Literature DB >> 32440338

Toxicity testing is evolving!

Ida Fischer1, Catherine Milton1, Heather Wallace1.   

Abstract

The efficient management of the continuously increasing number of chemical substances used in today's society is assuming greater importance than ever before. Toxicity testing plays a key role in the regulatory decisions of agencies and governments that aim to protect the public and the environment from the potentially harmful or adverse effects of these multitudinous chemicals. Therefore, there is a critical need for reliable toxicity-testing methods to identify, assess and interpret the hazardous properties of any substance. Traditionally, toxicity-testing approaches have been based on studies in experimental animals. However, in the last 20 years, there has been increasing concern regarding the sustainability of these methodologies. This has created a real need for the development of new approach methodologies (NAMs) that satisfy the regulatory requirements and are acceptable and affordable to society. Numerous initiatives have been launched worldwide in attempts to address this critical need. However, although the science to support this is now available, the legislation and the pace of NAMs acceptance is lagging behind. This review will consider some of the various initiatives in Europe to identify NAMs to replace or refine the current toxicity-testing methods for pharmaceuticals. This paper also presents a novel systematic approach to support the desired toxicity-testing methodologies that the 21st century deserves.
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  21st century toxicology; NAMs; Q(SAR); TOX21; TOX21c; animal testing; drug development; high-throughput screening; innovation; new approach methodologies; organ-on-a-chip; pharmaceuticals; read-across; regulatory toxicology; risk assessment; toxicity testing; toxicology

Year:  2020        PMID: 32440338      PMCID: PMC7233318          DOI: 10.1093/toxres/tfaa011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Toxicol Res (Camb)        ISSN: 2045-452X            Impact factor:   3.524


  47 in total

1.  Trends in clinical success rates and therapeutic focus.

Authors:  Helen Dowden; Jamie Munro
Journal:  Nat Rev Drug Discov       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 84.694

2.  The use of the ames test as a tool for addressing problem-based learning in the microbiology lab.

Authors:  Eliana Rodríguez; Claudia Piccini; Vanessa Sosa; Pablo Zunino
Journal:  J Microbiol Biol Educ       Date:  2012-12-03

Review 3.  The long and winding road of progress in the use of in vitro data for risk assessment purposes: From "carnation test" to integrated testing strategies.

Authors:  Bas J Blaauboer
Journal:  Toxicology       Date:  2014-04-24       Impact factor: 4.221

4.  Implementing Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century (TT21C): Making safety decisions using toxicity pathways, and progress in a prototype risk assessment.

Authors:  Yeyejide Adeleye; Melvin Andersen; Rebecca Clewell; Michael Davies; Matthew Dent; Sue Edwards; Paul Fowler; Sophie Malcomber; Beate Nicol; Andrew Scott; Sharon Scott; Bin Sun; Carl Westmoreland; Andrew White; Qiang Zhang; Paul L Carmichael
Journal:  Toxicology       Date:  2014-02-25       Impact factor: 4.221

5.  Integrated testing strategies for safety assessments.

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

Review 6.  Toxicity testing in the 21 century: defining new risk assessment approaches based on perturbation of intracellular toxicity pathways.

Authors:  Sudin Bhattacharya; Qiang Zhang; Paul L Carmichael; Kim Boekelheide; Melvin E Andersen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-06-20       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975-2014, Featuring Survival.

Authors:  Ahmedin Jemal; Elizabeth M Ward; Christopher J Johnson; Kathleen A Cronin; Jiemin Ma; Blythe Ryerson; Angela Mariotto; Andrew J Lake; Reda Wilson; Recinda L Sherman; Robert N Anderson; S Jane Henley; Betsy A Kohler; Lynne Penberthy; Eric J Feuer; Hannah K Weir
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Evaluation of acute skin irritation and phototoxicity by aqueous and ethanol fractions of Angelica keiskei.

Authors:  Sang-Han Lee
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2012-10-30       Impact factor: 2.447

9.  The flaws and human harms of animal experimentation.

Authors:  Aysha Akhtar
Journal:  Camb Q Healthc Ethics       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 1.284

10.  Strategic focus on 3R principles reveals major reductions in the use of animals in pharmaceutical toxicity testing.

Authors:  Elin Törnqvist; Anita Annas; Britta Granath; Elisabeth Jalkesten; Ian Cotgreave; Mattias Öberg
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-07-23       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Engineering Organ-on-a-Chip to Accelerate Translational Research.

Authors:  Jihoon Ko; Dohyun Park; Somin Lee; Burcu Gumuscu; Noo Li Jeon
Journal:  Micromachines (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-28       Impact factor: 3.523

2.  Machine learning models for rat multigeneration reproductive toxicity prediction.

Authors:  Jie Liu; Wenjing Guo; Fan Dong; Jason Aungst; Suzanne Fitzpatrick; Tucker A Patterson; Huixiao Hong
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2022-09-27       Impact factor: 5.988

3.  Latent Variables Capture Pathway-Level Points of Departure in High-Throughput Toxicogenomic Data.

Authors:  Danilo Basili; Joe Reynolds; Jade Houghton; Sophie Malcomber; Bryant Chambers; Mark Liddell; Iris Muller; Andrew White; Imran Shah; Logan J Everett; Alistair Middleton; Andreas Bender
Journal:  Chem Res Toxicol       Date:  2022-03-25       Impact factor: 3.973

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.