Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Some thoughts on the use of replacement alternatives for toxicity testing and risk assessment

  • Letter to the Editor
  • Published:
Archives of Toxicology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Balls M, Combes RD (2005) Validation via weight of evidence approaches. ALTEX 23(special issue):332–335

    Google Scholar 

  • Blaauboer BJ, Andersen ME (2007) The need for a new toxicity testing and risk analysis paradigm to implement REACH or any other large scale testing initiative. Arch Toxicol 81:385–387. doi:10.1007/s00204-006-0175-0

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bolt HM, Hengstler JG (2008) Most cited articles in the Archives of Toxicology: the debate about possibilities and limitations of in vitro toxicity tests and replacement of in vivo studies. Arch Toxicol 82:881–883. doi:10.1007/s00204-008-0379-6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bottini AA, Alepee N, Phillips B et al (2008) Optimisation of the post-validation process. The report and recommendations of ECVAM workshop 67. ATLA 36:353–366

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bouvier d’Yvoire M, Prieto P, Blaauboer B et al (2007) Physiologically-based kinetic modelling (PBK modelling): meeting the 3Rs agenda. The report and recommendations of ECVAM Workshop 63. ATLA 35:661–671

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clemedson C et al (1998) MEIC evaluation of acute systemic toxicity. Part IV. In vitro results from 67 toxicity assays used to test reference chemicals 31–50 and a comparative cytotoxicity analysis. ATLA 26:131–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Clemedson C, Kolman A, Forsby A (2007) The Integrated Acute Systemic Toxicity project (ACuteTox) for the optimisation and validation of alternative in vitro tests. ATLA 35:33–38

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Combes RD, Gaunt I, Balls M (2004) A scientific and animal welfare assessment of the OECD Health Effects Guidelines for the safety testing of chemicals under the EU REACH scheme. ATLA 32:163–208

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Combes R, Balls M, Illing P et al (2006) Possibilities for a new approach to chemicals risk assessment—the report of a FRAME workshop. ATLA 34:621–649

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dierickx PJ (2005) Prediction of Human Acute Toxicity by the Hep G2/24-hour/Total Protein Assay, with Protein Measurement bythe CBQCA Method. ATLA 33:207–213

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ekwall B (1999) Overview of the final MEIC results. II: The in vitro–in vivo evaluation, including the selection of a practical battery of cell tests for prediction of acute lethal blood concentrations in humans. Toxicol In Vitro 13:665–673. doi:10.1016/S0887-2333(99)00061-2

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn TJ, Ferguson MS (2008) Multiendpoint mechanistic profiling of hepatotoxicants in HepG2/C3A human hepatoma cells and novel statistical approaches for development of a prediction model for acute hepatotoxicity. Toxicol In Vitro 22:1618–1631. doi:10.1016/j.tiv.2008.04.016

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Greim H (2007) Reply to the letter to the editor: the need for a new toxicity testing and risk analysis paradigm to implement REACH or any other large scale testing initiative, by B.J. Blaauboer and M.E. Andersen (Arch Toxicol 2007, 81: 385–387). Arch Toxicol (2007) 81:895–896

  • Greim H, Arand M, Autrup H, Bolt HM et al (2006) Toxicological comments to the discussion about REACH. Arch Toxicol 80:121–124. doi:10.1007/s00204-005-0039-z

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Grindon C, Combes R et al (2008) An integrated decision-tree testing strategy for repeat dose toxicity with respect to the requirements of the EU REACH legislation. ATLA 36:93–101

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gülden M, Seibert H (2007) The improvement of in vitro cytotoxicity testing for the assessment of acute toxicity in fish. ATLA 35:39–46

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Halle W (2003) The registry of cytotoxicity: toxicity testing in cell cultures to predict acute toxicity (LD50) and to reduce testing in animals. ATLA 31:89–198

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hartung T, Bremer S, Casati S et al (2004) A Modular Approach to the ECVAM Principles on Test Validity. ATLA 32:467–472

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen JB (2008) What you see may not always be what you get–Bioavailability and extrapolation from in vitro tests. Toxicol In Vitro 22:1038–1042. doi:10.1016/j.tiv.2007.12.013

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien PJ, Irwin W, Diaz D et al (2006) High concordance of drug induced human hepatotoxicity with in vitro cytotoxicity measured in a novel cell-based model using high content screening. Arch Toxicol 80:580–604. doi:10.1007/s00204-006-0091-3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2001). Draft Guidance Document on the Development, Validation and Regulatory Acceptance of New and Updated Internationally Acceptable Test Methods in Hazard Assessment, Environment Directorate, 43 pp. Paris, France: OECD

  • Sjöström M, Kolman A, Clemedson C, Clothier R (2008) Estimation of human blood LC50 values for use in modelling of in vitro–in vivo data of the ACuteTox project. Toxicol In Vitro 22:1405–1411. doi:10.1016/j.tiv.2008.04.017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Newark, UK

    Robert D. Combes

Authors
  1. Robert D. Combes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert D. Combes.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Combes, R.D. Some thoughts on the use of replacement alternatives for toxicity testing and risk assessment. Arch Toxicol 83, 199–201 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-009-0408-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-009-0408-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation