ArticleMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)2024
Guidelines on Developmental Toxicity Tests: Brief Insights.
Article in Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2024. 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.
- Observational studies on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance toxicity in marine species: hints for the extrapolation of a screening value.Environmental toxicology and chemistry · 2025Article
- In-vivo Toxicity Evaluation of 3-(2-(3,4 dimethoxyphenyl)-2 oxoethylidene) Indolin-2-one (RAJI) in Zebrafish and Mice Model.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Developmental toxicology is a constantly evolving research field which needs to attend to a complex underlying regulatory network. In order to ensure human health and environmental safety, new substances have to be tested for toxic effects on reproduction and development, before being commercialized. Traditional in vivo mammalian models represent the intricacy of human development and provide more adequately an assessment of the interaction of chemical compounds with the reproductive system. However, in the last years, the directives are to reduce the use of vertebrate animals, promoting their use only as a last resort. Consequently, the interest on the development and validation of alternative tests, able to cover the various aspects of the reproductive cycle, has significantly increased. Reproductive toxicity is probably the most difficult endpoint to be replaced by alternative assays, since it should provide information on mechanism interactions essential for female and male fertility and also knowledge on the animal development during the first phases of its life cycle. This complexity explains the slow progress in implementing alternative models for reproductive toxicity safety assays. Alternative test models may be based on in vitro systems and nonmammalian animal models. Many biological processes have been successfully addressed using in vitro models, opening the possibility to study the interference of teratogenic compounds. Their validation and implementation have lagged behind, in part because of difficulties in establishing their predictability. Nevertheless, the advance toward the process of validation is crucial to replace and reduce the use of living animals. Based on the present state of the art, it is not probable that such testing strategies will completely replace the need to assess reproductive toxicity in vivo in the near future, but they will contribute to reduce animal tests and will provide important information. In this chapter, the approved guidelines for standard methods and alternative methods, according to their regulatory and scientific status, are enumerated and briefly described.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38285333What 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.