Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Animals and Alternatives in Toxicology pp 291–312Cite as

The Development, Validation and Acceptance of In Vitro Toxicity Tests

  • Chapter

Abstract

The first report of the FRAME Toxicity Committee (1) included the recommendation that more effort should be put into the development and validation of alternative techniques, but, at the time, with the notable exceptions of short-term tests for mutagenicity (2, 3) and for biologically-active mineral dusts (4), it was difficult to find any collaborative interlaboratory attempts to establish the reliability and usefulness of in vitro methods in toxicity testing (5). For this reason, FRAME established a research programme, which at that time was unique in that it involved collaboration between four laboratories in the development of a common cytotoxicity test protocol and led to a blind trial involving a relatively large number of coded chemicals (6). When other laboratories asked for access to coded chemicals, the FRAME Alternative Test Validation Scheme was established (7), and the results of a number of blind trials have since been published (e.g. 8–11).

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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Anon (1982). Report of the FRAME Toxicity Committee, 40 pp. Nottingham: FRAME.

    Google Scholar 

  2. De Serres, F. & Ashby, J. eds (1981). Progress in Mutation Research, Vol. I, Evaluation of short-term tests for carcinogens. Amsterdam: Elsevier/North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Purchase, I.F.H. (1982). An appraisal of predictive tests for carcinogenicity. Mutation Research 99, 53–71.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Brown, R.C., Chamberlain, M., Davies, R., Morgan, D.M.L., Pooley, F.D. & Richards, R.J. (1980). A comparison of 4 in vitro systems applied to 21 dusts. In The In Vitro Effects of Mineral Dusts (ed. R.C. Brown, LP. Gormley, M. Chamberlain & R. Davies), pp. 47–52. London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Balls, M. (1983). The FRAME research programme. In Animals and Alternatives in Toxicity Testing (ed. M. Balls, R.J. Riddell & A.N. Worden), pp. 471–475. London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Knox, P., Uphill, P.F., Fry, J.R., Benford, D.J. & Balls, M. (1986). The FRAME multi-centre project on in vitro cytotoxicology. Food and Chemical Toxicology 24, 457–463.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Balls, M. & Horner, S.A. (1985). The FRAME interlaboratory programme on in vitro cytotoxicology. Food and Chemical Toxicology 23, 209–213.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Stark, D.M., Shopsis, C, Borenfreund, E. & Babich, H. (1986). Progress and problems in evaluating and validating alternative assays in toxicology. Food and Chemical Toxicology 24, 449–455.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kemp, R.B., Cross, D.M. & Meredith, R.W.J. (1986). Adenosine triphosphate as an indicator of cellular toxicity in vitro. Food & Chemical Toxicology 24, 465–466.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Riddell, R.J., Clothier, R.H. & Balls, M. (1986). An evaluation of three in vitro cytotoxicity assays. Food & Chemical Toxicology 24, 469–471.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Clothier, R.H. & Balls, M. (1990). Validation of alternative toxicity tests: principles, practices and cases. Toxicology in Vitro 4, 692–693.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Bondesson, I., Ekwall, B., Hellberg, S., Romert, L., Stenberg, K. & Walum, E. (1989). MEIC-a new international multicenter project to evaluate the relevance to human toxicity of in vitro cytotoxicity tests. Cell Biology and Toxicology 5, 331–347.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Ekwall, B., Bondesson, I., Castell, J.V., Gómez-Lechón, M.J., Hellberg, S., Högberg, J., Jover, R., Pondosa, X., Romert, L., Stenberg, K. & Walum, E. (1989). Cytotoxicity evaluation of the first ten MEIC chemicals: acute lethal toxicity in man predicted by cytotoxicity in five cellular assays and by oral LD50 tests in rodents. ATLA 17, 83–100.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Booman, K.A., Cascieri, T.M., Demutrulias, J., Driedger, A., Griffith, J.F., Grochoski, G.T., King, B., McCormick, W.C., North-Root, H., Rozen, M.G. & Sedlak, R.I. (1988). In vitro methods for estimating eye irritancy of cleaning products. Phase 1: preliminary assessment. Journal of Toxicology and Cutaneous and Ocular Toxicology 7, 173–185.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Gettings, S.D. & McEwen, G.N. (1990). Development of potential alternatives to the Draize eye test: the CTFA evaluation of alternatives program. ATLA 17, 317–324.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kalweit, S., Besoke, R., Gerner, I. & Spielmann, H. (1990). A national validation project of alternative methods to the Draize rabbit eye test. Toxicology in Vitro 4, 702–706.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Scala, R.A. (1987). Theoretical approaches to validation. In Alternative Methods in Toxicology, Vol. 5, Approaches to Validation (ed. A.M. Goldberg), pp. 1–9. New York: Mary Ann Liebert.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Balls, M., Riddell, R.J., Horner, S.A. & Clothier, R.H. (1987). The FRAME approach to the development, validation and evaluation of in vitro methods. In Alternative Methods in Toxicology, Vol. 5, Approaches to Validation (ed. A.M. Goldberg), pp. 45–58. New York: Mary Ann Liebert.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Balls, M. & Clothier, R. (1989). Validation of alternative toxicity test systems: lessons learned and to be learned. Molecular Toxicology 1, 547–559.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Frazier, J.M. (1990). Scientific Criteria for the Validation of In Vitro Toxicity Tests. OEC Environment Monograph 36, 62 pp. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bulling, E., Spielmann, H. & Bass, R. eds (1989). Wege zur Bewertung und Anerkennung von Alternativen zum Tierversuch. BGA Schriften 2, 1–88.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Balls, M., Blaauboer, B., Brusick, D., Frazier, J., Lamb, D., Pemberton, M., Reinhardt, C., Roberfroid, M., Rosenkranz, H., Schmid, B., Spielmann, H., Stammati, A.–L. & Walum, E. (1990). Report and recommendations of the CAAT/ERGATT workshop on the validation of toxicity test procedures. ATLA 18, 313–337.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Balls, M., Botham, P., Cordier, A., Fumero, S., Kayser, D., Koëter, H., Koundakjan, P., Gunnar Lindquist, N., Meyer, O., Pioda, L., Reinhardt, C., Rozemond, H., Smyrniotis, T., Spielmann, H., Van Looy, H., an der Venne, M.-T. & Walum, E. (1990). Report and recommendations of an international workshop on promotion of the regulatory acceptance of validated non-animal toxicity test procedures. ATLA 18, 339–344.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Purchase, I.F.H. (1990). An international reference chemical data bank would accelerate the development, validation and regulatory acceptance of alternative toxicity tests. ATLA 18, 345–348.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Warren, M., Atkinson, K. & Steer, S. (1989). Introducing INVITTOX: the ERGATT/ FRAME in vitro toxicology data bank. ATLA 16, 332–343.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Anon. (1990). The INVITTOX register of validation schemes. ATLA 18, 200.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Smyrniotis, T. (1990). Juridical criteria for the evaluation and recognition of methods to replace and supplement animal experiments in the European Community. BGA Schriften 2, 59–62.

    Google Scholar 

  28. van den Heuvel, M.J. (1990). A fixed-dose procedure as a replacement for the classical LD50 test: the UK initiative. In LD50 Testing and Classification Schemes: The Possibilities for Change, pp. 71–82. Brussels: CEC.

    Google Scholar 

  29. van den Heuvel, M.J. (1990). An alternative to the LD50? Human and Experimental Toxicology 9, 369–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Balls, M. (1991). The validation and acceptance of in vitro toxicity tests. In In Vitro Toxicology: An Alternative to Animal Testing? (ed. L. Valette & A. Cordier). London: Academic Press, in press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. Anon. (1986). Council Directive of 24 November 1986 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes. Official Journal of the European Communities 29 (L358), 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Zbinden, G. (1988). A look behind drug regulatory guidelines. In National and International Drug Safety Guidelines (ed. S. Adler & G. Zbinden), pp. 7–19. Zollikon: MTC Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Balls, M., Reinhardt, CA., Spielmann, H. & Walum, E. (1991). The development, validation and acceptance of in vitro toxicity tests. In Animals and Alternatives in Toxicology-Present Status and Future Prospects (ed. M. Balls, J.W. Bridges & J.A. Southee), 291–301. London: Macmillan Press and New York: VCH Publishers Inc.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. Doull, J. (1984). The past, present and future of toxicology. Pharmacological Reviews 36, 155–185.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Warner, F., ed. (1986). Risk Assessment: A Study Group Report. London: Royal Society.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Aldridge, W.N. & Schlatter, C.H. (1980). Training and Education in Toxicology. Archives of Toxicology 45, 249–256.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Miya, T.S., Gibson, J.E., Hook, J.B. & McCellan, R.O. (1988). Contemporary issues in toxicology. Preparing for the twenty-first century. Report of the TOX-90’s Commission. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 96, 1–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Press, F. (1984). Keynote address. In: Symposium on Safety Assessment: The Interface Between Science, Law and Regulation. 12–14 September, 1983. Fundamental and Applied Toxicology 4 S257–S260.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Ruckelshaus, W. (1983). Science risk and public policy. Science, New York 221, 126–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Rodricks, J.V. (1986). Improving the use of risk assessment in regulation. Comments on Toxicology 1, 95–76.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Wilkinson, C.F. (1986). Risk assessment and regulatory policy. Comments on Toxicology 1, 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Roe, F.J.C. (1989). What is wrong with the way we test chemicals for carcinogenic activity? In Advances in Applied Toxicology (ed. A.D. Dayan & A.J. Paine), pp. 1–17. London: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Roberfroid, M.B. (1988). Toxicologe in vitro, un défi pour le XXIème siècle, réflexions d’un fondamentaliste. In Méthodes in Vitro en Pharmaco-Toxicologie (ed. M. Adolphe & A. Guillouzo), pp. 147–158. Paris: Colloque INSERM.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Kroes, R. & Feron, V.J. (1984). General toxicity testing: sense and nonsense, science and policy. In: Symposium on Safety Assessment: The Interface Between Science, Law and Regulation, 12–14 September, 1983. Fundamental and Applied Toxicology 4, S298–S308.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Hall, R.L. (1984). What will food science require of toxicology? In: Symposium on Safety Assessment: The Interface Between Science, Law and Regulation, 12–14 September, 1983. Fundamental and Applied Toxicology 4, S278–S283.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Hicks, M. & Kroes, R. (1991). Proceedings of the Symposium Organised by ILSI Europe on Re-evaluation of Current Methodology of Toxicology Testings Including Gross Nutrients. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 28, 733–790.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Anon. (1989). LD50 Testing and Classification Schemes: The Possibilities for Change, Brussels: CEC, 107 pp.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. FRAME, 34 Stoney Street, Nottingham, NG1 1NB, UK

    Michael Balls

  2. Department of Human Morphology, University of Nottingham Medical School, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, UK

    Michael Balls

  3. SIAT (Swiss Institute for Alternatives to Animal Testing), ETH-Zentrum, Turnerstrasse 1, CH-8092, Zurich, Switzerland

    Christoph A. Reinhardt

  4. ZEBET, Bundesgesundheitsamt, P. O. Box 33 0013, D-1000, Berlin 33, Germany

    Horst Spielmann

  5. Unit of Neurochemistry and Neurotoxicology, University of Stockholm, S-106 91, Stockholm, Sweden

    Erik Walum

Authors
  1. Michael Balls
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christoph A. Reinhardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Horst Spielmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Erik Walum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Nottingham, UK

    Michael Balls (Professor of Medical Cell Biology) (Professor of Medical Cell Biology)

  2. University of Surrey, Guildford, UK

    James Bridges (Professor of Toxicology) (Professor of Toxicology)

  3. FRAME, Nottingham, UK

    Jacqueline Southee (Scientific Executive) (Scientific Executive)

Copyright information

© 1991 FRAME

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Balls, M., Reinhardt, C.A., Spielmann, H., Walum, E. (1991). The Development, Validation and Acceptance of In Vitro Toxicity Tests. In: Balls, M., Bridges, J., Southee, J. (eds) Animals and Alternatives in Toxicology. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-12667-5_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-12667-5_11

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-349-12669-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-349-12667-5

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation