ArticleGenes & nutrition2009
Alternatives to animal experimentation for hormonal compounds research.
Article in Genes & nutrition, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mapping the ethical and sustainable transition in toxicology: a bibliometric analysis and a review of new approach methodologies.Archives of toxicology · 2026Review
- Upcyte® microvascular endothelial cells repopulate decellularized scaffold.Tissue engineering. Part C, Methods · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Alternatives to animal testing and the identification of reliable methods that may decrease the need for animals are currently the subject of intense investigation worldwide. Alternative testing procedures are particularly important for synthetic and natural chemicals that exert their biological actions through binding nuclear receptors, called nuclear receptors-interacting compounds (NR-ICs), for which research is increasingly emphasizing the limits of several models in the accurate estimation of the physiological consequences of exposure to these compounds. In particular, estrogen receptor interacting compounds (ER-ICs) have a great impact on human health from the therapeutic, nutritional, and toxicological point of view due to the highly permissive nature of the estrogen receptors towards a large number of natural and synthetic compounds. Similar to in vitro systems, recently generated animal models (e.g., animal models generated for the study of estrogen receptor ligands) may fulfill the 3R principles: refine, reduce, and replace. If used correctly, NR-regulated models, such as reporter mice, xenopus, or zebrafish, and models obtained by somatic gene transfer in reporter systems, combined with imaging technologies, may contribute to strongly decreasing the overall number of animals required for NR-IC testing and research. With these models, flexible and highly standardized parameters and reporter marker quantification can be obtained. Here, we highlight the need for the substitution of currently used testing models with more appropriate ones that can reproduce the features and reactivity of specific mammalian target tissue/organs. We consider the promotion of this advancement a research priority bearing scientific, economic, social, and ethical relevance.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.