Suppr超能文献

对五种体外潜在替代方法进行体内兔眼刺激试验的评估。

An evaluation of five potential alternatives in vitro to the rabbit eye irritation test in vivo.

作者信息

Bagley D M, Bruner L H, de Silva O, Cottin M, O'Brien K A, Uttley M, Walker A P

机构信息

Colgate-Palmolive Co., 909 River Road, PO Box 1343, Piscataway, NJ 08855-1343, USA.

出版信息

Toxicol In Vitro. 1992 Jul;6(4):275-84. doi: 10.1016/0887-2333(92)90017-l.

Abstract

Five alternative techniques, each of which had been successfully used by one of the participating companies, were evaluated in the assessment of the eye-irritation potential of 32 samples. The 32 samples included chemical ingredients and preparations from household cleaning product, personal care, and cosmetic categories. Historical data from rabbit eye irritation tests in vivo existed for each sample; it was therefore not necessary to carry out any tests in vivo as part of this evaluation exercise. The five alternative methods used were the silicon microphysiometer test, the Microtox test, the neutral red uptake assay, the chorioallantoic membrane vascular assay (CAMVA) and the hen egg test-chorioallantoic membrane assay (HETCAM). Three of the assays were conducted in two laboratories, allowing an interlaboratory comparison of performance to be made. The CAMVA assay was carried out on 10-day-old as well as on 14-day-old fertile eggs. Correlations between the data sets in vivo and in vitro were determined for the five assays. The results demonstrated that for the materials tested, all of the assays show some promise as alternative methods to the rabbit eye test in vivo in the prediction of eye irritation, and that the reproducibility of results of those techniques carried out in two laboratories was very good. The results from 14-day and 10-day CAMVA assays were virtually identical. It is recommended that a larger-scale validation exercise be carried out to demonstrate the ultimate usefulness of these alternative procedures in the safety evaluation process.

摘要

对32个样品的眼刺激潜力进行评估时,对五种替代技术进行了评价,每种技术都曾被一家参与公司成功使用过。这32个样品包括家用清洁产品、个人护理产品和化妆品类别的化学成分和制剂。每个样品都有兔眼体内刺激试验的历史数据;因此,作为本次评估的一部分,无需进行任何体内试验。所使用的五种替代方法是硅微生理计试验、Microtox试验、中性红摄取试验、绒毛尿囊膜血管试验(CAMVA)和鸡胚试验-绒毛尿囊膜试验(HETCAM)。其中三种试验在两个实验室进行,以便对性能进行实验室间比较。CAMVA试验在10日龄和14日龄的受精鸡蛋上进行。确定了五种试验体内和体外数据集之间的相关性。结果表明,对于所测试的材料,所有试验在预测眼刺激方面作为兔眼体内试验的替代方法都显示出一定的前景,并且在两个实验室进行的那些技术的结果重现性非常好。14日龄和10日龄CAMVA试验的结果几乎相同。建议进行更大规模的验证试验,以证明这些替代程序在安全评估过程中的最终实用性。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验