In vitro Toxicity Testing in the Twenty-First Century

The National Research Council (NRC) article “Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A vision and A Strategy” (National Research Council, 2007) was written to bring attention to the application of scientific advances for use in toxicity tests so that chemicals can be tested in a more time and cost efficient manner while providing a more relevant and mechanistic insight into the toxic potential of a compound. Development of tools for in vitro toxicity testing constitutes an important activity of this vision and contributes to the provision of test systems as well as data that are essential for the development of computer modeling tools for, e.g., system biology, physiologically based modeling. This article intends to highlight some of the issues that have to be addressed in order to make in vitro toxicity testing a reality in the twenty-first century

Applying the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) for food sensitization to support in vitro testing strategies

Background Before introducing proteins from new or alternative dietary sources into the market, a compressive risk assessment including food allergic sensitization should be carried out in order to ensure their safety. We have recently proposed the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) concept to structure the current mechanistic understanding of the molecular and cellular pathways evidenced to drive IgE-mediated food allergies. This AOP framework offers the biological context to collect and structure existing in vitro methods and to identify missing assays to evaluate sensitizing potential of food proteins. Scope and approach In this review, we provide a state-of-the-art overview of available in vitro approaches for assessing the sensitizing potential of food proteins, including their strengths and limitations. These approaches are structured by their potential to evaluate the molecular initiating and key events driving food sensitization. Key findings and conclusions The application of the AOP framework offers the opportunity to anchor existing testing methods to specific building blocks of the AOP for food sensitization. In general, in vitro methods evaluating mechanisms involved in the innate immune response are easier to address than assays addressing the adaptive immune response due to the low precursor frequency of allergen-specific T and B cells. Novel ex vivo culture strategies may have the potential to become useful tools for investigating the sensitizing potential of food proteins. When applied in the context of an integrated testing strategy, the described approaches may reduce, if not replace, current animal testing approaches

ESAC Opinion on the validation study of the epiCS® Skin Irritation Test (SIT) based on the EURL ECVAM/ OECD Performance Standards for in vitro skin irritation testing using Reconstructed human Epidermis (RhE)

ESAC, the EURL ECVAM Scientific Advisory Committee, advises EURL ECVAM on scientific issues. Its main role is to conduct independent peer review of validation studies of alternative test methods and to assess their scientific validity for a given purpose. The committee reviews the appropriateness of study design and management, the quality of results obtained and the plausibility of the conclusions drawn. ESAC peer reviews are formally initiated with a EURL ECVAM Request for ESAC Advice, which provides the necessary background for the peer-review and establishes its objectives, timelines and the questions to be addressed. The peer review is normally prepared by specialised ESAC Working Groups. These are typically composed of ESAC members and other external experts relevant to the test method under review. These experts may be nominated by ESAC, EURL ECVAM and partner organisations within the International Cooperation on Alternative Test Methods (ICATM). ESAC ultimately decides on the composition of these Working Groups. ESAC's advice to EURL ECVAM is formally provided as 'ESAC Opinions' and 'Working Group Reports' at the end of the peer review. ESAC may also issue Opinions on other scientific issues of relevance to the work and mission of EURL ECVAM but not directly related to a specific alternative test method. The ESAC Opinion expressed in this report relates to the peer-review of the validation study of the epiCS® Skin Irritation Test (SIT) based on the EURL ECVAM/OECD Performance Standards for in vitro skin irritation testing using Reconstructed human Epidermis (RhE).JRC.F.3-Chemicals Safety and Alternative Method

Анализ методов вибродиагностики металлорежущих станков

Цель работы - выработка рекомендаций по применению методов вибродиагностики металлорежущих станков в конкретной задаче. Объект исследования - методы и комплексы вибродиагностики металлорежущих станков. Предмет исследования – систематизация и обобщение методов вибродиагностики металлорежущих станков. Актуальность - отсутствие простой для реализации методики виброиспытаний. В процессе работы были рассмотрены различные методы вибродиагностики металлорежущих станков, сделаны предложения по применению методов вибродиагностики металлорежущих станков в каждой конкретной задаче, создана универсальная методика проведения вибродиагностики металлорежущих станков диагностическим комплексом "Виброрегистратор-М2".The aim of the work is to develop recommendations on the application of vibration diagnostics methods for metal-cutting machine tools in a specific task. The object of research is methods and complexes of vibration diagnostics of metal cutting machines. The subject of the study is the systematization and generalization of methods of vibration diagnostics of metal-cutting machines. Actuality is the absence of a simple vibration testing technique. In the course of the work various methods of vibration diagnostics of metal cutting machines were considered, suggestions were made on the application of vibration diagnostics methods for metal cutting machines in each specific task, a universal technique for performing vibration diagnostics of metal cutting machines with the Vibroregistrator-M2

ESAC Opinion on the SkinEthic™ Human Corneal Epithelium (HCE) Eye Irritation Test (EIT)

ESAC, the EURL ECVAM Scientific Advisory Committee, advises EURL ECVAM on scientific issues. Its main role is to conduct independent peer review of validation studies of alternative test methods and to assess their scientific validity for a given purpose. The committee reviews the appropriateness of study design and management, the quality of results obtained and the plausibility of the conclusions drawn. ESAC peer reviews are formally initiated with a EURL ECVAM Request for ESAC Advice, which provides the necessary background for the peer-review and establishes its objectives, timelines and the questions to be addressed. The peer review is normally prepared by specialised ESAC Working Groups. These are typically composed of ESAC members and other external experts relevant to the test method under review. These experts may be nominated by ESAC, EURL ECVAM and partner organisations within the International Cooperation on Alternative Test Methods (ICATM). ESAC ultimately decides on the composition of these Working Groups. ESAC's advice to EURL ECVAM is formally provided as 'ESAC Opinions' and 'Working Group Reports' at the end of the peer review. ESAC may also issue Opinions on other scientific issues of relevance to the work and mission of EURL ECVAM but not directly related to a specific alternative test method. The ESAC Opinion expressed in this report relates to the peer-review of the SkinEthic™ Human Corneal Epithelium (HCE) Eye Irritation Test (EIT).JRC.F.3-Chemicals Safety and Alternative Method

ESAC Opinion on the EURL ECVAM Eye Irritation Validation Study (EIVS) on EpiOcular™ EIT and SkinEthic™ HCE and a related Cosmetics Europe study on HPLC/UPLC-spectrophotometry as an alternative endpoint detection system for MTT-formazan

ESAC, the EURL ECVAM Scientific Advisory Committee, advises EURL ECVAM on scientific issues. Its main role is to conduct independent peer review of validation studies of alternative test methods and to assess their scientific validity for a given purpose. The committee reviews the appropriateness of study design and management, the quality of results obtained and the plausibility of the conclusions drawn. ESAC peer reviews are formally initiated with a EURL ECVAM Request for ESAC Advice, which provides the necessary background for the peer-review and establishes its objectives, timelines and the questions to be addressed. The peer review is normally prepared by specialised ESAC Working Groups. These are typically composed of ESAC members and other external experts relevant to the test method under review. These experts may be nominated by ESAC, EURL ECVAM and partner organisations within the International Cooperation on Alternative Test Methods (ICATM). ESAC ultimately decides on the composition of these Working Groups. ESAC's advice to EURL ECVAM is formally provided as 'ESAC Opinions' and 'Working Group Reports' at the end of the peer review. ESAC may also issue Opinions on other scientific issues of relevance to the work and mission of EURL ECVAM but not directly related to a specific alternative test method. The ESAC Opinion expressed in this report relates to the peer-review of the BASF-coordinated Performance Standards-based validation of the LuSens test method for skin sensitisation testing.JRC.F.3-Chemicals Safety and Alternative Method

ESAC Opinion on the Ocular Irritection® test method for prediction of serious eye damage/ eye irritation potential of chemicals

ESAC, the EURL ECVAM Scientific Advisory Committee, advises EURL ECVAM on scientific issues. Its main role is to conduct independent peer review of validation studies of alternative test methods and to assess their scientific validity for a given purpose. The committee reviews the appropriateness of study design and management, the quality of results obtained and the plausibility of the conclusions drawn. ESAC peer reviews are formally initiated with a EURL ECVAM Request for ESAC Advice, which provides the necessary background for the peer-review and establishes its objectives, timelines and the questions to be addressed. The peer review is normally prepared by specialised ESAC Working Groups. These are typically composed of ESAC members and other external experts relevant to the test method under review. These experts may be nominated by ESAC, EURL ECVAM and partner organisations within the International Cooperation on Alternative Test Methods (ICATM). ESAC ultimately decides on the composition of these Working Groups. ESAC's advice to EURL ECVAM is formally provided as 'ESAC Opinions' and 'Working Group Reports' at the end of the peer review. ESAC may also issue Opinions on other scientific issues of relevance to the work and mission of EURL ECVAM but not directly related to a specific alternative test method. The ESAC Opinion expressed in this report relates to the peer-review of the Ocular Irritection® test method for prediction of serious eye damage/eye irritation potential of chemicals.JRC.F.3 - Chemicals Safety and Alternative Method

ESAC Opinion on the L'Oréal-coordinated study on the transferability and reliability of the U-SENS™ test method for skin sensitisation testing

ESAC, the EURL ECVAM Scientific Advisory Committee, advises EURL ECVAM on scientific issues. Its main role is to conduct independent peer review of validation studies of alternative test methods and to assess their scientific validity for a given purpose. The committee reviews the appropriateness of study design and management, the quality of results obtained and the plausibility of the conclusions drawn. ESAC peer reviews are formally initiated with a EURL ECVAM Request for ESAC Advice, which provides the necessary background for the peer-review and establishes its objectives, timelines and the questions to be addressed. The peer review is normally prepared by specialised ESAC Working Groups. These are typically composed of ESAC members and other external experts relevant to the test method under review. These experts may be nominated by ESAC, EURL ECVAM and partner organisations within the International Cooperation on Alternative Test Methods (ICATM). ESAC ultimately decides on the composition of these Working Groups. ESAC's advice to EURL ECVAM is formally provided as 'ESAC Opinions' and 'Working Group Reports' at the end of the peer review. ESAC may also issue Opinions on other scientific issues of relevance to the work and mission of EURL ECVAM but not directly related to a specific alternative test method. The ESAC Opinion expressed in this report relates to the peer-review of the L'Oréal-coordinated study on the transferability and reliability of the U-SENS™ test method for skin sensitisation testing.JRC.F.3-Chemicals Safety and Alternative Method

ESAC Opinion on the BASF-coordinated Performance Standards-based validation of the LuSens test method for skin sensitisation testing

ESAC, the EURL ECVAM Scientific Advisory Committee, advises EURL ECVAM on scientific issues. Its main role is to conduct independent peer review of validation studies of alternative test methods and to assess their scientific validity for a given purpose. The committee reviews the appropriateness of study design and management, the quality of results obtained and the plausibility of the conclusions drawn. ESAC peer reviews are formally initiated with a EURL ECVAM Request for ESAC Advice, which provides the necessary background for the peer-review and establishes its objectives, timelines and the questions to be addressed. The peer review is normally prepared by specialised ESAC Working Groups. These are typically composed of ESAC members and other external experts relevant to the test method under review. These experts may be nominated by ESAC, EURL ECVAM and partner organisations within the International Cooperation on Alternative Test Methods (ICATM). ESAC ultimately decides on the composition of these Working Groups. ESAC's advice to EURL ECVAM is formally provided as 'ESAC Opinions' and 'Working Group Reports' at the end of the peer review. ESAC may also issue Opinions on other scientific issues of relevance to the work and mission of EURL ECVAM but not directly related to a specific alternative test method. The ESAC Opinion expressed in this report relates to the peer-review of the BASF-coordinated Performance Standards-based validation of the LuSens test method for skin sensitisation testing.JRC.F.3-Chemicals Safety and Alternative Method