From the article: "To enable selection of novel chemicals for new processes, there is a recognized need for alternative toxicity screening assays to assess potential risks to man and the environment. For human health hazard assessment these screening assays need to be translational to humans, have high throughput capability, and from an animal welfare perspective be harmonized with the principles of the 3Rs (Reduction, Refinement, Replacement). In the area of toxicology a number of cell culture systems are available but while these have some predictive value, they are not ideally suited for the prediction of developmental and reproductive toxicology (DART). This is because they often lack biotransformation capacity, multicellular or multi- organ complexity, for example, the hypothalamus pituitary gonad (HPG) axis and the complete life cycle of whole organisms. To try to overcome some of these limitations in this study, we have used Caenorhabditis elegans (nematode) and Danio rerio embryos (zebrafish) as alternative assays for DART hazard assessment of some candidate chemicals being considered for a new commercial application. Nematodes exposed to Piperazine and one of the analogs tested showed a slight delay in development compared to untreated animals but only at high concentrations and with Piperazine as the most sensitive compound. Total brood size of the nematodes was also reduced primarily by Piperazine and one of the analogs. In zebrafish Piperazine and analogs showed developmental delays. Malformations and mortality in individual fish were also scored. Significant malformations were most sensitively identified with Piperazine, significant mortality was only observed in Piperazine and only at the higest dose. Thus, Piperazine seemed the most toxic compound for both nematodes and zebrafish. The results of the nematode and zebrafish studies were in alignment with data obtained from conventional mammalian toxicity studies indicating that these have potential as developmental toxicity screening systems. The results of these studies also provided reassurance that none of the Piperazines tested are likely to have any significant developmental and/or reproductive toxicity issues to humans when used in their commercial applications."
LINK
Despite changing attitudes towards animal testing and current legislation to protect experimental animals, the rate of animal experiments seems to have changed little in recent years. On May 15–16, 2013, the In Vitro Testing Industrial Platform (IVTIP) held an open meeting to discuss the state of the art in alternative methods, how companies have, can, and will need to adapt and what drives and hinders regulatory acceptance and use. Several key messages arose from the meeting. First, industry and regulatory bodies should not wait for complete suites of alternative tests to become available, but should begin working with methods available right now (e.g., mining of existing animal data to direct future studies, implementation of alternative tests wherever scientifically valid rather than continuing to rely on animal tests) in non-animal and animal integrated strategies to reduce the numbers of animals tested. Sharing of information (communication), harmonization and standardization (coordination), commitment and collaboration are all required to improve the quality and speed of validation, acceptance, and implementation of tests. Finally, we consider how alternative methods can be used in research and development before formal implementation in regulations. Here we present the conclusions on what can be done already and suggest some solutions and strategies for the future.
This article describes the final meeting for the program SLiM (Sneller van innovatie naar mens). In cooperation with the Netherlands Knowledge Centre on Alternatives to animal use (NKCA) an overview was given of the results on accelerated acceptance of Replacement, Refinement and Reduction (3R) of animals in research.
LINK
