Suppr超能文献

神经毒性试验验证、阳性对照与能力验证:化学品是否必要?

Neurotoxicity test validation, positive controls and proficiency: are chemicals necessary?

作者信息

Maurissen Jacques P, Marable Brian R

机构信息

The Dow Chemical Company, Toxicology & Environmental Research and Consulting, Midland, MI 48674, USA.

出版信息

Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2005 Jul-Aug;27(4):545-51. doi: 10.1016/j.ntt.2005.05.008.

Abstract

The USEPA neurotoxicity guidelines require the use of positive control data in support of toxicology studies submitted to the Agency and emphasize the use of chemicals to accomplish this requirement. These guidelines, though, propose a number of different rationales for the use of chemicals as positive control agents. We re-evaluated the potential roles of positive control data in addressing three questions: 1) what does the test measure? 2) is the performing laboratory proficient in the use of the test? 3) do the complementary data submitted in support of neurotoxicity studies conducted with the test material provide enough context for the interpretation of the biological significance of an effect? While, for most types of guideline neurotoxicity tests, the use of test chemicals has been emphasized for positive control testing, the use of non-chemical procedures (i.e., systematic manipulation of the experimental parameters of a test, which poses less risk of adverse effects to the test animals) should be strongly considered as a potential alternative.

摘要

美国环境保护局(USEPA)的神经毒性指南要求在提交给该机构的毒理学研究中使用阳性对照数据,并强调使用化学品来满足这一要求。然而,这些指南提出了一些使用化学品作为阳性对照剂的不同理由。我们重新评估了阳性对照数据在解决三个问题方面的潜在作用:1)该测试测量的是什么?2)进行测试的实验室是否精通该测试的使用?3)为支持使用测试材料进行的神经毒性研究而提交的补充数据是否为解释效应的生物学意义提供了足够的背景信息?虽然对于大多数类型的指南神经毒性测试,已强调使用测试化学品进行阳性对照测试,但应强烈考虑使用非化学程序(即对测试的实验参数进行系统性操作,这对测试动物产生不良反应的风险较小)作为一种潜在的替代方法。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验