TestSmart–High Production Volume Chemicals: An Approach to Implementing Alternatives into Regulatory Toxicology

Sidney Green*, Alan Goldberg{dagger},1 and Joanne Zurlo{dagger},2

* Howard University College of Medicine, 520 W Street, N. W., Washington, District of Columbia 20059; and {dagger} Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing, 111 Market Place, Suite 840, Baltimore, Maryland 21202

Received November 29, 2000; accepted February 22, 2001


    ABSTRACT
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 Introduction
 Acute Toxicity
 Non-LD50 Acute Toxicity
 Repeat-Dose Toxicity
 Genetic Toxicity
 Developmental Toxicity
 Reproductive Toxicity
 Repeat-Dose...
 Other Applications of...
 REFERENCES
 
This article examines the status and application of alternatives defined as replacements, refinements, and reduction for screening high production volume (HPV) chemicals. It specifically focuses on the Screening Information Data Set (SIDS), a series of toxicological tests recommended by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to screen such chemicals. Alternative tests associated with acute, repeat-dose, genetic, and reproductive and developmental toxicity were examined at 2 meetings of academic, industry, and regulatory scientists and their status determined. Tests were placed in 1 of 3 categories: ready for immediate use, in need of or currently undergoing validation, or needing research/developmental work. With respect to traditional acute toxicity testing, the basal cytotoxicity approach was placed in the category of research with the up-and-down, fixed-dose, limit test, and the acute toxic class categorized as available for immediate use and the neutral red assay under validation. Cell culture methods that could provide information on acute target organ toxicity were all categorized in the research stage. Studies of the Ah receptor were placed under validation. All alternative tests for repeat-dose toxicity were placed in the category of research. With regard to genetic toxicity, the Ames, mouse lymphoma, and Chinese hamster ovary methods were considered ready for immediate use, while the in vitro micronucleus and Syrian hamster ovary assays were placed in the validation category. All alternatives for developmental toxicity, with the exception of gene chip technology, were placed in the category of validation. Gene chip technology is considered to be in the research stage. For reproductive toxicity, sperm motility and morphology were considered as ready for immediate use, with the other assays categorized as needing validation or in the research stage. Follow-up to these results is obvious. Work needs to be conducted to move those tests from the research stage to the validation and use stage. This is one approach to the development of alternatives to SIDS. Progress along these lines would apply not only to SIDS but also to toxicology in general.


    Introduction
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 Introduction
 Acute Toxicity
 Non-LD50 Acute Toxicity
 Repeat-Dose Toxicity
 Genetic Toxicity
 Developmental Toxicity
 Reproductive Toxicity
 Repeat-Dose...
 Other Applications of...
 REFERENCES
 
The Screening Information Data Set (SIDS) is a series of toxicological tests developed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 1999Go) to screen high production volume (HPV) chemicals. The following constitute the SIDS: acute toxicity, repeat-dose toxicity, developmental/reproductive toxicity, genotoxicity/mutagenicity, ecotoxicity, and environmental fate. These tests are primarily animal tests and the conventional manner of assessing toxicity would be employed. The effort to screen these chemicals has been called the High Production Volume Chemicals Program or for short, the HPV Chemicals Program. These chemicals are produced or imported in volumes of more than 1 million pounds per year and number approximately 2800. The possible use of alternative tests was not addressed in the original recommendations. The term alternative refers to methods that can replace or reduce use of animals, or in some manner bring about refinement of a toxicological procedure that would cause less pain or distress to experimental animals.

The Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) coordinated an effort to examine the status of alternative methods for the SIDS endpoints listed above.

In October 1998, CAAT hosted a meeting to discuss ways to impact animal usage. The HPV challenge was identified as one such opportunity. Also in October of 1998, Vice President Gore announced a cooperative agreement among the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Chemical Manufacturers Association, now known as the American Chemistry Council, to test the approximately 2800 chemicals using the SIDS battery. At a December 1998 stakeholders' workshop called by the EPA, the agency heard comments/concerns about the role of structure-activity relationships (SARs), what to test, and most importantly, the almost exclusive use of animals in the testing requirements.

The TestSmart group, established in January of 1999, convened a meeting of industrial, governmental, and academic scientists to examine the status of alternative methods for SIDS endpoints and to make recommendations about the use of these methods in the HPV Challenge Program. This program became known as TestSmart–HPV. At this meeting, endpoints associated with the SIDS battery (for mammalian studies) were discussed. Green et al. (2001), in addition to reviewing the SIDS endpoints, also suggested alternative tests to those endpoints.

Following discussions, the participants reconvened to report to the entire group. A series of recommendations was distilled from the group summaries and subsequent discussions. These recommendations were as follows:

A time frame for implementation of these recommendations was also established. In the short-term, reduction and refinement alternatives for acute toxicity testing should be incorporated, including the fixed-dose procedure, the up-and-down procedure, the acute toxic class method, and the limit test. Existing in vitro tests for genetic toxicity should also be employed immediately. These include the Ames-Salmonella and mouse lymphoma assays for bacterial and mammalian point mutations, respectively, and the Chinese hamster ovary cell assay for chromosomal aberrations. In vitro tests evaluating sperm motility and sperm morphology should be used to screen for reproductive toxicity and SAR to establish chemical categories and to select specific chemicals within categories. Finally, it was emphasized that protocols should be combined as much as possible to reduce animal numbers. It was suggested that the required repeat-dose study (the 28- or 90-day) be combined with the inclusion of reproductive and developmental endpoints.

In the long term, other promising in vitro tests could be validated and, if successful, could be incorporated into the testing process. Such tests include the in vitro micronucleus assay for genetic toxicity, limb bud and whole embryo culture assays for developmental toxicity and basal cytotoxicity and neural red uptake assays for acute toxicity, and the frog embryo teratogenicity assay, xenopus (FETAX), which has just been reviewed by ICCVAM, (Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods). The results of that review are presented in the section on developmental toxicity.

Finally, areas requiring additional research were identified. Among those mentioned were: (1) the development of organ cell cultures for determining organ-specific acute and repeat-dose toxicity; (2) a general need for the identification of mechanistic endpoints for toxicity screening; (3) further development of high throughput screening methods for identifying specific genes and/or proteins involved in toxicological pathways; (4) increased effort into culturing human cells and tissues; and (5) development of whole animal refinement approaches, such as noninvasive imaging.

Based on the recommendations of the participants, the list of tests was modified and presented at a second CAAT TestSmart meeting from April 26–27, 1999. Table 1Go summarizes this information.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 1 Potential Alternatives to the SIDS Battery
 
Between the January and April 1999 TestSmart workshops, the EPA announced at the OECD Existing Chemicals Task Force meeting in February that they were considering changing their requirements, in part as a result of suggestions put forth by the January TestSmart workshop participants. They thought these changes could bring about a 70% reduction in animal use.

At the April 1999 TestSmart workshop, the EPA signaled that they could accept many of the approaches not previously accepted in order to reduce animal usage. The acute oral toxicity test (OECD 401) would be eliminated. It its place the "up-and-down" procedure (OECD 425) would be conducted, reducing animal usage by 12 per chemical. The requirement for an in vivo assay for cytogenetics (OECD 474) would also be eliminated and in its place an in vitro test accepted (OECD 473). There would be a reduction of 50 animals per chemical. A single test for teratogenicity (OECD 414) and a 1-generation reproductive test (OECD 415) would be eliminated as well. A reproductive/developmental toxicity screen (OECD 421) would replace both. This would result in a saving of 240 animals per chemical. Also eliminated would be the repeat-dose 28-day toxicity test (OECD 407). The endpoints of this test would be included in a reproductive/developmental toxicity screen (OECD 422), saving 40 animals per chemical. The total number of animals without the reduction would be 430 and with the above reductions 88–138. Thus, there would be a potential saving of from 292–342 animals, representing a 68–80% reduction. This reduction would be accomplished before quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) and in vitro methods for identifying and validating categories of chemicals. Additional savings in terms of animals would be accomplished by the use of in vitro methods as range-finding approaches in determining dosages for in vivo studies.

As the next step in investigating alternatives to the SIDS battery, an evaluation of the data available for the recommended alternative was conducted. This evaluation was undertaken to provide a firmer basis for the categorization of the alternative tests as ready for immediate use, in need of validation, or currently needing research/developmental work. This article reports the results of that evaluation.


    Acute Toxicity
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 Introduction
 Acute Toxicity
 Non-LD50 Acute Toxicity
 Repeat-Dose Toxicity
 Genetic Toxicity
 Developmental Toxicity
 Reproductive Toxicity
 Repeat-Dose...
 Other Applications of...
 REFERENCES
 
Several methods were recommended as alternatives to animals in acute toxicity testing. Table 1Go lists those methods and their suggested status. We chose to define acute toxicity in the traditional manner as defined by the OECD guideline 401 (OECD, 1987Go), as well as to consider a more current view that focuses on morbidity (signs of toxicity) as opposed to death. The idea of morbidity as a better index of toxicity was also proposed by Zbinden (1984).

Replacement Alternatives to the Classic LD50
Basal cytotoxicity is more an approach to cytotoxicity than an actual test per se, for it can be applied to almost any mammalian cell culture system. It is defined or thought to be damage as a result of chemical injury to 1 or more of the basic cellular structures or functions common to mammalian cells (Barile, 1998). Numerous studies prior to this publication have been conducted demonstrating a correlation between in vitro cytotoxicity and in vivo lethality (Clemedson et al., 1996Go; Clothier et al., 1987Go; Walum and Peterson, 1984Go). One of the most extensive early studies conducted was by Clemedson et al. (1996), which involved 68 methods with 50 reference chemicals. The chemicals were selected on the basis of available human acute toxicity data. The results from 68 methods with 30 of the 50 chemicals showed that similar results were obtained, regardless of cell type and regardless of whether cell viability or cell proliferation was used as an endpoint. In a recent report on this approach, Ekwall et al. (1998) concluded the following:

The authors also performed a "correlative/mechanistic" study. In this study IC50 values from 10 human cell lines were compared with lethal blood concentrations in humans. The 50 chemicals were separated into 3 categories: (1) fast-acting, brain-barrier restricted; (2) slow-acting, brain-barrier restricted; and (3) those that cross the blood-brain barrier freely while inducing a nonspecific excitation/depression of the central nervous system. The r2 values were 0.98 (category 1), 0.85 (category 2), and 0.82 (category 3). The authors concluded that these results supported the basal cytotoxicity theory (good in vitro/in vivo correlations), and further pointed to nonspecific CNS suppression as the primary reaction of humans to cytotoxic concentrations of chemicals, once they traverse the blood-brain barrier.

Rasmussen (1999) evaluated the cytotoxicity of MEIC (Multicenter Evaluation of in Vitro Cytotoxicity) chemicals Nos. 11–30 in Balb/c3T3 cells with and without metabolic activation. The cytotoxicity data was compared to in vivo toxicity data and to cytotoxicity data from human and rat hepatocytes. She also investigated the correlation of the data to human and animal cell lines used in the MEIC program. She reported "moderately good correlations" between the cytotoxicity obtained with and without metabolic activation and rat and mouse LD50 data. She cautioned, however, that the approach had limitations due to the inadequacies of the metabolic activating systems. She concluded that there is limited evidence to support the relevance of in vitro/in vivo correlations obtained in the MEIC project primarily due to the high degree of variability of the in vitro and in vivo data used.

In considering basal cytotoxicity as a means of replacing LD50 testing in animals, careful thought must be given to the above studies. First, one has to recognize that the purpose of the studies was to provide additional evidence of the existence of the basal cytotoxicity phenomenon, not to recommend use of the approach in a hazard determination or regulatory context. Some of the correlations, however, are relatively poor. For example, those of the rat and mouse LD50 data compared to human acute lethal dosages (correlation coefficients of 0.61 and 0.65 respectively). The best correlations were achieved with grouping certain chemicals in terms of their ability to penetrate the blood-brain barrier, and comparing IC50 values of those chemicals with human lethal blood concentrations (correlation coefficients of 0.98 for fast-acting nonrestricted, 0.85 for slow-acting restricted, and 0.82 for those crossing freely). This argues for knowledge beforehand of the types of agents that can confidently be tested in this approach, particularly if one considers making hazard determinations on the basis of these results.

In considering use of the basal cytotoxicity approach for hazard determination, the following questions or issues need to be raised. What can we conclude on the basis of a result in this approach? Without companion human data, we could suggest this result indicates this chemical may be lethal to humans at this dose. Is there a satisfactory level of confidence in the approach for a governmental agency, pharmaceutical firm, or other industrial organization to accept that conclusion? Would the usual next step be taken; i.e., that of repeat-dose toxicity based on the dosages of the basal cytotoxicity study? What about chemicals that cause acute toxicity by mechanisms other than basal cytotoxicity? It is certain that additional questions/issues can be raised in considering how data from this approach should be used in making hazard determinations and facilitating regulatory decisions. It seems that much work remains to be done focusing on how and where basal cytotoxicity fits into the regulatory decision-making process. Thus, we have included this approach in the correct category of research and development. After this article was written, ICCVAM initiated a review of this method.

Reduction/Refinement Alternatives to the Classic LD50
Four animal tests also have been recommended as alternatives to the classic LD50 These tests are the limit test, fixed-dose procedure, toxic class method, and the up-and-down method. These tests do not represent the first attempt to explore alternatives to the classic LD50. Weil (1952) developed a mathematical model for determining the LD50 using fewer animals than the classic approach.

The limit test, which uses 5 animals per dose level, is used when there is evidence that a chemical is of low toxicity. It uses 3 dosages, the highest of which is 2000 mg/kg. This is the dose that is tested first and if no toxicity is observed, the substance is considered nontoxic. If toxicity is observed, a more definitive study of its toxicity is conducted. The fixed-dose procedure uses 5 males and 5 females that are administered 1 of 4 fixed dosages (5, 50, 500, or 2000 mg/kg). Morbidity defined by signs of toxicity is the endpoint rather than mortality. If death occurs, a lower dosage is tested. Depending on the dosage at which morbidity occurs, the chemical is classified as very toxic, <= 5 mg/kg; toxic, > 5 <= 50; harmful, > 50 <= 500; or not labeled, > 500 <= 2000 mg/kg. In the acute toxic class method, 3 animals are dosed at 1 of 3 OECD classification dose limits and mortality is observed. The lowest dose at which mortality is observed determines the classification of the chemical.

The up-and-down procedure usually uses 1 animal per exposure. If the animal dies, a dosage reduced by a factor of 1:3 is used. If this second animal survives, the LD50 is then determined. If the first animal survives, the dose for the second is increased by a factor of 1:3 and this continues until death is observed, or the dosage of 2000 mg/kg is reached. These procedures have been in use for several years and can be considered validated. For a review of these procedures, see Walum (1998). Their status as being ready for immediate use, as reflected in Table 1Go, is supported by available scientific data.

The neutral red uptake assay is a method that can be used to determine cytotoxicity. (Borenfreund and Puerner, 1984Go). The principle of the method involves penetration of the cellular membrane by a vital dye neutral red, (3-amino-7-dimethylamino-2-methylphenazine hydrochloride). Once in the cell the lysosome takes up the dye. The uptake of neutral red can be used as a quantitative measure of cell viability. Much work has been done in assessing the performance of this assay for ocular irritation. Keratinocytes have been the cells of choice. The assay theoretically could be conducted with any cell line or possibly primary cell culture. In order to provide information about acute in vivo systemic effects as opposed to local effects, as in the case of ocular irritation, metabolic activation would need to be added. There would also be the need to conduct studies to establish its reliability and reproducibility in predicting acute toxicity. In essence an assessment for validation needs to be accomplished to determine the applicability of this method to acute systemic toxicity.


    Non-LD50 Acute Toxicity
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 Introduction
 Acute Toxicity
 Non-LD50 Acute Toxicity
 Repeat-Dose Toxicity
 Genetic Toxicity
 Developmental Toxicity
 Reproductive Toxicity
 Repeat-Dose...
 Other Applications of...
 REFERENCES
 
Most regulatory agencies and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) acknowledge there is limited utility to the classic LD50, that is, in just the number that is generated (Stokes and Marafante, 1998Go). This is not to detract from use of the number to classify materials as to their relative toxicity. Most toxicologists, however, do recognize that more information can be gleaned from morbidity evaluations when conducting acute toxicity tests. Even these tests, however, still use animals. Conceivably, cell cultures of various organs could provide some information on target organ acute toxicity of chemicals that would obviate the need to conduct animal testing in all instances. Systemic toxicity, however, is not easily modeled in cell cultures and much research, we believe, needs to be accomplished before batteries of cell cultures would be able to provide substantive information on the acute systemic toxicity of chemicals. The most difficult aspect of systemic toxicity to model in vitro will be the interplay between and among the organ systems in the intact animal. Metabolic activation systems also are deserving of attention in developing these alternatives.

Liver cultures have been used for years to study toxicity and metabolism. These cells, primary or continuous cell lines, conceivably could be part of a battery of cell cultures designed to assess acute systemic toxicity. Cell lines seem to be best in terms of technical ease and longevity. The ability of cell lines to reflect accurately the in vivo situation is questionable at this time. For example, they do not possess the full spectrum of liver metabolizing enzymes as do primary cultures (Silber, 1999Go). Additional work needs to be done to improve retention of in vivo qualities in these cell lines. Guillouzo (1998) provides a review of the application of liver cell cultures to toxicity testing. Similarly, kidney cells have been used for some time in the generation of toxicity information. Freshly isolated cells, kidney fragments, precision-cut kidney slices, and cell lines have been used. As in the case of liver, cell lines seem best in terms of technical ease and longevity, but suffer the same major deficiency, the inability to reflect accurately the in vivo situation. Some endpoints that could be examined in kidney cells are suggested by Spielmann et al. (1998) and a review of the application of kidney cells to toxicity testing is given by Pfaller and Gstraunthaler (1998).

Epithelial cells from the trachea and bronchioles of rat, rabbit, human, guinea pig, and hamster have been cultured. Squamous type II pneumocytes and cuboidal Type II pneumocytes have also been cultured. The cuboidal Type II cells usually retain most of the functions found in the alveolar region. Alveolar macrophages obtained from bronchial lavage have been used for some time in studying toxicity of gases and particles. Most of these have been used as primary cultures. While this tends to insure relevance to the source and to other animals, longevity and ease of use can represent concerns. The addition of metabolic activation to in vitro cultures of cells of the respiratory tract must also be considered. Lambre et al. (1996) provides an excellent review of the types of in vitro systems for respiratory toxicology investigations. It is clear that additional research needs to be conducted to develop a tier or battery approach to the use of in vitro alternatives for this purpose.

The nervous system is arguably the most complex organ system of the body. Developing cell culture methods to detect motor and cognitive effects may be exceptionally difficult. Thus, it may not be possible to use in vitro methods to assess toxicity in such areas at this time. We have listed the autonomic nervous system as a major concern regarding acute toxicity testing. The autonomic nervous system consists of the sympathetic and parasympathetic divisions. Autonomic dysfunction could be responsible for some acute deaths. However, the deaths observed would be the result of failure of the cardiovascular, respiratory, or other organ system. To specifically focus on the autonomic nervous system may be somewhat premature given the state of in vitro neurotoxicity testing. Currently the emphasis is on methods that can provide information about the nervous system in general, and not on specific segments such as central or peripheral. Organotypic explants, primary cell cultures, brain slices, reaggregate cultures, and established cell lines have been used. Although established cell lines are easier to use, they are derived from tumors of the mouse, rat, or human. For the most part these methods have been used to study mechanisms of action and not specifically to identify toxic agents. Consequently more research is needed to determine how these methods can be applied to toxicity testing. Costa (1998) discusses the state of in vitro neurotoxicity testing.

We have also listed the vascular system as an area deserving of attention in the development of in vitro methods. It would be of interest to know the number of chemicals that have a direct action on the walls of blood vessels and the types of acute or other types of toxicity they produce. This would be the obligatory step in determining the need for as well as the direction of alternative research in this area.

Cell cultures have been used for some time in determining the mechanism of action of toxic chemicals. For certain organ systems, techniques have become even routine. However, it is equally clear that further studies are needed in the use of these techniques in determining the acute systemic target organ toxicity of xenobiotics. To propose their use singly or in a battery approach in a hazard assessment scheme at this time would not be prudent. Thus the listing of these alternative tests under the category "research" is an accurate reflection of their current status.

We have also listed the mitochondria as an organelle deserving of attention when considering systems that if adversely affected, could lead to systemic acute toxicity. Mitochondria are involved in cellular energy production. Aerobic metabolism, which produces this energy, is primarily conducted in these organelles. In fact the mitochondria produce approximately 95% of the energy needed by the cell. Therefore, chemicals that adversely affect the mitochondria could have serious consequences for the cell and the organism. There is a dearth of information on attempts to develop cultures of mitochondria although some cell culture endpoints are a direct measure of mitochondrial function, e.g., MTT. This clearly is a subject for future research.

Binding at the Ah receptor has recently been suggested as a possible surrogate for the LD50. Rosenkranz and Cunningham (2000) conducted an analysis of several endpoints including binding to the Ah receptor and found that the LD50 was significantly related to binding at the receptor. Validation of this association needs to be conducted. Thus the Ah receptor has been placed in the category of needing validation.

It is evident that most of the suggested alternative tests for non-LD50 testing are deserving of additional research before even validation activities should be considered. They have been characterized in Table 1Go as in the research stage.


    Repeat-Dose Toxicity
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 Introduction
 Acute Toxicity
 Non-LD50 Acute Toxicity
 Repeat-Dose Toxicity
 Genetic Toxicity
 Developmental Toxicity
 Reproductive Toxicity
 Repeat-Dose...
 Other Applications of...
 REFERENCES
 
In considering alternatives to repeat-dose toxicity studies such as the 90-day subchronic study, issues of duration and frequency of the dose must be considered. How one models these factors in an in vitro situation is no simple task. The suggested in vitro alternatives for non-LD50 testing would also apply here. So in addition to the difficulty of simulating the interplay between and among organ systems in the animal, duration and frequency complicate the development of alternatives for repeat-dose systemic toxicity studies. To our knowledge, little to no information is available to date that would provide guidance as how to approach this in a systematic manner.

One endpoint that is always measured in repeat-dose toxicity studies is that of rate of growth. There is some thought that the in vitro measurement of the rate of protein synthesis could provide insight to this parameter. Protein synthesis is easily measured in cells but the correlation of this measurement to rate of growth in the whole animal has rarely been attempted. Research is needed to explore such a relationship. Similar complications in regard to duration and frequency also apply here.

In vitro studies of cell signaling and apoptosis are also suggested as alternatives in providing information about repeat-dose systemic toxicity. Apoptosis is regulated cell death and is thought to be a counterbalance to mitosis. Cell signaling is thought to be involved in determining whether a cell undergoes mitosis or apoptosis. An assessment of these endpoints could give insight to mechanisms of cell and thus organ toxicity. The application of these endpoints in a battery approach together with information from in vitro toxicity to cell cultures of liver, kidney, etc could represent an integrated approach to determining systemic toxicity. As before, the issue of duration and frequency of dose need to be taken into account. Corcoran et al. (1994) discuss these endpoints and the theory as to how they interact in producing toxicity. Further research along these lines could represent a novel approach to alternative testing.

We can conclude that all proposed alternative tests for repeat-dose systemic toxicity are in the research stage. Factors complicating the development of alternative tests in this area are how to model duration and frequency of dose as well as interplay between and among organ systems in the animal. These conclusions would also apply to the 28-day repeat-dose toxicity studies.


    Genetic Toxicity
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 Introduction
 Acute Toxicity
 Non-LD50 Acute Toxicity
 Repeat-Dose Toxicity
 Genetic Toxicity
 Developmental Toxicity
 Reproductive Toxicity
 Repeat-Dose...
 Other Applications of...
 REFERENCES
 
The discipline of genetic toxicology has for some time used in vitro tests to detect the major types of mutations. The Ames Salmonella microsome test is probably the most utilized gene mutation test worldwide. The principles underlying this test have been published and we will not review them here (Maron and Ames, 1983Go). Similar statements can be made regarding the mouse lymphoma L5178-Y gene mutation assay. Unlike the Ames test, the L5178-Y assay detects forward mutations and is a mammalian cell based assay. The principles underlying this assay have also been published (Clive et al., 1983Go). The Chinese hamster ovary cell assay has been in use for many years and has yielded valuable information regarding gene mutations. The principles of the method are documented in Hsie et al. (1981). The above methods have been validated and are in use worldwide. The category of "ready for immediate use" is generally accepted in the scientific community.

With respect to chromosomal abnormalities we have recommended the in vitro micronucleus assay. The principles underlying the in vivo micronucleus assay have been documented by Heddle et al. (1983) and also apply to the in vitro assay. The in vitro micronucleus assay is currently undergoing validation in a number of countries and its utility for detecting chromosomal abnormalities seems promising (Gibson et al.1998Go; Miller et al.1998Go). We have also recommended the Syrian hamster embryo in vitro transformation assay as an additional method to the genetic toxicology panel of tests. It is thought that information regarding potential carcinogenicity in a mammalian cell would be exceptionally useful at the screening stage of chemicals. The principles underlying this method are documented in LeBoeuf et al. (1999) and this method is ready for validation.

In summary the discipline of genetic toxicology presents an excellent opportunity to demonstrate use of in vitro alternatives in screening for mutations and for potential carcinogenicity.


    Developmental Toxicity
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 Introduction
 Acute Toxicity
 Non-LD50 Acute Toxicity
 Repeat-Dose Toxicity
 Genetic Toxicity
 Developmental Toxicity
 Reproductive Toxicity
 Repeat-Dose...
 Other Applications of...
 REFERENCES
 
The development of alternatives for developmental toxicity or teratogenicity as screens or replacements has met with limited progress. We have listed FETAX among others as alternatives. This assay is essentially a 96-h whole-embryo screening test. Dumont et al. (1982) were the developers of this assay and Finch et al. (1995) summarized the principles of this test and its utility for developmental toxicity screening. ICCVAM (2001) recently completed its review of the validational status of this assay and concluded that improvements in the protocol and further research were needed in order to enhance this model.

Embryonic stem cells have the possibility of developing into any tissue of the body. This capability offers obvious advantages to the assessment of developmental toxicity. Many research studies are in progress. For this reason, these assays also are placed in the category of "undergoing validation." Primary limb bud mesenchymal cell isolated from 10-day mouse embryos can be cultured as micro-mass cultures. Inhibition of chondrogenesis as measured by alcian blue staining and the uptake of 35S are the endpoints assessed. This assay is also undergoing validation by ECVAM and is placed in that category. Zebrafish may also be used as an alternative for developmental toxicity. In this test fertilized eggs are exposed for 48 h and coagulation, development of the blastula, gastrulation, termination of gastrulation, development of somites, extension of the tail, and development of eyes, heartbeat, circulation, pigmentation, and edema are assessed as endpoints (Walker et al., 1998Go). This approach is undergoing additional validation and is thus placed in that category. In gene chip technology, DNA variants can be detected in an efficient manner. In regard to developmental toxicity, this means screening DNA variants that have been linked to abnormal developmental effects. In this technique, the DNA to be screened is labeled with a fluorescent dye and then applied to the chip. It binds more strongly to the sequence that is its complement. It is thus identified and its sequence determined. To our knowledge very little has been done in investigating the application of this technology to developmental toxicology. This is an entirely new area of investigation undergoing significant development at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences laboratories and in commercial ventures. The major question to be addressed is the functional outcome of gene alterations as measured by gene-chip technology. Thus it is placed in the category of "research."


    Reproductive Toxicity
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 Introduction
 Acute Toxicity
 Non-LD50 Acute Toxicity
 Repeat-Dose Toxicity
 Genetic Toxicity
 Developmental Toxicity
 Reproductive Toxicity
 Repeat-Dose...
 Other Applications of...
 REFERENCES
 
As much of the research that has been conducted has concentrated on the male because the process of spermatogenesis is dynamic, there is a great need to focus on methods to screen females for reproductive toxicants. With respect to the male, Sertoli cells as well as Leydig cells have been cultured. The intent of those studies, however, was to examine mechanisms of action, not screen toxicants for reproductive toxicity. The latter is absolutely essential to establish biologically relevant models. We have suggested that sperm motility and sperm morphology be considered as alternatives that can be immediately implemented. Chapin et al. (1998) have validated both endpoints for reproductive screening purposes. We have also suggested that cultured primary follicles as alternatives for reproductive studies be pursued. This would provide some information on reproductive capacity of the female.

The concern over the possibility of chemicals in our environment having the capability to disturb endocrine balance has stimulated development of receptor binding assays. Many individuals have recommended estrogen and androgen binding. Although much work has been done in developing these assays, there remains a degree of uncertainty as to their repeatability, reliability, and interpretability. Therefore additional research should be conducted to demonstrate their utility for broad reproductive screening purposes.


    Repeat-Dose Reproductive/Developmental Screen
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 Introduction
 Acute Toxicity
 Non-LD50 Acute Toxicity
 Repeat-Dose Toxicity
 Genetic Toxicity
 Developmental Toxicity
 Reproductive Toxicity
 Repeat-Dose...
 Other Applications of...
 REFERENCES
 
In considering alternative tests for this combined protocol, those methods suggested for the 28-day study that are the same as those for the 90-day systemic toxicity study would be appropriate. They would pertain to the systemic toxicity segment of the protocol only. For the reproductive toxicity segment, the alternatives recommended earlier under reproductive toxicity would be appropriate. This protocol as now recommended by the OECD includes humane killing and harvesting of tissues. One could envision that as gene-chip technology develops, it could offer significant opportunities for mechanistic and regulatory use.


    Other Applications of Alternatives to the HPV Challenge Program
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 Introduction
 Acute Toxicity
 Non-LD50 Acute Toxicity
 Repeat-Dose Toxicity
 Genetic Toxicity
 Developmental Toxicity
 Reproductive Toxicity
 Repeat-Dose...
 Other Applications of...
 REFERENCES
 
The EPA has encouraged the use of chemical categories in an attempt to reduce the number of tests to be conducted (EPA, 1999Go). Categories would represent a group of chemicals with similar structure and as a result somewhat similar effects in biological systems. Once an organization proposes a chemical category, testing is needed to demonstrate the relationship between the SIDS endpoints and the chemicals in the category, i.e., most if not all of the chemicals should produce the same qualitative effect. This step in the development of a category could be called characterization of the category. Validated alternatives to the SIDS endpoints could make a valuable contribution to the characterization of a category. Not only would less testing be done, but also fewer animals would be used for whatever testing is desired.

There is yet another step in the development of a category. Assuming the characterization is successful, the sponsor would then need to select representative chemicals, some from the low, middle and high end of the category, for testing. These would then represent the category. Testing these chemicals and evaluating the results should allow a decision as to whether the group could be viewed as a category. There should be some pattern of results from the low to the high end that demonstrates a relationship between structure and effect. Interpolation can then be accomplished for those chemicals that were not tested. This step in the development of a category could be called validation. Validated alternatives could provide the data to permit such conclusions to be made. Use of alternatives at this point in the Challenge Program would facilitate familiarity with in vitro methods and make the transition from whole animal toxicity methods more efficient.

In vitro assays could also be used as range-finding approaches to acute systemic toxicity testing. Careful consideration would need to be given to the database supporting an in vitro assay for this purpose. Validation studies would be needed to establish the qualitative and quantitative correlation between such an assay and animal tests. Given that most acute toxicity data are gathered because little is known about a chemical, structural similarity to a known toxicant that has been tested in the in vitro assay could serve as the first step in screening an unknown. Spielmann et al. (1999) recently illustrated use of in vitro assays in determining the starting dose for acute oral toxicity data (up-and-down procedure).

We have outlined what we consider one approach to the development of alternatives to the SIDS approach to high production volume chemical testing. We have called this program "TestSmart, A Humane and Efficient Approach to Regulatory Toxicological Data." Progress along these lines would not only apply to SIDS, but to toxicology in general. We recognize there may be other approaches and welcome input from the scientific community at large. Based on our analysis much work remains to be done to develop scientifically defensible alternatives (screens and/or replacements). We urge industry, government, and academia to marshal resources in order to continue the progress made thus far.


    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
This work was supported in part by the Vira I. Heinz Endowment Fund.


    NOTES
 
1 To whom correspondence should be addressed at John Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, 111 Market Place, Suite 840, Baltimore, MD 21202–6709. Fax: (410) 223-1603. E-mail: goldberg{at}jhsph.edu. Back

2 Present address: National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. Back


    REFERENCES
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 Introduction
 Acute Toxicity
 Non-LD50 Acute Toxicity
 Repeat-Dose Toxicity
 Genetic Toxicity
 Developmental Toxicity
 Reproductive Toxicity
 Repeat-Dose...
 Other Applications of...
 REFERENCES
 
Barile, F. A., and Cardona, M. (1998). Acute cytotoxicity testing with cultured human lung and dermal cells. In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Anim. 34, 631–635.[ISI][Medline]

Borenfreund, E., and Puerner, J. A. (1984). A simple quantitative procedure using monolayer cultures for cytotoxicity assays. J. Tissue Cult. Methods 9, 119–124.

Chapin, R. E., Sloane, R. A., and Haseman, J. K. (1998). Reproductive endpoints in general toxicity studies: Are they predictive? Reprod. Toxicol. 12, 489–494.[ISI][Medline]

Clemedson, C., et al. (1996). MEIC evaluation of acute systemic toxicity. Part II: In vitro results from 68 toxicity assays used to test the first 30 reference chemicals and a comparative cytotoxicity analysis. Alternatives Lab. Anim. 24(Suppl. 1), 273–311.

Clive, D., McCuen, R., Spector, J. F. S., Piper, C., and Mavournin, K. H. (1983). Specific gene mutations in L5178Y cells in culture. A report of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Gene-Tox Program. Mutat. Res. 115, 225–251.[ISI][Medline]

Clothier, R. H., Hulme, L. M., Smith, M., and Balls, M. (1987). Comparison of the in vitro cytotoxicities and acute in vivo toxicities of 59 chemicals. Mol. Toxicol. 1, 571–577.[Medline]

Corcoran, G. B., Fix, L., Jones, D. P., Moslen, M. T., Nicotera, P., Oberhammer, F. A., and Buttyan, R. (1994). Contemporary issues in toxicology, apoptosis: Molecular control point in toxicity. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 128, 169–181.[ISI][Medline]

Costa, L. G. (1998). Neurotoxicity testing: A discussion of in vitro alternatives. Environ. Health Perspect. 106(Suppl. 2), 505–510.[ISI][Medline]

Dumont, J. N., Schultz, T. W., and Newman, S. M. (1982). A frog embryo teratogenesis assay: Xenopus (FETAX)—a model for teratogen screening. Teratology 25, 37A.

Ekwall, B., et al. (1998). MEIC evaluation of acute systemic toxicity. Part VI. The prediction of human toxicity by rodent LD50 values and results from 61 in vitro methods. Alternatives Lab. Anim. 26, 617–658.

EPA (1999). Environmental Protection Agency. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/categuid.htm.

Finch, R. A., Gardner, H. S., and Bantle, J. A. (1995). Frog embryo teratogenesis assay-xenopus: A nonmammalian method for developmental toxicity assessment. In Animal Test Alternatives, Refinement, Reduction, Replacement (H. Salem, Ed.), pp. 297–313. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York.

Gibson, D. P., Ma, X., Switzer, A. G., Murphy, V. A., and Aardema, M. J. (1998). Comparative genotoxicity of quinolone and quinolonyl-lactam antibacterials in the in vitro micronucleus assay in Chinese hamster ovary cells. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 31, 345–351.[ISI][Medline]

Green, S., Goldberg, A. M., and Zurlo, J. (2001). The TestSmart–HPV program—development of an integrated approach for testing high production volume chemicals. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 33, 105–109.[ISI][Medline]

Guillouzo, A. (1998). Liver cell models in vitro toxicology. Environ. Health Perspect. 106(Suppl. 2), 511–532.[ISI][Medline]

Heddle, J. A., Hite, M., Kirkhart, B., Mavournin, K., MacGregor, J. T., Newell, G. W., and Salamone, M. F. (1983). The induction of micronuclei as a measure of genotoxicity. A Report of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Gene-Tox Program. Mutat. Res. 123, 61–118.[ISI][Medline]

Hsie, A. W., Casciano, D. A., Couch, D. B., Krahn, D. F., O'Neill, J. P., and Whitfield, B. L. (1981). The use of Chinese hamster ovary cells to quantify specific locus mutation and to determine mutagenicity of chemicals. A report of the gene-tox program. Mutat. Res. 86, 193–214.[ISI][Medline]

Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) (2001). FETAX expert panel meeting summary minutes. Available at: http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/fetaxMin.doc. Accessed January 29, 2001.

Lambre, C. R., Aufderheide, M., Bolton, R. E., Fubine, B., Haagsman, H. P., Hext, P. M., Jorissen, M., Landry, Y., Morin, J., Nemery, B., Nettesheim, P., Pauluhn, J., Richards, R. J., Vickers, A., and Wu, R. (1996). In vitro tests for respiratory toxicity. The report and recommendations of ECVAM workshop 18. Alternatives to laboratory animals. ATLA 24, 671–681.[ISI]

LeBoeuf, R. A., Kerckaert, K. A., Aardema, M. J., and Isfort, R. J. (1999). Use of Syrian hamster embryo and BALB/c 3T3 cell transformation for assessing the carcinogenic potential of chemicals. (Use of short-and medium-term tests for carcinogens and data on genetic effects in carcinogenic hazard evaluation). IARC Sci. Publ. 146, 409–425.[Medline]

Miller, B. Potter-Locher, F., Seelbach, A., Stopper, H., Utesch, D., and Madle, S. (1998). Evaluation of the in vitro micronucleus test as an alternative to the in vitro chromosomal aberration assay; position of the Gesellschaft fur Umwelt-Mutations-forschung (GUM) Working Group on the in vitro micronucleus test. Mutat. Res. 410, 81–116.[ISI][Medline]

Maron, D. M., and Ames, B.N. (1983). Revised methods for the salmonella mutagenicity test. Mutat. Res. 113, 173–215.[ISI][Medline]

OECD (1987). OECD Guideline for Testing of Chemicals, No. 401: Acute Oral Toxicity. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.

OECD (1999). Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Available at: http://www.oecd.org. Accessed January 12, 1999.

Pfaller, W., and Gstraunthaler, G. (1998). Nephrotoxicity Testing in vitro—what we know and what we need to know. Environ. Health Perspect 106(Suppl. 2), 559–569.

Rasmussen, E. S. (1999). Cytotoxicity of MEIC chemicals nos. 11–30 in 3T3 mouse fibroblasts with and without microsomal activation. In Vitro Mol. Toxicol. 12, 125–132.[ISI][Medline]

Rosenkranz, H. S., and Cunningham, A. R. (2000). The high production volume chemical challenge program: The rodent LD50 and its possible replacement. Alternatives Lab. Anim. 28, 271–277.

Silber, P. M. (1999). Use of human cells in high throughput screening. Presented at a workshop of the Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing, "TestSmart—A Humane and Efficient Approach to SIDS Data," Baltimore, MD. April, 1999.

Spielmann, H. Bochkov, N. P., Costa, L., Gribaldo, L., Guillouzo, A., Heindel, J. J., Karol, M., Parchment, R., Pfaller, W., Peraita, P. P., and Zacharewski, T. (1998). 13th annual meeting of the Scientific Group on Methodologies for the Safety Evaluation of Chemicals (SCOMSEC): Alternative testing methodologies for organ toxicity. Environ. Health Perspect. 106(Suppl. 2), 427–439.

Spielmann, H., Glenschow, E., Liebsch, M., and Halle, W. (1999). Determination of the starting dose for acute oral toxicity (LD50) testing in the up and down procedure (UDP) from cytotoxicity data. Alternatives Lab. Anim. 27, 957–966.

Stokes, W. S., and Marafante, E. (1998). Introduction and summary of the 13th meeting of the Scientific Group on Methodologies for the Safety Evaluation of Chemicals (SGOMSEC): Alternative testing methodologies. Environ. Health Perspect. 106(Suppl. 2), 405–412.[ISI][Medline]

Walker, C., Kaiser, K., Klein, W., Lagadic, L., Peakall, D., Sheffield, S., Soldan, T., and Yasuno, M. (1998). 13th meeting of the Scientific Group on Methodologies for the Safety Evaluation of Chemicals (SGOMSEC): Alternative testing methodologies for ecotoxicity. Environ. Health Perspect. 106(Suppl. 2), 441–451.[ISI][Medline]

Walum, E. (1998). Acute oral toxicity. Environ. Health Perspect. 106(Suppl. 2), 497–503.[ISI][Medline]

Walum, E., and Peterson, A. (1984). On the application of cultured neuroblastoma cells in chemical toxicity screening. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 13, 511–520.[ISI][Medline]

Weil, C. S. (1952). Tables for convenient calculation of median-effective dose (LD50 or ED50) and instruction in their use. Biometrics 8, 249–263.[ISI]

Zbinden, G. (1984). Acute toxicity testing, purpose. In Acute Toxicity Testing: Alternative Approaches (A. M. Goldberg, Ed.), pp. 3–22. Mary Ann Liebert Inc., New York.





This Article
Abstract
FREE Full Text (PDF)
Alert me when this article is cited
Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Email this article to a friend
Similar articles in this journal
Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Similar articles in PubMed
Alert me to new issues of the journal
Add to My Personal Archive
Download to citation manager
Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (9)
Disclaimer
Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Articles by Green, S.
Articles by Zurlo, J.
PubMed
PubMed Citation
Articles by Green, S.
Articles by Zurlo, J.