Literature DB >> 21311848

Current standing and future prospects for the technologies proposed to transform toxicity testing in the 21st century.

Erwin van Vliet1.   

Abstract

The National Academy of Sciences publication, Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy, proposes a paradigm shift in toxicology from current animal-based testing towards the application of emerging technologies, i.e., assays based on human cells or non-mammalian models, high throughput testing, omics approaches, systems biology, and computational modeling. These technologies should be used to identify how chemicals interact with cellular response networks and alter them to toxicity pathways. According to the authors, such a new paradigm would provide a better scientific understanding and more adequate data to predict the adverse effects of chemicals on human health. As expected from a vision document, the report enthusiastically and optimistically describes a radical transformation of toxicology from current practices to a new approach. Several toxicologists have commented on the report, and although they generally confirm the importance of the vision, they pose critical questions regarding its feasibility. Unlike the theoretical concepts, which are carefully described, many practical aspects of how to establish the vision are less well defined. Today's technologies provide great opportunities, although many challenges remain regarding their development, implementation, and validation to adequately assess human health effects. To bring the envisioned toxicology closer to concrete implementation, it is important to identify the current knowledge gaps in the vision and develop solutions. The goal of this review is to evaluate the technologies proposed as to their maturation to transform toxicity testing in the 21st century. This paper will provide an overview of the current standing by defining advantages, limitations, and developmental needs. In doing so, I do not intend to point out obstacles but, rather, to focus on current opportunities to advance toxicity testing for human risk assessment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21311848     DOI: 10.14573/altex.2011.1.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  ALTEX        ISSN: 1868-596X            Impact factor:   6.043


  17 in total

1.  Has discovery-based cancer research been a bust?

Authors:  R J Epstein
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2013-09-04       Impact factor: 3.405

2.  Pathways of Toxicity.

Authors:  Andre Kleensang; Alexandra Maertens; Michael Rosenberg; Suzanne Fitzpatrick; Justin Lamb; Scott Auerbach; Richard Brennan; Kevin M Crofton; Ben Gordon; Albert J Fornace; Kevin Gaido; David Gerhold; Robin Haw; Adriano Henney; Avi Ma'ayan; Mary McBride; Stefano Monti; Michael F Ochs; Akhilesh Pandey; Roded Sharan; Rob Stierum; Stuart Tugendreich; Catherine Willett; Clemens Wittwehr; Jianguo Xia; Geoffrey W Patton; Kirk Arvidson; Mounir Bouhifd; Helena T Hogberg; Thomas Luechtefeld; Lena Smirnova; Liang Zhao; Yeyejide Adeleye; Minoru Kanehisa; Paul Carmichael; Melvin E Andersen; Thomas Hartung
Journal:  ALTEX       Date:  2013-10-15       Impact factor: 6.043

3.  Predicting the future: opportunities and challenges for the chemical industry to apply 21st-century toxicity testing.

Authors:  Raja S Settivari; Nicholas Ball; Lynea Murphy; Reza Rasoulpour; Darrell R Boverhof; Edward W Carney
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 1.232

4.  Freshwater Planarians as an Alternative Animal Model for Neurotoxicology.

Authors:  Danielle Hagstrom; Olivier Cochet-Escartin; Siqi Zhang; Cindy Khuu; Eva-Maria S Collins
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2015-06-26       Impact factor: 4.849

Review 5.  Anti-Cancer Drug Validation: the Contribution of Tissue Engineered Models.

Authors:  Mariana R Carvalho; Daniela Lima; Rui L Reis; Joaquim M Oliveira; Vitor M Correlo
Journal:  Stem Cell Rev Rep       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 5.739

6.  Integrated testing strategies for safety assessments.

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

Review 7.  Review: toxicometabolomics.

Authors:  Mounir Bouhifd; Thomas Hartung; Helena T Hogberg; Andre Kleensang; Liang Zhao
Journal:  J Appl Toxicol       Date:  2013-05-30       Impact factor: 3.446

8.  Metabolomics in toxicology and preclinical research.

Authors:  Tzutzuy Ramirez; Mardas Daneshian; Hennicke Kamp; Frederic Y Bois; Malcolm R Clench; Muireann Coen; Beth Donley; Steven M Fischer; Drew R Ekman; Eric Fabian; Claude Guillou; Joachim Heuer; Helena T Hogberg; Harald Jungnickel; Hector C Keun; Gerhard Krennrich; Eckart Krupp; Andreas Luch; Fozia Noor; Erik Peter; Bjoern Riefke; Mark Seymour; Nigel Skinner; Lena Smirnova; Elwin Verheij; Silvia Wagner; Thomas Hartung; Bennard van Ravenzwaay; Marcel Leist
Journal:  ALTEX       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 6.043

9.  Testing Chemical Safety: What Is Needed to Ensure the Widespread Application of Non-animal Approaches?

Authors:  Natalie Burden; Fiona Sewell; Kathryn Chapman
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2015-05-27       Impact factor: 8.029

Review 10.  Chemical and biological work-related risks across occupations in Europe: a review.

Authors:  Diego Montano
Journal:  J Occup Med Toxicol       Date:  2014-07-24       Impact factor: 2.646

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.