Hughes; E Sidney Hunter; Kristin K Isaacs; Richard S Judson; Thomas B Knudsen; Jason C Lambert; Monica Linnenbrink; Todd M Martin; Seth R Newton; Stephanie Padilla; Grace Patlewicz; Katie Paul-Friedman; Katherine A Phillips; Ann M Richard; Reeder Sams; Timothy J Shafer; R Woodrow Setzer; Imran Shah; Jane E Simmons; Steven O Simmons; Amar Singh; Jon R Sobus; Mark Strynar; Adam Swank; Rogelio Tornero-Valez; Elin M Ulrich; Daniel L Villeneuve; John F Wambaugh; Barbara A Wetmore; Antony J Williams
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2019-06-01       Impact factor: 4.849

Review 5.  The potential for chemical mixtures from the environment to enable the cancer hallmark of sustained proliferative signalling.

Authors:  Wilhelm Engström; Philippa Darbre; Staffan Eriksson; Linda Gulliver; Tove Hultman; Michalis V Karamouzis; James E Klaunig; Rekha Mehta; Kim Moorwood; Thomas Sanderson; Hideko Sone; Pankaj Vadgama; Gerard Wagemaker; Andrew Ward; Neetu Singh; Fahd Al-Mulla; Rabeah Al-Temaimi; Amedeo Amedei; Anna Maria Colacci; Monica Vaccari; Chiara Mondello; A Ivana Scovassi; Jayadev Raju; Roslida A Hamid; Lorenzo Memeo; Stefano Forte; Rabindra Roy; Jordan Woodrick; Hosni K Salem; Elizabeth P Ryan; Dustin G Brown; William H Bisson
Journal:  Carcinogenesis       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 4.944

6.  Phthalate metabolism and kinetics in an in vitro model of testis development.

Authors:  Sean Harris; Susanna Wegner; Sung Woo Hong; Elaine M Faustman
Journal:  Toxicol In Vitro       Date:  2015-12-10       Impact factor: 3.500

Review 7.  The best models of metabolism.

Authors:  Eberhard O Voit
Journal:  Wiley Interdiscip Rev Syst Biol Med       Date:  2017-05-19

8.  A Unidirectional 96-Well Fluidic Culture Platform for Upstream Cell Dosing with Subsequent Downstream Nonlinear and Ascending Exposure Gradients for Real-Time and Cell-Based Toxicity Screening Environments.

Authors:  Bincy A John; David J Sloan; Timothy C Jensen; Sreenivasa C Ramaiahgari; Peter End; Gabrielle E Resh; Randall E McClelland
Journal:  Appl In Vitro Toxicol       Date:  2021-12-16

9.  Integrated testing strategies for safety assessments.

Authors:  Thomas Hartung; Tom Luechtefeld; Alexandra Maertens; Andre Kleensang
Journal:  ALTEX       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 6.043

Review 10.  In vitro testing of basal cytotoxicity: Establishment of an adverse outcome pathway from chemical insult to cell death.

Authors:  Mathieu Vinken; Bas J Blaauboer
Journal:  Toxicol In Vitro       Date:  2016-12-07       Impact factor: 3.500

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.