Literature DB >> 2688844

MEIC--a new international multicenter project to evaluate the relevance to human toxicity of in vitro cytotoxicity tests.

I Bondesson1, B Ekwall, S Hellberg, L Romert, K Stenberg, E Walum.   

Abstract

A new international project to evaluate the relevance for human systemic and local toxicity of in vitro tests of general toxicity of chemicals has been organized by the Scandinavian Society of Cell Toxicology under the title Multicenter Evaluation of In Vitro Cytotoxicity (MEIC). The basic assumptions underlying the project, as well as the practical goals and the design of the program are outlined. The list of the first 50 reference chemicals is presented. The chemicals are an otherwise unbiased selection of compounds with known human acutely lethal dosage and blood concentrations, including LD50-values in the rat or mouse. Most agents also have other data on human toxicity and toxicokinetics, including more extensive animal toxicity data. International laboratories already using or developing in vitro tests of various partial aspects of general toxicity are invited to test the substances, the results of which will be evaluated by us. The predictivity of the in vitro results for both partial and gross human toxicity data will be determined with combined use of univariate regression analysis and soft multivariate modeling. The predictivity of the in vitro results will be compared with the predictivity of conventional animal tests for the same chemicals. Finally, batteries of tests with optimal prediction power for various types of human toxicity will be selected. The need for and possible uses of such batteries are discussed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2688844     DOI: 10.1007/bf01795360

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cell Biol Toxicol        ISSN: 0742-2091            Impact factor:   6.691


  17 in total

1.  Spreadsheet programming--a new approach in physiologically based modeling of solvent toxicokinetics.

Authors:  G Johanson; P H Näslund
Journal:  Toxicol Lett       Date:  1988-05       Impact factor: 4.372

Review 2.  Multivariate data analysis and experimental design in biomedical research.

Authors:  L Ståhle; S Wold
Journal:  Prog Med Chem       Date:  1988

3.  A critical evaluation of predicting ocular irritancy potential from an in vitro cytotoxicity assay.

Authors:  H E Kennah; D Albulescu; S Hignet; C S Barrow
Journal:  Fundam Appl Toxicol       Date:  1989-02

Review 4.  Toxic effects of chemicals: difficulties in extrapolating data from animals to man.

Authors:  S Garattini
Journal:  Crit Rev Toxicol       Date:  1985       Impact factor: 5.635

5.  An in vitro approach to the study of target organ toxicity of drugs and chemicals.

Authors:  D Acosta; E M Sorensen; D C Anuforo; D B Mitchell; K Ramos; K S Santone; M A Smith
Journal:  In Vitro Cell Dev Biol       Date:  1985-09

6.  Significance of the LD50-test for the toxicological evaluation of chemical substances.

Authors:  G Zbinden; M Flury-Roversi
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  1981-04       Impact factor: 5.153

7.  [Prediction of LD50 values by cell culture].

Authors:  W Halle; E Göres
Journal:  Pharmazie       Date:  1987-04       Impact factor: 1.267

8.  The FRAME multicentre project on in vitro cytotoxicology.

Authors:  P Knox; P F Uphill; J R Fry; J Benford; M Balls
Journal:  Food Chem Toxicol       Date:  1986 Jun-Jul       Impact factor: 6.023

Review 9.  Screening of toxic compounds in mammalian cell cultures.

Authors:  B Ekwall
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  1983       Impact factor: 5.691

10.  On the application of cultured neuroblastoma cells in chemical toxicity screening.

Authors:  E Walum; A Peterson
Journal:  J Toxicol Environ Health       Date:  1984
View more
  11 in total

1.  Use of controlled luciferase expression to monitor chemicals affecting protein synthesis.

Authors:  J Lampinen; M Virta; M Karp
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 4.792

2.  Framework for validation and implementation of in vitro toxicity tests.

Authors:  A M Goldberg; J M Frazier; D Brusick; M S Dickens; O Flint; S D Gettings; R N Hill; R L Lipnick; K J Renskers; J A Bradlaw
Journal:  In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Anim       Date:  1993-09       Impact factor: 2.416

Review 3.  Interest and limits of human tissue and cell use in pharmacotoxicology.

Authors:  M Potier; B Lakhdar; D Merlet; J Cambar
Journal:  Cell Biol Toxicol       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 6.691

4.  Acute oral toxicity.

Authors:  E Walum
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 9.031

5.  In vitro cytotoxicity testing for prediction of acute human toxicity.

Authors:  F A Barile; P J Dierickx; U Kristen
Journal:  Cell Biol Toxicol       Date:  1994-06       Impact factor: 6.691

6.  Comparison of in vivo acute lethal potency and in vitro cytotoxicity of 48 chemicals.

Authors:  R Shrivastava; C Delomenie; A Chevalier; G John; B Ekwall; E Walum; R Massingham
Journal:  Cell Biol Toxicol       Date:  1992 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 6.691

7.  Acute cytotoxicity testing with cultured human lung and dermal cells.

Authors:  F A Barile; M Cardona
Journal:  In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Anim       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 2.416

8.  The hen's fertile egg screening test (HEST): a comparison between the acute toxicity for chick embryos and rodents of 20 drugs.

Authors:  H Nishigori; M Mizumura; M Iwatsuru
Journal:  Cell Biol Toxicol       Date:  1992 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 6.691

9.  Cross contamination associated with the use of multiwell culture plates for cytotoxicity assessment of volatile chemicals.

Authors:  O Blein; X Ronot; M Adolphe
Journal:  Cytotechnology       Date:  1991-05       Impact factor: 2.058

10.  Induction of the human growth hormone gene placed under human hsp70 promoter control in mouse cells: a quantitative indicator of metal toxicity.

Authors:  M Fischbach; E Sabbioni; P Bromley
Journal:  Cell Biol Toxicol       Date:  1993 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 6.691

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.