PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 2399520

[Alternative methods, the present and future].

G Zbinden
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Alternative methods are already widely used in fundamental biological research. Among 6,649 papers given at the FASEB 1989 meeting, nearly 60 p. 100 deal with experimental data obtained without the use of live animals. Alternative methods are less frequently utilized in industrial Toxicology. The reason of this discrepancy is discussed as well as the efforts made to reduce the numbers of animals for acute toxicity studies (LD 50) and cutaneous and eye tolerance. Present scientific developments as well as the possible agreement by regulatory agencies of the newly developed tests are presented. In spite of the increasing acceptance of alternative methods, large numbers of animals are still used. The reasons for this state of affairs are analysed, as well as the efforts which are made to encourage research for the replacement of animals in programs traditionally based on animal experimentation.

Explore related subjects

Animal Testing AlternativesAnimalsLethal Dose 50Skin TestsToxicologyEnglish AbstractJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

G Zbinden. [Alternative methods, the present and future].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2399520/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1992

Evaluation of surfactant cytotoxicity potential by primary cultures of ocular tissues: I. Characterization of rabbit corneal epithelial cells and initial injury and delayed toxicity studies.

This investigation was undertaken to develop cytotoxicity assay systems using primary cultures of rabbit corneal epithelial cells as an experimental model to evaluate oculotoxic agents and the ability of these in vitro assay systems to predict irritancy potential and delayed toxicity. We have characterized the epithelial nature of the cultures by identifying keratins with antikeratin antibodies (AE1/AE3) and by demonstrating metabolic enzymes important to the integrity of the cells: lactate dehydrogenase, glucose 6-phosphate dehydrogenase and aldolase. Eight surfactants were compared and ranked according to their cytotoxic potential. We evaluated cytotoxicity by measuring leakage of the cytosolic enzyme, lactate dehydrogenase, into the medium, by making morphological observations and by assessing lysosomal neutral red uptake and mitochondrial 3-(4,5-dimethythiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide (MTT) reduction. The cells were treated for 1 h with the surfactants and the possibility of delayed toxicity was evaluated 24 h after removal of the surfactant. The cytotoxicity of the different types of surfactants as shown by all the tests was cationic > anionic = amphoteric > non-ionic. Triton X-100, a non-ionic surfactant but a severe irritant, had a ranking similar to anionic surfactants. The in vitro rankings corresponded well to reported in vivo Draize rabbit eye test data. The 24-h test for lactate dehydrogenase leakage showed that mild and non-irritating surfactants did not demonstrate any subsequent damage after a 1-h exposure, but the extreme and severe surfactants continued to show further damage after the 1-h exposure. These in vitro findings were similar to reported in vivo results. The neutral red and MTT tests did not adequately predict the prolonged toxicity of the more irritating surfactants, as was demonstrated by the lactate dehydrogenase leakage test. We conclude that in vitro cytotoxicity assays using primary cultures of rabbit corneal epithelial cells may be used to rank the cytotoxic potential of surfactants, but only the lactate dehydrogenase leakage test was able to assess prolonged cell injury.

Animal Testing Alternatives↗