A Scientific and Animal Welfare Assessment of the OECD Health Effects Test Guidelines for the Safety Testing of Chemicals under the European Union REACH System
Available accessResearch articleFirst published online September, 2004
A Scientific and Animal Welfare Assessment of the OECD Health Effects Test Guidelines for the Safety Testing of Chemicals under the European Union REACH System
We have assessed each of the OECD Health Effects Test Guidelines (TGs) that were included in an annex to the Internet consultation issued by the European Commission relating to the Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH) legislation for the testing of new and existing chemical substances. Each guideline has been analysed with respect to its design and its scientific and animal welfare implications, the extent to which it makes use of modern techniques, and its suitability to be used in the REACH system for the testing of large numbers of chemicals. The scientific basis of the test and its justification are considered, as well as the numbers of animals required, and the potential adverse effects on them. The prospects and possibilities for applying the Three Rs (reduction, refinement and replacement) to each of the TGs are also discussed. We have proposed an overall testing strategy for how these TGs and other methods could best be deployed for chemicals testing, should it be necessary to fill data gaps. Certain TGs have been omitted from the strategy, when we have considered them to be unnecessary for chemicals testing. A series of recommendations has been made for improving the TGs with regard to both their scientific content and ways in which they could be better designed in relation to optimising the use of the animals concerned, and minimising adverse welfare consequences to them. Our investigations show that there is an urgent need to update the TGs to reflect modern techniques and methods, and to use current approaches for applying refinement strategies to improve the scientific and animal welfare aspects of the procedures used. Improvements can and should be made in all aspects of toxicity testing, from sample preparation, and animal housing, care and feeding, to dose formulation, test material administration, and the histopathological and clinical analysis of tissue samples. Opportunities for streamlining individual assays are very limited, but testing could be made more efficient by: a) only undertaking studies that provide relevant data; b) making greater use of screens and preliminary testing; c) applying some tests simultaneously to the same animals; d) using one sex; and e) eliminating redundant tests. In conclusion, it is clear that, as they stand, the OECD Health Effects TGs are unsuitable for use in the European Union REACH system, for which potentially very large numbers of laboratory animals will be needed for the testing of a very large number of chemicals.
AuerC.M., & FielderR.J. (1999). Regulation of industrial chemicals in the USA and the European Union. In General and Applied Toxicology, 2nd edn, Vol. 3 (ed. BallantyneB., MarrsT.C., & SyversenT.), pp. 1581–1597. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan Reference.
3.
VogelgesangJ. (2002). The EC White Paper on a Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy.ATLA30, Suppl. 2, 211–212.
4.
DandreaJ., & CombesR.D. (2003). A survey of stakeholder organisations on the proposed new European chemicals policy. ATLA31, 501–528.
5.
CombesR., BarrattM., & BallsM. (2003). An overall strategy for the testing of chemicals for human hazard and risk assessment under the EU REACH system. ATLA31, 7–19.
6.
CombesR., DandreaJ., & BallsM. (2003). A critical assessment of the European Commission's proposals for the risk assessment and registration of chemical substances in the European Union. ATLA31, 353–364.
7.
WorthA.P., & BallsM. eds (2002). Alternative (non-animal) methods for chemicals testing: current status and future prospects. A report prepared by ECVAM and the ECVAM Working Group on Chemicals. ATLA30, Suppl. 1, 1–125.
LangleyG. (2001). The Way Forward — Action to End Animal Toxicity Testing, 36 pp. London, UK: BUAV.
10.
Anon. (2004). Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (CSTEE) on the BUAV-ECEAE report on “The Way Forward — Action to End Animal Toxicity Testing”, Health & Protection Directorate-General, C7/VR/csteeop/anat/080104 D(04), 20 pp. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
11.
PaineA.J., & MarrsT.C. (1999). The design of toxicological studies. In General and Applied Toxicology, 2nd edn, Vol. 1 (ed. BallantyneB., MarrsT.C., & SyversenT.), pp. 321–334. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan Reference.
12.
RussellW.M.S., & BurchR.L. (1959). The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, 238 pp. London, UK: Methuen. Available on the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW) website http://altweb.jhsph.edu/publications/humane_exp/het-toc.htm (Accessed 31.8.04).
13.
BallsM., GoldbergA.M., FentemJ.H., BroadheadC.L., BurchR.L., FestingM.F.W., FrazierJ.M., HendriksenC.F.M., JenningsM., van der KampM.D.O., MortonD.B., RowanA.N., RussellC., RussellW.M.S., SpielmannH., StephensM.L., StokesW.S., StraughanD.W., YagerJ.D., ZurloJ., & van ZutphenB.F.M. (1995). The Three Rs: the way forward. The report and recommendations of ECVAM workshop 11. ATLA23, 838–866.
14.
FestingM.F.W., BaumansV., CombesR.D., HalderM., HendriksenC.F.M., HowardB.R., LovellD.P., MooreG.J., OverendP., & WilsonM.S. (1998). Reducing the use of laboratory animals in biomedical research: problems and possible solutions. The report and recommendations of ECVAM workshop 29. ATLA26, 283–301.
15.
FestingM.F.W., OverendP., Gaines DasR., Cortina BorjaM., & BerdoyM. (2002). The Design of Animal Experiments: Reducing the Use of Animals in Research Through Better Experimental Design, 112 pp. London, UK: Royal Society of Medicine Press.
16.
FlecknellP.A. (1994). Refinement of animal use — assessment and alleviation of pain and distress. Laboratory Animals28, 222–231.
17.
MorrisT., GouletS., & MortonD. (2002). The international symposium on regulatory testing and animal welfare: recommendations on best scientific practices for animal care in regulatory toxicology. ILAR Journal43, Suppl., S123–S125.
18.
MyersR.C. (1999). Animal welfare in the toxicology laboratory. In General and Applied Toxicology, 2nd edn, Vol. 1 (ed. BallantyneB., MarrsT.C., & SyversenT.), pp. 485–507. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan Reference.
CombesR., SchechtmanL., StokesW.S., & BlakeyD. (2002). The international symposium on regulatory testing and animal welfare: recommendations on best scientific practices for subchronic/chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity testing. ILAR Journal43, Suppl., S112–S117.
21.
SchledeE., DienerW., & GernerI. (1999). Humane endpoints in toxicity testing. In Humane Endpoints in Animal Experiments for Biomedical Research (ed. HendriksenC.F.M., & MortonD.B.), pp. 75–78. London, UK: Royal Society of Medicine Press.
22.
OECD (2000). Guidance Document on the Recognition, Assessment and Use of Clinical Signs as Humane Endpoints for Experimental Animals used in Safety Evaluation, ENV/JM/MONO(2000)7, 39 pp. Paris, France: OECD.
23.
BallsM. (1994). Replacement of animal procedures: alternatives in research, education and testing. Laboratory Animals28, 193–211.
GadS.C. (1999). Alternatives to in vivo studies in toxicology. In General and Applied Toxicology, 2nd edn, Vol. 1 (ed. BallantyneB., MarrsT.C., & SyversenT.), pp. 401–424. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan Reference.
26.
KoeterH.B.W.M. (1999). The OECD test guidelines programme and animal welfare concern: how to avoid major animal suffering. In Humane Endpoints in Animal Experiments for Biomedical Research (ed. HendriksenC.F.M., & MortonD.B.), pp. 13–14. London, UK: Royal Society of Medicine Press.
27.
RoeF.J.C. (1993). Influence of animal species, strain, age, hormonal, and nutritional status. In Experimental Toxicology: The Basic Issues, 2nd edn (ed. AndersonD., & ConningD.M.), pp. 23–34. London, UK: Royal Society of Chemistry.
28.
RaoG.N., & HuffJ. (1990). Refinement of long-term toxicity and carcinogenesis studies. Fundamental and Applied Toxicology15, 33–43.
29.
StephensM.L., ConleeK., AlvinoG., & RowanA.N. (2002). Possibilities for refinement and reduction: future improvements within regulatory testing. ILAR Journal43, Suppl., S74–S79.
30.
CookC., & ThomasD. (2004). Reducing the invasiveness of obtaining blood-borne measures in animals. ATLA32, Suppl. 1, 203–207.
31.
BaumansV. (2003). Environmental enrichment does not affect the variability of animal experimentation data in the light/dark test. 3R-Info-Bulletin22, 1–5. Website http://www.forschung3r.ch/de/publications/bu22_print.html (Accessed 20.7.04).
32.
OECD (1982). Good Laboratory Practice in the Testing of Chemicals.Paris, France: OECD.
33.
OECD (1998). Principles of Good Laboratory Practice, 41 pp. Paris, France: OECD.
34.
CombesR., BallsM., BansilL., BarrattM., BellD., BothamP., BroadheadC., ClothierR., GeorgeE., FentemJ., JacksonM., IndansI., LoizouG., NavaratnamV., PentreathV., PhillipsB., StemplewskiH., & StewartJ. (2002). An assessment of progress in the use of alternatives in toxicity testing since the publication of the report of the Second FRAME Toxicity Committee (1991). ATLA30, 365–406.
35.
KnightD.J., & BrehenyD. (2002). Alternatives to animal testing in the safety evaluation of products. ATLA30, 7–22.
36.
SpielmannH., BallsM., BrandM., DöringB., HolzhütterH-G., KalweitS., KlecakG., EplattenierH.L., LiebschM., LovellW.W., MaurerT., MoldenhauerF., MooreL., PapeW.J.W., PfannenbeckerU., PotthastJ., De SilvaO., SteilingW., & WillshawA. (1994). EEC/COLIPA project on in vitro phototoxicity testing: first results obtained with a Balb/c 3T3 cell phototoxicity assay. Toxicology in Vitro8, 793–796.
37.
SpielmannH., BallsM., DupuisJ., PapeW.J., PechovitchG., de SilvaO., HolzhütterH-G., ClothierR., DesolleP., GerberickF., LiebschM., LovellW.W., MaurerT., PfannenbeckerU., PotthastJ.M., CsatoM., SladowskiD., SteilingW., & BrantomP. (1998). The international EU/COLIPA in vitro phototoxicity validation study: results of phase II (blind trial). Part 1: the 3T3 NRU phototoxicity test. Toxicology in Vitro12, 305–327.
38.
SpielmannH., BallsM., DupuisJ., PapeW.J.W., de SilvaO., HolzhütterH-G., GerberickF., LiebschM., LovellW.W., & PfannenbeckerU. (1998). A study on UV filter chemicals from Annex VII of European Union Directive 76/768/EEC, in the in vitro 3T3 NRU phototoxicity test. ATLA26, 679–708.
BarrattM.D., & RodfordR.A. (2001). The computational prediction of toxicity. Current Opinion in Chemical Biology5, 383–388.
41.
KimberI. (2002). Reduction, refinement and replacement: putting the immune system to work. ATLA30, 569–577.
42.
KimberI., CumberbatchM., BettsC.J., & DearmanR.J. (2004). Dendritic cells and skin sensitisation hazard assessment. Toxicology in Vitro18, 195–202.
43.
BrownN.A., SpielmannH., BechterR., FlintO.P., FreemanS.J., JelínekR.J., KochE., NauH., NewallD.R., PalmerA.K., RenaultJ-Y., RepettoM., VogelR., & WigerR. (1995). Screening chemicals for reproductive toxicity: the current alternatives. The report and recommendations of an ECVAM/ETS workshop (ECVAM workshop 12). ATLA23, 868–882.
44.
SpielmannH., PohlI., DöringB., LiebschM., & MoldenhauerF. (1997). The embryonic stem cell test (EST), an in vitro embryotoxicity test using two permanent mouse cell lines: 3T3 fibroblasts and embryonic stem cells. In Vitro Toxicology10, 119–127.
45.
GenschowE., ScholzG., BrownN., PiersmaA., BradyM., ClemannN., HuuskonenH., PaillardF., BremerS., BeckerK., & SpielmannH. (2000). Development of prediction models for three in vitro embryotoxicity tests in an ECVAM validation study. In Vitro and Molecular Toxicology13, 51–66.
46.
GenschowE., SpielmannH., ScholzG., SeilerA., BrownN., PiersmaA., BradyM., ClemannN., HuuskonenH., PaillardF., BremerS., & BeckerK. (2002). The ECVAM international validation study on in vitro embryotoxicity tests: results of the definitive phase and evaluation of prediction models. ATLA30, 151–176.
47.
BremerS., PellizzerC., AdlerS., PaparellaM., & de LangeJ. (2002). Development of a testing strategy for detecting embryotoxic hazards of chemicals in vitro by using embryonic stem cell models. ATLA30, Suppl. 2, 107–109.
48.
GenschowE., SpielmannH., ScholzG., PohlI., SeilerA., ClemannN., BremerS., & BeckerK. (2004). Validation of the embryonic stem cell test in the international ECVAM validation study on three in vitro embryotoxicity tests. ATLA32, 209–244.
49.
SpielmannH., GenschowE., BrownN.A., PiersmaA.H., VerhoefA., SpanjersbergM.Q.I., HuuskonenH., PaillardF., & SeilerA. (2004). Validation of the rat limb bud micromass test in the international ECVAM validation study on three in vitro embryotoxicity tests. ATLA32, 245–274.
50.
PiersmaA.H., GenschowE., VerhoefA., SpanjersbergM.Q.I., BrownN.A., BradyM., BurnsA., ClemannN., SeilerA., & SpielmannH. (2004). Validation of the postimplantation rat whole-embryo culture test in the international ECVAM validation study on three in vitro embryotoxicity tests. ATLA32, 275–307.
51.
BothamP.A., EarlL.K., FentemJ.H., RoguetR., & van der SandtJ.J.M. (1998). Alternative methods for skin irritation testing: the current status. ECVAM Skin Irritation Task Force report 1. ATLA26, 195–211.
52.
FentemJ.H., BriggsD., ChesnéC., ElliottG.R., HarbellJ.W., HeylingsJ.R., PortesP., RoguetR., van de SandtJ.J.M., & BothamP.A. (2001). A prevalidation study on in vitro tests for acute skin irritation: results and evaluation by the management team. Toxicology in Vitro15, 57–93.
53.
HeylingsJ.R., DiotS., EsdaileD.J., FasanoW.J., ManningL.A., & OwenH.M. (2003). A prevalidation study on the in vitro skin irritation function test (SIFT) for prediction of acute skin irritation in vivo: results and evaluation of ECVAM Phase III. Toxicology in Vitro17, 123–138.
54.
PortesP., GrandidierM-H., CohenC., & RoguetR. (2002). Refinement of the Episkin® protocol for the assessment of acute skin irritation of chemicals: follow-up to the ECVAM prevalidation study. Toxicology in Vitro16, 765–770.
55.
van de SandtJ., RoguetR., CohenC., EsdaileD., PonecM., CorsiniE., BarkerC., FusenigN., LiebschM., BenfordD., de Brugerolle de FraissinetteA., & FartaschM. (1999). The use of human keratinocytes and human skin models for predicting skin irritation. The report and recommendations of ECVAM workshop 38. ATLA27, 723–743.
56.
ZuangV., BallsM., BothamP.A., CoquetteA., CorsiniE., CurrenR.D., ElliottG.R., FentemJ.H., HeylingsJ.R., LiebschM., MedinaJ., RoguetR., van de SandtJ.J.M., WiemannC., & WorthA.P. (2002). Follow-up to the ECVAM prevalidation study on in vitro tests for acute skin irritation. ATLA30, 109–129.
57.
FentemJ.H., & BothamP.A. (2002). ECVAM's activities in validating alternative tests for skin corrosion and irritation. ATLA30, Suppl. 2, 61–67.
58.
FentemJ.H., ArcherG.E.B., BallsM., BothamP.A., CurrenR.D., EarlL.K., EsdaileD.J., HolzhütterH-G., & LiebschM. (1998). The ECVAM international validation study on in vitro tests for skin corrosivity. 2. Results and evaluation by the management team. Toxicology in Vitro12, 483–524.
59.
GarleM.J., & FryJ.R. (2003). Sensory nerves, neurogenic inflammation and pain: missing components of alternative irritation strategies? A review and a potential strategy. ATLA31, 295–316.
60.
WorthA.P., & CroninM.T.D. (2001). Prediction models for eye irritation potential based on endpoints of the HET-CAM and neutral red uptake assays. In Vitro and Molecular Toxicology14, 143–156.
61.
MoldenhauerF. (2003). Using in vitro prediction models instead of the rabbit eye irritation test to classify and label new chemicals: a post hoc data analysis of the international EC/HO validation study. ATLA31, 31–46.
62.
CurrenR.D., & HarbellJ.W. (2002). Ocular safety: a silent (in vitro) success story. ATLA30, Suppl. 2, 69–74.
63.
GautheronP., GirouxJ., CottinM., AudegondL., MorillaA., Mayordomo-BlancoL., TortajadaA., HaynesG., VericatJ.A., PirovanoR., Gillio TosE., HagemannC., VanparysP., DeknudtG., JacobsG., PrinsenM., KalweitS., & SpielmannH. (1994). Interlaboratory assessment of the bovine corneal opacity and permeability (BCOP) assay. Toxicology in Vitro8, 381–392.
64.
BrunerL.H., de SilvaO., EarlL.K., EastyD.L., PapeW., & SpielmannH. (1998). Report on the COLIPA workshop on mechanisms of eye irritation. ATLA26, 811–820.
65.
CooperK.J., EarlL.K., HarbellJ., & RaabeH. (2001). Prediction of ocular irritancy of prototype shampoo formulations by the isolated rabbit eye (IRE) test and the bovine corneal opacity and permeability (BCOP) assay. Toxicology in Vitro15, 95–103.
66.
ECVAM (2000). Preliminary Evaluation of the Application of Reference Standards in the Prevalidation and Validation of In Vitro Tests for Eye Irritation. Final report from TNO BIBRA to ECVAM. TNO BIBRA Report No. 2/3387/00. ECVAM contract no. 1447-1998-11 F1ED ISP GB. Ispra, Italy: ECVAM.
67.
WorthA.P., & FentemJ.H. (1999). A general approach for evaluating stepwise testing strategies. ATLA27, 161–177.
68.
FielderR.J., GauntI.F., RhodesC., SullivanF.M., & SwanstonD.W. (1987). Hierarchical approach to the assessment of dermal and ocular irritancy: a report by the British Toxicology Society working party on irritancy. Human and Experimental Toxicology6, 269–278.
69.
CejkovaJ., LojdaZ., BrunovaB., VacikJ., & MichalekJ. (1988). Disturbances in the rabbit cornea after short-term and long-term wear of hydrogel contact lenses: usefulness of histochemical methods. Histochemistry89, 91–97.
70.
UbelsJ.L., PriusR.M., SybesmaJ.T., & CastertonP.L. (2000). Corneal opacity, hydration and endothelial morphology in the cornea opacity and permeability assay using reduced treatment times. Toxicology in Vitro14, 379–386.
71.
NguyenD.H., BeuermanR.W., De WeverB., & RosdyM. (2003). Three-dimensional construct of the human corneal epithelium for in vitro toxicology. In Alternative Toxicological Methods (ed. SlaemH., & KatzS.A.), pp. 147–159. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
72.
AtterwillC.K., BruininkA., DrejerJ., DuarteE., McFarlane AbdullaE., MeredithC., NicoteraP., ReganC., Rodrigues-FarreE., SimpsonM.G., SmithR., VeronesiB., VijverbergH., WalumE., & WilliamC.D. (1994). In vitro neurotoxicity testing. The report and recommendations of ECVAM workshop 3. ATLA22, 350–362.
73.
PentreathV.W. ed. (1999). Neurotoxicology In Vitro, 291 pp. London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
74.
AtterwillC.K., & PurcellW.M. (1999). Brain spheroid and other organotypic culture systems in in vitro neurotoxicology. In Neurotoxicology In Vitro (ed. PentreathV.W.), pp. 213–238. London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
WilliamsS.P., O'BrienS., WhitmoreK., PurcellW.H., CooksonM.R., MeadC., PentreathV.W., & AtterwillC.K. (1996). An in vitro neurotoxicity testing scheme: evaluation of cytotoxicity determinations in neural and non-neural cells. In Vitro Toxicology9, 83–92.
77.
FielderR., AtterwillC.K., AndersonD., BoobisA.R., BothamP., ChamberlainM., CombesR., DuffeyP.A., LewisR.W., LumleyC.E., KimberI., & NewallD.R. (1997). British Toxicology Society (BTS) working party report on in vitro toxicology. Human and Experimental Toxicology16, S1–S40.
78.
BallsM., & WalumE. (1999). Towards the acceptance of in vitro neurotoxicity tests. In Neurotoxicology In Vitro (ed. PentreathV.W.), pp. 26–28. London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
79.
GuillouzoA. (1997). Biotransformation of drugs by hepatocytes. In In Vitro Methods in Pharmaceutical Research (ed. CastellJ.V., & Gómez-LechónM.J.), pp. 411–432. London, UK: Academic Press.
80.
Gómez-LechónM.J., DonatoT., PonsodaX., & CastellJ.V. (2003). Human hepatic cell cultures: in vitro and in vivo drug metabolism. ATLA31, 257–266.
81.
DeJonghJ., ForsbyA., HoustonJ.B., BeckmanM., CombesR., & BlaauboerB.J. (1999). An integrated approach to the prediction of systemic toxicity using computer-based biokinetic models and biological in vitro test methods: overview of a prevalidation study based on the ECITTS project. Toxicology in Vitro13, 549–554.
82.
BlaauboerB.J. (2003). Biokinetic and toxicodynamic modelling and its role in toxicological research and risk assessment. ATLA31, 277–282.
83.
BruceR.D. (1985). An up-and-down procedure for acute toxicity testing. Fundamental and Applied Toxicology5, 151–157.
84.
Van den HeuvelM.J., ClarkD.G., FielderR.J., KoundakjianP.P., OliverG.J.A., PellingD., TomlinsonN.J., & WalkerA.P. (1990). The international validation of a fixed-dose procedure as an alternative to the classical LD50 test. Food and Chemical Toxicology28, 469–482.
85.
StallardN., & WhiteheadA. (1995). The fixed-dose procedure and the acute-toxic-class method: a mathematical comparison. Human and Experimental Toxicology14, 974–990.
86.
OECD (1996). OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, No. 423: Acute Oral Toxicity — Acute Toxic Class Method, 15 pp. Paris, France: OECD.
87.
StallardN., WhiteheadA., & IndansI. (2003). Statistical evaluation of the fixed concentration procedure for acute inhalation toxicity assessment. Human and Experimental Toxicology22, 575–585.
88.
LipnickR.L., CotruvoJ.A., HillR.N., BruceR.D., StitzelK.A., WalkerA.P., ChuI., GoddardM., SegalL., SpringerJ.A., & MyersR.C. (1995). Comparison of the up-and-down, conventional LD50, and fixed-dose acute toxicity procedures. Food and Chemical Toxicology33, 223–231.
89.
EkwallB. (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. Toxicology in Vitro13, 665–673.
90.
BothamP.A. (2004). Acute systemic toxicity — prospects for tiered testing strategies. Toxicology in Vitro18, 227–230.
91.
SpielmannH., GenschowE., LiebschM., & HalleW. (1999). Determination of the starting dose for acute oral toxicity (LD50) testing in the Up-and-Down Procedure (UDP) from cytotoxicity data. ATLA27, 957–966.
92.
NIH (2001). Report of the International Workshop on In Vitro Methods for Assessing Acute Systemic Toxicity, 158 pp. Research Triangle Park, NC, USA: NIEHS.
93.
NIH (2001). Guidance Document on Using In Vitro Data to Estimate In Vivo Starting Doses for Acute Toxicity. NIH Publication No. 01-4500, 24 pp. Research Triangle Park, NC, USA: NIEHS. Website http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov (Accessed 1.9.04).
94.
BasketterD.A., LeaL.J., CooperK., StocksJ., DickensA., PateI., DearmanR.J., & KimberI. (1999). Threshold for classification as a skin sensitizer in the local lymph node assay: a statistical evaluation. Food and Chemical Toxicology37, 1–8.
95.
ICCVAM (1999). The Murine Local Lymph Node Assay: A Test Method for Assessing the Allergic Contact Dermatitis Potential of Chemicals/Compounds. NIH Publication No. 99-4494, 45 pp. Research Triangle Park, NC, USA: NIEHS. Website http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov (Accessed 7.8.02).
96.
HanekeK.E., TiceR.R., CarsonB.L., MargolinB.H., & StokesW.S. (2001). ICCVAM evaluation of the murine local lymph node assay. III. Data analyses completed by the National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology34, 274–286.
97.
ECVAM (2000). Statement on the validity of the local lymph node assay for skin sensitisation testing. ATLA28, 366–367.
98.
PazosP., FortanaS., & PrietoP. (2002). Long-term in vitro toxicity models: comparisons between a flow-cell bioreactor, a static-cell bioreactor and static cell cultures. ATLA30, 515–523.
99.
PfallerW., BallsM., ClothierR., CoeckeS., DierickxP., EkwallB., HanleyB.A., HartungT., PrietoT., RyanM.P., SchmuckG., SladowskiD., VericatJ-A., WendelA., WolfA., & ZimmerJ. (2001). Novel advanced in vitro methods for long-term toxicity testing. The report and recommendations of ECVAM workshop 45. ATLA29, 393–426.
100.
JenningsP., KoppelstaetterC., PfallerW., MorinJ-P., HartungT., & RyanM.P. (2004). Assessment of a new cell culture perfusion apparatus for in vitro chronic toxicity testing. Part 2. Toxicological evaluation. ALTEX21, 61–66.
101.
BroadheadC.L., BettonG., CombesR., DammentS., EverettD., GarnerC., GodsafeZ., HealingG., HeywoodR., JenningsM., LumleyC., OliverG., SmithD., StraughanD., TophamJ., WallisR., WilsonS., & BuckleyP. (observer) (2000). Prospects for reducing and refining the use of dogs in regulatory toxicity testing of pharmaceuticals. Human and Experimental Toxicology19, 440–447.
102.
MortonD.B., HawkinsP., BevanR., HeathK., KirkwoodJ., PearceP., ScottL., WhelanG., & WebbA. (2003). Refinements in telemetry procedures. Seventh report of the BVAAWF/FRAME/RSPCA/UFAW Joint Working Group on Refinement, Part A. Laboratory Animals37, 261–299.
103.
HawkinsP., MortonD.B., BevanR., HeathK., KirkwoodJ., PearceL., ScottG., WhelanG., & WebbA. (2004). Husbandry requirements for rats, mice, dogs and non-human primates used in telemetry procedures. Seventh Report of the BVAAWF/FRAME/RSPCA/UFAW Joint Working Group on Refinement, Part B. Laboratory Animals38, 1–10.
104.
SmithD., BroadheadC., DescotesG., FosseR., HackR., KrauserK., PfisterR., PhillipsB., RabemampianinaY., SandersJ., SparrowS., Stephan-GueldnerM., & JacobsenS.D. (2002). Preclinical safety evaluation using nonrodent species: an industry/welfare project to minimize dog use. ILAR Journal43, Suppl., S39–S42.
105.
GreenS., GoldbergA., & ZurloJ. (2001). TestSmart-high production volume chemicals: an approach to implementing alternatives into regulatory toxicology. Toxicological Sciences63, 6–14.
JenkinsE.S., BroadheadC., & CombesR.D. (2002). The implications of microarray technology for animal use in scientific research. ATLA30, 459–465.
108.
FryJ., & GeorgeE. (2001). In vitro toxicology in the light of new technologies. ATLA29, 745–748.
109.
LumleyC.E., & van CauterenH. (1997). Harmonisation of international toxicity testing guidelines for pharmaceuticals: contribution to refinement and reduction in animal use. European Biomedical Research Association Bulletin, November 1997, 4–9.
110.
CombesR.D. (1995). Regulatory genotoxicity testing: a critical appraisal. ATLA23, 352–379.
111.
CombesR.D. (1997). Detection of nongenotoxic carcinogens: major barriers to replacement of the rodent bioassay? In Animal Alternatives, Welfare and Ethics (ed. van ZutphenL.F.M., & BallsM.), pp. 627–634. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
112.
CombesR.D. (2000). The use of structure–activity relationships and markers of cell toxicity to detect non-genotoxic carcinogens. Toxicology in Vitro14, 387–399.
113.
ICH (1997). Genotoxicity: Standard Battery of Tests. Report of Fourth International Conference on Harmonisation, Brussels, July 1997. Step 4 report. Brussels, Belgium: ICH.
114.
TennantR.W., StasiewiczS., MennearJ., FrenchJ.E., & SpaldingJ.W. (1999). Genetically altered mouse models for identifying carcinogens. In The Use of Short- and Medium-Term Tests for Carcinogens and Data on Genetic Effects in Carcinogenic Hazard Evaluation (ed. McGregorD.B., RiceJ.M., & VenittS.), pp. 123–150. Lyon, France: IARC.
115.
van ZellerA-M., & CombesR.D. (1999). Transgenic mouse bioassays for carcinogenicity testing: a step in the right direction?ATLA27, 839–846.
116.
Anon. (2001). An evaluation of alternatives to carcinogenicity testing. Toxicologic Pathology29, S5.
117.
BattershillJ.M., & FielderR.J. (1998). Mouse-specific carcinogens: an assessment of hazard and significance for validation of short-term carcinogen bioassays in transgenic mice. Human and Experimental Toxicology17, 193–205.
118.
PritchardJ.B., FrenchJ.E., DavisB.J., & HasemanJ.K. (2003). The role of transgenic mouse models in carcinogen identification. Environmental Health Perspectives111, 444–454.
119.
CombesR., BallsM., CurrenR., FischbachM., FusenigN., KirklandD., LasneC., LandolphJ., LeBoeufR., MarquardtH., McCormickJ., MüllerL., RivedalE., SabbioniE., TanakaN., VasseurP., & YamasakiH. (1999). Cell transformation assays as predictors of human carcinogenicity. The report and recommendations of ECVAM workshop 39. ATLA27, 745–767.
120.
OECD (2003). Detailed review paper on non-genotoxic carcinogens detection: the performance of in vitro cell transformation assays. OECD Environmental Health and Safety Publications: Series on Testing and Assessment, No. 31, 72 pp. Paris, France, OECD.
121.
EngelhardtG., SchwindK-R., & MusslerB. (2004). The testing of chemicals in the Syrian hamster embryo (SHE) cell transformation assay for assessment of carcinogenic potential. Toxicology in Vitro18, 213–218.
122.
TsuchiyaT., UmedaM., NishiyamaH., YoshimuraI., AjimiS., AsakuraM., BabaH., DewaY., EbeY., FushiwakiY., HamadaS., HamamuraT., HayashiM., IwaseY., KajiwaraY., KasaharaY., KawabataM., KitadaE., KuboK., MashikoK., MiuraD., MizuhashiF., MizunoF., NakajimaM., NakamuraY., NobeN., OishiH., OtaE., SakaiA., SatoM., ShimadaS., SugiyamaT., TakahashiC., TakedaY., TanakaN., ToyoizumiC., TsutsuiT., WakuriS., YajimaS., & YajimaN. (1999). An interlaboratory validation study of the improved transformation assay employing Balb/c 3T3 cells: results of a collaborative study on the two-stage cell transformation assay by the Non-genotoxic Carcinogen Study Group. ATLA27, 685–702.
123.
ButterworthB.E., ConnollyR.B., & MorganK.T. (1995). A strategy for establishing mode of action of chemical carcinogens as a guide for approaches to risk assessments. Cancer Letters93, 129–146.
124.
PhillipsJ.C., & GangolliS.D. (1993). Theory and practice in metabolic studies. In Experimental Toxicology: The Basic Issues, 2nd edn (ed. AndersonD., & ConningD.M.), pp. 181–201. London, UK: Royal Society of Chemistry.
125.
Home Office (2004). Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986: Guidance on the Conduct of Regulatory Toxicology and Safety Evaluation Studies. Website http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/supp_regtox.html (Accessed 23.7.04).
126.
DeanS.W. (1999). Environmental enrichment of laboratory animals used in toxicity studies. Laboratory Animals33, 309–327.
127.
HubrechtR. (1995). Dogs and dog housing. In Environmental Enrichment Information Resources for Laboratory Animals: 1965–1995: Birds, Cats, Dogs, Farm Animals, Ferrets, Rabbits and Rodents (ed. SmithC.P., & TaylorV.), AWIC Resource Series No. 2, pp. 49–62. Beltsville, MD, USA: US Department of Agriculture and Potters Bar, UK: Universities Federation for Animal Welfare.
128.
MortonD.B. (2002). The importance of non-statistical experimental design in refining animal experiments for scientists, IACUCs, and other ethical review panels. In Applied Ethics in Animal Research: Philosophy, Regulation, and Laboratory Applications (ed. GluckJ.P., DiPasqualeA., & OrlansF.B.), pp. 149–178. West Lafayette, IN, USA: Purdue University Press.
129.
CombesR.D., BerridgeT., ConnellyJ., EveM.D., GarnerR.C., ToonS., & WilcoxP. (2003). Early microdose drug studies in human volunteers can minimise animal testing. Proceedings of a workshop organised by volunteers in research and testing. European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences19, 1–11.
130.
CroninM.T.D., JaworskaJ.S., WalkerJ.D., ComberM.H.I., WattsC.D., & WorthA.P. (2003). Use of QSARs in international decision-making frameworks to predict health effects of chemical substances. Environmental Health Perspectives111, 1391–1401.
131.
OECD (1996). OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, No. 422: Combined Repeated Dose Toxicity Study with the Reproduction/Development Toxicity Screening Test, 14 pp. Paris, France: OECD.
132.
SauerU.G. (2004). Avoidance of animal experiments in the new EU chemicals regulation — opportunities and problems from the point of view of animal welfare. ALTEX21, 9–14.
133.
TichiasK., FentemJ., BasketterD., BothamP., BrookerP., BrunerL., EvansP., FairhurstS., FassoldE., FielderR., GerberickF., HarveyP., KoëterH., ParsonsP., SchledeE., ShannonD., & SpielmannH. (1998). Progress in toxicological testing: reduction and refinement issues. Recommendations from a joint UK Government/ECVAM meeting. ATLA26, 619–627.
134.
GernerI., GraetschelG., KahlJ., & SchledeE. (1999). Development of a decision support system for the introduction of alternative methods into local irritancy/corrosivity testing strategies. Development of a relational database. ATLA28, 11–28.
135.
ZinkeS., GernerI., & SchledeE. (2002). Evaluation of a rule base for identifying contact allergens by using a regulatory database: comparison of data on chemicals notified in the European Union with “structural alerts” used in the DEREK expert system. ATLA30, 285–298.
136.
CombesR.D. (1999). New measures on animal experimentation in the UK will improve animal welfare and scientific research. ATLA27, 309–316.
137.
CloseB., BanisterK., BaumansV., BernothE.M., BromageN., BunyanJ., ErhardtW., FlecknellP., GregoryN., HackbarthH., MortonD., & WarwickC. (1996). Recommendations for euthanasia of experimental animals: Part 1. DGXI of the European Commission. Laboratory Animals30, 293–316.
138.
CloseB., BanisterK., BaumansV., BernothE.M., BromageN., BunyanJ., ErhardtW., FlecknellP., GregoryN., HackbarthH., MortonD., & WarwickC. (1997). Recommendations for euthanasia of experimental animals: Part 2. DGXI of the European Commission. Laboratory Animals31, 1–32.
139.
MortonD.B., & GriffithsP.H.M. (1985). Guidelines on the recognition of pain, distress and discomfort in experimental animals and an hypothesis for assessment. Veterinary Record116, 431–436.
140.
RobinsonV., MortonD.B., AndersonD., CarverJ.F.A., FrancisR.J., HubrechtR., JenkinsE., MathersK.E., RaymondR., RosewellI., WallaceJ., & WellsD.J. (2003). Refinement and reduction in production of genetically modified mice. Sixth Report of the BVAAWF/FRAME/RSPCA/UFAW Joint Working Group on Refinement. Laboratory Animals37, Suppl. 1, S1–S51.
141.
BrownA.P., & LevineB.S. (1999). Relationship Between Dosing Vehicles, Dose Volume, and Stress. Report Prepared for the US National Toxicology Program, 24 pp. Website http://www.hsus.org/ace/11443 (Accessed 24.8.04).
142.
CombesR.D. (2003). A critical assessment of the OECD collaborative study to validate the uterotrophic assay for the detection of oestrogenic and anti-oestrogenic chemicals. ATLA31, 489–499.
143.
MortonD.B., JenningsM., BuckwellA., EwbankR., GodfreyC., HolgateB., InglisI., JamesR., PageC., SharmanI., VershoyleR., WestallL., & WilsonA.B. (2001). Refining procedures for the administration of substances. Laboratory Animals35, 1–41.
144.
LASA (1998). LASA Good Practice Guidelines Series 1, Issue 1. Administration of Substances.Tamworth, UK: Laboratory Animal Science Association.
145.
BottrillK. (1998). The use of biomarkers as alternatives to current animal tests on food chemicals. ATLA26, 421–480.
146.
CombesR.D. (2000). Endocrine disruptors: a critical review of in vitro and in vivo testing strategies for assessing their toxic hazard to humans. ATLA28, 81–118.
147.
Anon. (1987). Council Directive 87/18/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the harmonisation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of the principles of good laboratory practice and the verification of their applications for tests on chemical substances. Official Journal of the European CommunitiesL015, 29–30.
148.
Anon. (1986). Council Directive 86/609/EEC 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 CommunitiesL358, 1–29.
