ArticleOrganogenesis2009
Assuring consumer safety without animals: Applications for tissue engineering.
Article in Organogenesis, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Postbiotic-Based Extracts from Native Probiotic Strains: A Promising Strategy for Food Preservation and Antimicrobial Defense.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Organoids/organs-on-chips towards biomimetic human artificial skin.Burns & trauma · 2025Review
- Electromembrane Extraction and Mass Spectrometry for Liver Organoid Drug Metabolism Studies.Analytical chemistry · 2021Article
- Postbiotic metabolites produced by Lactobacillus plantarum strains exert selective cytotoxicity effects on cancer cells.BMC complementary and alternative medicine · 2019Article
- Pioneering better science through the 3Rs: an introduction to the national centre for the replacement, refinement, and reduction of animals in research (NC3Rs).Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2015Article
- Integrin-blocking antibodies delay keratinocyte re-epithelialization in a human three-dimensional wound healing model.PloS one · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Humans are exposed to a variety of chemicals in their everyday lives through interactions with the environment and through the use of consumer products. It is a basic requirement that these products are tested to assure they are safe under normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of use. Within the European Union, the majority of tests used for generating toxicological data rely on animals. However recent changes in legislation (e.g., 7(th) amendment of the Cosmetics Directive and REACH) are driving researchers to develop and adopt non-animal alternative methods with which to assure human safety. Great strides have been made to this effect, but what other opportunities/technologies exist that could expedite this? Tissue engineering has increasing scope to contribute to replacing animals with scientifically robust alternatives in basic research and safety testing, but is this application of the technology being fully exploited? This review highlights how the consumer products industry is applying tissue engineering to ensure chemicals are safe for human use without using animals, and identifies areas for future development and application of the technology.
Indexed as
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.