Use of Fabricated Living Tissue and Organ Equivalents as Defined Higher Order Systems for the Study of Pharmacologic Responses to Test Substances

  • Eugene Bell
  • Roger Gay
  • Mark Swiderek
  • Tom Class
  • Paul Kemp
  • Graham Green
  • Howard Haimes
  • Patrick Bilbo
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSA, volume 218)


Because animal tissues resemble human tissues, the use of animals as model systems in pharmacologic studies was a natural outcome of laboratory practice. But with the realization that there are significant differences between animal skin and human skin and between responses given by animals as compared with humans,1,2,3 to substances that come into contact with the skin or tissues of the eye, and because of humane considerations, there has developed a major move away from the use of animals toward alternatives to animal testing.


Benzoic Acid Stratum Corneum Test Substance Collagen Biosynthesis Minimal Erythemic Dose 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    M. Steinberg, W.A. Akers, M. Weeks, A.H. McCreesh and H.I. Maibach, 1. A Comparison of Test Techniques Based on Rabbit and Human Skin Responses to Irritants With Recommendations, Regarding the Evaluation of Mildly or Moderately Irritating Compounds, in “Animal Models in Dermatology,” H. Maibach, ed., Churchhill, Livingstone (1975).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Marks and T. Kingston, Acute Skin Toxicity Reactions in Man — Tests and Mechanisms, Fd. Chem. Toxic. 23: 155–163 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    D.W. Swanston Assessment of the Validity of Animal Techniques in Eye-Irritation Testing Fd. Chem. Toxic. 23: 169–173 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    D.C. McGill, Cosmetics Companies Quietly Ending Animal Tests, The New York Times, August 2: 1 (1989).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R.J. Feldmann and H.I. Maibach, Percutaneous Penetration In Vivo in Man, in“Proceedings of International Conference on Cosmetic Sciences,” Toilet Goods Assoc, Inc. (1968).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J.H. Driaze, G. Woodard and H.O. Calvery, Methods for the Study of Irritation and Toxicity of Substances Applied Topically to the Skin and Mucous Membranes, J. Pharmacol. Exp. Therap. 83: 377–390 (1944).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    P.R. Roper and B. Drewinka, Comparison of In Vitro Methods to Determine Drug-Induced Cell Lethality, Cancer Res. 36: 2182–2188 (1976).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J.W. Bridges, An Evaluation of the Present Status and Potential Application of In Vitro Toxicity Tests, in “Towards Better Safety of Drugs and Pharmaceutical Products,” D.D. Breimer, ed., Elsevier/North Holland, Amsterdam (1980).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A.P. Stammati, V. Silano and F. Zucco, Toxicology Investigations with Cell Culture Systems, Toxicology 20: 91–153 (1981).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    W.E. Parish, Relevance of In Vitro Tests to In Vivo Acute Skin Inflammation: Potential In Vitro Applications of Skin Keratome Slices, Neutrophils, Fibroblasts, Mast Cells and Macrophages, Fd. Chem. Toxic. 23: 275–285 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    W.E. Parish, Evaluation of In Vitro Predictive Tests for Irritation and Allergic Sensitization, Fd. Chem. Toxic. 24: 481–494 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    M.A.E. Mol, J. Van Genderen and O.L. Wolthuis, Cultured Human Epidermal Cells as a Tool in Skin Toxicology, Fd. Chem. Toxic. 24: 519–520 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    V. DeLeo, S. Scheide, J. Meshulam, D. Hanson and A. Cardullo, Ultraviolet Radiation Alters Choline Phospholipid Metabolism in Human Keratinocytes, J. Invest. Dermatol. 91: 303–308 (1988).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    D.A. Swisher, M.E. Prevo and P.W. Ledger, The MTT In Vitro Cytotoxicity Test: Correlation with Cutaneous Irritancy in Two Animal Models, in “Alternative Methods in Toxicology, Vol. 6, Progress in In Vitro Toxicology,” A.M. Goldberg, ed., Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., New York (1988).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    D.A. Swisher, M. Cormier, J. Johnson and P.W. Ledger, A Cytotoxicity Assay Using Normal, Human Keratinocytes: Characterization and Applications, Models Dermatol. 4: 131–137 (1989).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    E. Borenfreund and C. Shopsis, Toxicity Monitored with a Correlated Set of Cell-Culture Assays, Xenobiotica 15: 705–711 (1985).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    R.B. Kemp, J. Meredith and S.H. Gamble, Toxicity of Commercial Products on Cells in Suspension Culture: A Possible Screen for the Draize Eye Irritation Test, Fd. Chem. Toxic. 23: 261–270 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    M.C. Scaife, An In Vitro Cytotoxicity Test to Predict the Ocular Irritation Potential of Detergents and Detergent Products, Fd. Chem. Toxic. 23: 253–258 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. Selling and B. Ekwall, Screening for Eye Irritancy Using Cultured HeLa Cells, Xenobiotica 15: 713–717 (1985).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    C. Shopsis, E. Borenfreund, J. Walberg and D.M. Stark, ABattery of Potential Alternatives to the Draize Test: Uridine Uptake Inhibition, Morphological Cytotoxicity, Macrophage Chemotaxis and Exfoliative Cytology, Fd. Chem. Toxic. 23: 259–266 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    R.B. Kemp, R.W.J. Meredith, S. Gamble and M. Frost, A Rapid Cell Culture Technique for Assessing the Toxicity of Detergent Based Products In Vitro as a Possible Screen for Eye Irritancy In Vivo, Cytobios 36: 153–159 (1983).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    C. Shopsis and S. Sathe, Uridine Uptake Inhibition as a Cytotoxicity Test: Correlations with the Draize Test, Toxicology 29: 195–206 (1984).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    H.E. Kennah II, S. Hignet, P.E. Laux, J.D. Dorko and C.S. Barrow, An Objective Procedure for Quantitating Eye Irritation Based Upon Changes of Corneal Thickness, Fund. Appl. Toxicol. 12: 258–268 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    C.S. Weil and R.A. Scala, Study of Intra-and Interlaboratory Variability in the Results of Rabbit Eye and Skin Irritation Tests, Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 19: 276–360 (1971).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    G.A. Nixon, C.A. Tyson and W.C. Wertz, Interspecies Comparisons of Skin. Irritancy, Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 31: 481–490 (1975).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    E. Bell, B. Ivarsson, C. Merrill, Production of Tissue-Like Structure by Contraction of Collagen Lattices by Human Fibroblasts of Different Proliferative Potential In Vitro, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 76: 1274–1278 (1979).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    E. Bell, S. Sher and B. Hull, The Living Skin-Equivalent as a Structural and Immunological Model in Skin Grafting, Scan. Electr. Micro. 4: 1957–1962 (1984).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    D. Asselineau, B.A. Bernard, C. Bailly, M. Darmon and M. Pruniéras, Human Epidermis Reconstructed by Culture: Is It “Normal”?, J. Invest. Dermatol. 86: 181–222 (1986).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    B. Nusgens, C. Merrill, C. Lapiére and E. Bell, Collagen Biosynthesis by Cells in a Tissue Equivalent Matrix In Vitro, Collagen Relat. Res. 4: 351 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    D.L. Layman, E.B. McGoodwin and G.R. Martin, The Nature of the Collagen Synthesized by Cultured Human Fibroblasts, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 68: 454–458 (1971).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    B. Goldberg, E.H. Epstein, Jr. and C.J. Sheer, Precursors of Collagen Secreted by Cultured Human Fibroblasts, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 69: 3655–3659 (1972).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    H. Freiberger, D. Grove, A. Sivarajah, S.R. Pinnell, Procollagen I Synthesis in Human Skin Fibroblasts: Effect of Culture Conditions on Biosynthesis, J. Invest. Dermatol. 75: 425–430 (1980).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    D.M. Stark and C. Shopsis, Developing Alternative Assay Systems for Toxicity Testing, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 406: 92–103 (1983).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    B. Coulomb, L. Dubertret, E. Bell, C. Merrill, M. Fosse, J. Breton-Gorius, C. Prost and R. Touraine, Endogenous Peroxidases in Normal Human Dermis: A Marker of Fibroblast Function, J. Invest. Dermatol. 81: 75–78 (1983).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    K.Y. Chan, Alternative to the Draize Test, in “Alternative Methods in Toxicology, Vol. 3, In Vitro Toxicology,” A.M. Goldberg, ed., Mary Ann Liebert Inc., New York (1985).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    G. Jacobs, M. Martens and G. Mosselmans, Proposal of Limit Concentrations for Skin Irritation within the Context of a New EEC Directive on the Classification and Labeling of Preparations, Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 7: 370–378 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    E. Bell, M. Rosenberg, P. Kemp, N. Parenteau, H. Haimes, J. Chen, M. Swiderek, F. Kaplan, D. Kagan, V. Mason and L. Boucher, Reconstitution of Living Organ Equivalents From Specialized Cells and Matrix Biomolecules, in “Hybrid Artificial Organs”, C. Baquey, B. Dupuy, ed., Colloque INSERM, Paris (1989).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    B. Coulomb, L. Dubertret, E. Bell and R. Touraine, The Contractility of Fibroblasts in a Collagen Lattice is Reduced by Corticosteroids, J. Invest. Dermatol. 82: 341–344 (1984).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    J. Nanchahal, W.R. Otto, R. Dover and S.K. Dhital, Cultured Composite Skin Grafts: Biological Skin Equivalents Permitting Massive Expansion, Lancet 2: 191–193 (1989).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eugene Bell
    • 1
  • Roger Gay
    • 1
  • Mark Swiderek
    • 1
  • Tom Class
    • 1
  • Paul Kemp
    • 1
  • Graham Green
    • 1
  • Howard Haimes
    • 1
  • Patrick Bilbo
    • 1
  1. 1.Organogenesis Inc.CambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations