ATLA 26.6, November 1998

//ATLA 26.6, November 1998

Screening for Endocrine Disruptors — Time for More Science and Less Politics

Robert D. Combes

There is much current interest in the possibility that a wide range of both synthetic and naturally occurring environmental chemicals can act as endocrine disruptors (EDs), and can adversely affect humans and wildlife. Public interest has increased after reports of sex changes (for example, feminisation) in wildlife, decreases in animal fertility, higher rates of gonadal defects, and a reduction in the quantity and quality of human sperm, as well as the increasing incidence of human breast cancer.1 All these phenomena have been attributed, at least in part, to exposure to environmental EDs, or “gender benders”, as these chemicals have come to be called.
You need to register (for free) to download this article. Please log in/register here.
2017-01-09T06:26:48+00:00

News & Views

ATLA Staff Writer

EC Advisory Committee Members
EU Patenting Directive Challenged
Dutch Database on Alternatives
Nominations Requested for 1999 Russell & Burch Award
Human Embryonic Stem Cells Cultured in USA
International Course on Humane Laboratory Animal Science
Environmental Enrichment Database
Cosmetics Testing Ban
You need to register (for free) to download this article. Please log in/register here.
2017-01-09T06:26:48+00:00 Tags: |

Validation of Alternative Methods for the Potency Testing of Vaccines

Coenraad Hendriksen, Jean-Marc Spieser, Arnoud Akkermans, Michael Balls, Lukas Bruckner, Klaus Cussler, Arnold Daas, Johan Descamps, Roland Dobbelaer, Julia Fentem, Marlies Halder, Margot van der Kamp, Roger Lucken, Julie Milstien, Dorothea Sesardic, Donald Straughan and Antonio Valadares

This is the report of the thirty-first of a series of workshops organised by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM). ECVAM’s main goal, as defined in 1993 by its Scientific Advisory Committee, is to promote the scientific and regulatory acceptance of alternative methods which are of importance to the biosciences and which reduce, refine or replace the use of laboratory animals. One of the first priorities set by ECVAM was the implementation of procedures which would enable it to become well-informed about the state-of-the-art of non-animal test development and validation, and the potential for the possible incorporation of alternative tests into regulatory procedures. It was decided that this would be best achieved by the organisation of ECVAM workshops on specific topics, at which small groups of invited experts would review the current status of various types of in vitro tests and their potential uses, and make recommendations about the best ways forward (1).
You need to register (for free) to download this article. Please log in/register here.
2017-01-09T06:26:48+00:00 Tags: , , |

The Availability of Human Tissue for Biomedical Research

Robert Anderson, Michael O’Hare, Michael Balls, Madeleine Brady, Diana Brahams, Avril Burt, Christophe Chesné, Robert Combes, Ashley Dennison, Bernward Garthoff, Gabrielle Hawksworth, Eric Kalter, Ann Lechat, David Mayer, Vera Rogiers, Dariusz Sladowski, Jacqueline Southee, Jacki Trafford, Jan van der Valk and Anne-Marie van Zeller

This is the report of the thirty-second of a series of workshops organised by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM). ECVAM’s main goal, as defined in 1993 by its Scientific Advisory Committee, is to promote the scientific and regulatory acceptance of alternative methods which are of importance to the biosciences and which reduce, refine or replace the use of laboratory animals. One of the first priorities set by ECVAM was the implementation of procedures which would enable it to become well-informed about the state-of-the art of non-animal test development and validation, and the potential for the possible incorporation of alternative tests into regulatory procedures.
You need to register (for free) to download this article. Please log in/register here.
2017-01-09T06:26:48+00:00 Tags: , , |

The Development and Characterisation of a Structure-activity Relationship Model of the Draize Eye Irritation Test

Herbert S. Rosenkranz, Ying Ping Zhang and Gilles Klopman2

A structure-activity relationship (SAR) model based on the results of 297 chemicals tested in the Draize eye irritation assay was developed. The SAR model displayed a predictivity of 74% for chemicals not included in the model. The SAR analysis indicated that chemical reactivity was not a requirement for eye irritation. The major structural determinants included hydrophilicity, alkalinity (i.e. primary, secondary and tertiary amines), acidity (for example, the carboxylic acid moiety), and putative lipophobic 4.5–5.4Å receptor-binding ligands. The analysis revealed that, while there were significant structural overlaps between the SAR models of ocular irritation, allergic contact dermatitis and respiratory hypersensitivity, there was much less overlap between ocular irritation and cell toxicity. This decreased overlap must be considered in developing strategies to replace the Draize test with in vitro cellular toxicity assays.
You need to register (for free) to download this article. Please log in/register here.

Report on the COLIPA Workshop on Mechanisms of Eye Irritation1

Leon H. Bruner, Odile de Silva, Lesley K. Earl, Wolfgang Pape and Horst Spielmann

This report summarises the discussions of a workshop sponsored by the European Cosmetics, Toiletries and Perfumery Association (COLIPA). The workshop discussed the state-of-the-art of eye irritancy testing, and made recommendations as to the best ways in which to validate alternatives to the Draize eye irritation test. The importance of understanding the mechanisms of eye irritation, particularly when attempting to improve in vitro prediction of in vivo eye irritancy, was also emphasised.
You need to register (for free) to download this article. Please log in/register here.

In Vitro Models of the Blood–Brain Barrier

Per Garberg

In this literature review on in vitro models of the blood–brain barrier (BBB), it is concluded that there is a need to identify a unified in vitro model for the BBB. The best evaluated model at present is based on the use of primary cultures of bovine brain endothelial cells. Primary cell cultures are usually shown to retain several BBB characteristics, but are time-consuming and difficult to establish. To make a unified in vitro model for the BBB more generally available, it is strongly suggested that such a model should be based on the use of an established cell line. To identify the best in vitro model, an evaluation of the most promising immortalised BBB-derived endothelial cell lines, as well as other established cell lines presently used as BBB models, is highly recommended. An evaluation of possible species variation is also important, in order to establish the most relevant species to be used. Furthermore, it is also suggested that the specific properties of in vitro BBB models, as compared to models for the “intestinal barrier”, for example, should be evaluated. Finally, it is recommended that an evaluation of available computer models is performed, to further improve early predictions for drug candidates with regard to BBB permeability.
You need to register (for free) to download this article. Please log in/register here.

Co-occurring Words: Finding Information About Alternatives to Animal Testing

Jane Huggins

A collection of co-occurring words has been gathered from a small database of abstracts about alternatives to skin irritation testing by using Boolean logic. Words were selected according to a strategy based on methodology. Such words and their co-occurrences may be considered an archival code by which data that describe alternatives to skin irritation testing can be more readily recognised. As such, they can be used to enhance the efficiency with which information about this area of alternatives to animal testing is found in journal articles, databases and Web sites
You need to register (for free) to download this article. Please log in/register here.

Letter from CAAT

Lisa A. Libowitz

In a remarkably short period of time, an international panel of scientists on a US government-appointed peer review committee have recommended the acceptance of a validated alternative test method for assessing allergic contact dermatitis.
You need to register (for free) to download this article. Please log in/register here.
2017-01-09T06:26:49+00:00 Tags: |