1. bookVolume 11 (2018): Issue 1 (May 2018)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
1337-9569
First Published
19 Jun 2009
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

Advances in acute toxicity testing: strengths, weaknesses and regulatory acceptance

Published Online: 06 Aug 2018
Volume & Issue: Volume 11 (2018) - Issue 1 (May 2018)
Page range: 5 - 12
Received: 27 Nov 2017
Accepted: 13 Dec 2017
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
1337-9569
First Published
19 Jun 2009
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

Safety assessment of chemicals, pharmaceuticals, food and food ingredients, cosmetics, industrial products is very crucial prior to their approval for human uses. Since the commencement of toxicity testing (about 500 years ago, since 1520), significant advances have been made with respect to the 3Rs (reduction, refinement and replacement) alternative approaches. This review is focused on the update in acute systemic toxicity testing of chemicals. Merits and demerits of these advances were also highlighted. Traditional LD50 test methods are being suspended while new methods are developed and endorsed by the regulatory body. Based on the refinement and reduction approaches, the regulatory body has approved fixed dose procedure (FDP), acute toxic class (ATC) method and up and down procedure (UDP) which involves few numbers of animals. In terms of replacement approach, the regulatory body approved 3T3 neutral red uptake (NRU), the normal human keratinocyte (NHK), and the 3T3 neutral red uptake (NRU) phototoxicity test for acute phototoxicity. However, other promising replacement alternatives such as organ on chip seeded with human cells for acute systemic toxicity and 3T3 neutral red uptake (NRU) cytotoxicity test for identifying substances not requiring classification, as well as the in silico approaches are yet to receive regulatory approval. With this backdrop, a collaborative effort is required from the academia, industries, regulatory agencies, government and scientific organizations to ensure speedily regulatory approval of the prospective alternatives highlighted.

Keywords

Ambuja SB, Elaina K, Thomas JF, John CL, Donna LM, Thomas H, Geoffrey WP. (2013). Correlating in vitro data to in vivo findings for risk assessment. Altex31: 1/14. Symposium report.Search in Google Scholar

Arwa BR, Vladimir BB. (2016). In silico toxicology: computational methods for the prediction of chemical toxicity. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Comput Mol Sci. 6: 147–172.Search in Google Scholar

Blais A, Morvan-Baleynaud J, Friedlander G, Le Grimellec C. (1993). Primary culture of rabbit proximal tubules as a cellular model to study nephrotoxicity of xenobiotics. Kidney Int44: 13–18.Search in Google Scholar

Botham PA. (2004). Acute systemic toxicity—prospects for tiered testing strategies. Toxicol in Vitro18: 227–230.Search in Google Scholar

Broadhead CL, Combes RD. (2001). The current status for food additives toxicity testing and the potential for application of the Three Rs. ATLA29: 471–485.Search in Google Scholar

Brown MJ, White WJ. (2009). Reflections on improved health status of rodents bred for research: contributions to the reduction and refinement of animal use. Altern Lab Anim37: 187–189.Search in Google Scholar

Chapman KL, Holzgrefe H, Black LE, Brown M, Chellman G, Copeman C, Couch J, Creton S, Gehen S, Hoberman A, Kinter LB, Madden S, Mattis C, Stemple HA Wilson S. (2013). Pharmaceutical toxicology: Designing studies to reduce animal use, while maximizing human translation. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol66: 88–103.Search in Google Scholar

Clemedson C, Barile FA, Chesne C, Cottin M, Curren R, Eckwall B, Ferro M, Gomez-Lechon MJ, Imai K, Janus J, Kemp RB, Kerszman G, Kjellstrand P, Lavrijsen K, Logemann P, McFarlane-Abdulla E, Roguet R, Segner H, Thuvander A, Walum E, Ekwall B. (2000). MEIC evaluation of acute systemic toxicity. Part VII. Prediction of human toxicity by results from testing of the first 30 reference chemicals with 27 further in vitro assays. ATLA28: 159–200.Search in Google Scholar

Coecke S, Ahr H, Blaauboer BJ, Bremer S, Casati S, Castell J, Combes R, Corvi R, Crespi CL, Cunningham ML. (2006). Metabolism: A bottleneck in in vitro toxicological test development. ATLA. 34: 49–84.Search in Google Scholar

Cronin MTD. (2002). The current status and future applicability of quantitative structure–activity relationships (QSARs) in predicting toxicity. ATLA30: 81–84.Search in Google Scholar

Daneshian M. (2012). A roadmap for the development of alternative (non-animal) methods for toxicokinetics testing. ALTEX29: 16–26.Search in Google Scholar

Dayna KM, Alan MG, Albrecht P, Michael FW, Joseph C, James M, Kelly PC, Richard H, Ronald B, Harald FK, Anthony B, Thomas H. (2017). From In Vivo to In Vitro: The Medical Device Testing Paradigm Shift. t4 workshop report*. ALTEX Online first published, version 2 doi: 10.14573/altex.1608081.10.14573/altex.160808128539002Search in Google Scholar

Deora PS, Mishra CK, Mavani P, Asha R, Shrivastava B, Rajesh KN. (2010). Effective alternative methods of LD50 help to save number of experimental animals. J Chem Pharm Res2(6): 450–453.Search in Google Scholar

Ekwall B. (1999). Overview of the Final MEIC Results: II. The In VitroIn Vivo Evaluation, Including the Selection of a Practical Battery of Cell Tests for Prediction of Acute Lethal Blood Concentrations in Humans. Toxicol in Vitro13: 665–673.Search in Google Scholar

Enegide C, David A, Fidelis SA. (2013). A New Method for Determining Acute Toxicity in Animal Models. Toxicol Int20(3): 224–226.Search in Google Scholar

Erkekoglu P, Giray BK, Basaran N. (2011). 3R Principle and Alternative Toxicity Testing Methods. FABAD J Pharm Sci36: 101–117.Search in Google Scholar

Escher SE, Tluczkiewicz I, Batke M. (2010). Evaluation of inhalation TTC values with the database RepDose. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol58: 259–274.Search in Google Scholar

EURL-ECVAM (2017). European Union Reference Laboratory for Alternative to Animal Testing https://eurl-ecvam.jrc.ec.europa.eu/glossary/glossary/invitro-methods. Accessed on 17th November, 2017.Search in Google Scholar

Fisher G. (2013). Import Ban on Animal-Tested Products Goes Into Effect. The Times of Israel, 1 January 2013. https://www.timesofisrael.com/import-ban-on-animal-tested-products-goes-into-effect/. Accessed on November, 2th, 2017.Search in Google Scholar

Gallagher ME. (2003). Toxicity testing requirements, methods and proposed alternatives. Environs26(2): 257–273.Search in Google Scholar

Gertrude-Emilia C. (2017). Advances in science: next generation of lab tools, models and testing platforms used in predictive toxicology. Molecular Life1(1): 22–28.Search in Google Scholar

Hamm J, Kristie S, Amy JC, Judy S, Shannon B, Barun B, Bas B, Warren C, David D, Anna F, Natàlia GR, Sean G, Rabea G, Jon H, Anna L, Joanna M, Elissa R, Louis S, David A. (2017). Alternative approaches for identifying acute systemic toxicity: Moving from research to regulatory testing. Toxicol in Vitro41: 245–259.Search in Google Scholar

Hartung T, McBride M. (2011). Food for thought. on mapping the human toxome. ALTEX28: 83–93.Search in Google Scholar

Hartung T, Daston G. (2009). FORUM Are In Vitro Tests Suitable for Regulatory Use? Toxicol Sci111(2): 233–237.10.1093/toxsci/kfp14919617452Search in Google Scholar

ICCVAM (2006). Test Method Evaluation Report – In Vitro Ocular Toxicity Test Methods for Identifying Ocular Severe Irritants and Corrosives. Inter-agency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM). NIH Publication No.: 07-4517. Available: [http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/methods/ocutox/ivocutox/ocu_tmer.htm].Search in Google Scholar

ICCVAM (1999). Corrositex®. An In Vitro Test Method for Assessing Dermal Corrosivity Potential of Chemicals. The Results of an Independent Peer Review Evaluation Coordinated by ICCVAM, NTP and NICEATM. NIEHS, NIH Publication (No. 99-4495.)Search in Google Scholar

Jannuzzi AT, Ozcagli1 E, Kovatsi L, Goumenou M and Tsatsakis AM. (2016). Using Stem Cells in Toxicological Assessments. J Med Toxicol Clin Forens Med2(1): 1–2.Search in Google Scholar

Jen-Yin G, Richard JW, Libby D, Nicola JP, Ruth AR (2015). Development and use of in vitro alternatives to animal testing by the pharmaceutical industry 1980–2013. Toxicol Res4: 1297–1307.Search in Google Scholar

Kleandrova VV, Luan F, Speck-Planche A, Cordeiro MN (2015). In silico assessment of 26 the acute toxicity of chemicals: recent advances and new model for multitasking 27 prediction of toxic effect. Mini Rev Med Chem15: 677–86.Search in Google Scholar

Loomis TA, Hayes AW. (1996). Loomis’s essentials of toxicology. 4th ed., California, Academic press: 208–245.Search in Google Scholar

Lorke D. (1983). A new approach to practical acute toxicity testing. Arch Toxicol 54: 275–87.Search in Google Scholar

Maheshwari DG, Shaikh NK. (2016). An overview on toxicity testing method. Int J Pharm Technol8(2): 3834–3849.Search in Google Scholar

Marx U, Andersson TB, Bahinski A. (2016). Biology-inspired microphysiological system approaches to solve the prediction dilemma of substance testing using animals. ALTEX33: 272–321.Search in Google Scholar

OECD (2001). Acute Oral Toxicity – Acute Toxic Class Method. Test No. 423. Adopted 17th December, 2001.Search in Google Scholar

Parasuraman S. (2011). Toxicological screening. J Pharmacol Pharmacother2(2): 74–79.Search in Google Scholar

Peers IS, Ceuppens PR, Harbron C. (2012). In search of preclinical robustness. Nat Rev Drug Discov11(10): 733–734.Search in Google Scholar

PISC (2017). Peta International Science Consortium Ltd. Alternatives to animal testing. www.piscltd.org.uk.Search in Google Scholar

Randhawa MA. (2009). Calculation of LD50 value from the method of Miller and Tainter, 1944. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad21(3): 1–3.Search in Google Scholar

Robinson V. (2005). Finding alternatives: an overview of the 3Rs and the use of animals in research. School Sci Rev87: 1–4.Search in Google Scholar

Russell WMS, Burch RL. (1959). The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Methuen, London. Stephens ML, Goldberg AM, Rowan AN, 2001. The First Forty Years of Alternatives Approach: Refining, Reducing, and Replacing the Use of Laboratory Animals. In: Salem DJ, Rowan AN (Eds.), The State of Animals. Humane Society Press, Washington, DC. 121–135.Search in Google Scholar

Rust A, Doran C, Hart R, Binz T, Stickings P, Sesardic D, Peden AA Davletov B. (2017). A Cell Line for Detection of Botulinum Neurotoxin Type B. Front Pharmacol8: 796: 1–8.Search in Google Scholar

Saganuwan AS. (2011). A modified arithmetical method of Reed and Muench for determination of a relatively ideal median lethal dose (LD50). Afr J Pharm5(12): 1543–1546.Search in Google Scholar

Saganuwan SA. (2016). Toxicity study of drugs and chemicals in animals: An overview. BJVM. 2016 online first. ISSN 1311-1477.Search in Google Scholar

Shanks N, Greek R, Greek J. (2009). Are animal models predictive for humans? Philos. Ethics Humanit Med4(2): 1–20. Available from: http://www.pehmed.com/content/4/1/2.Search in Google Scholar

Sonali K, Doke S, Dhawale C. (2015). Alternatives to animal testing: A review. Saudi Pharm J23: 223–229.Search in Google Scholar

Valerio-Jr, LG. (2009). In silico toxicology for the pharmaceutical sciences. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol241: 356–370.Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo