Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38285334›Full record

ArticleMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)2024

Development Features on the Selection of Animal Models for Teratogenic Testing.

Sofia Alves-Pimenta, Bruno Colaço, Paula A Oliveira, Carlos Venâncio

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sofia Alves-PimentaDepartment of Animal Science, School of Agrarian and Veterinary Sciences (CECAV), University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro (UTAD), Vila Real, Portugal.
Bruno ColaçoDepartment of Animal Science, School of Agrarian and Veterinary Sciences (CECAV), University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro (UTAD), Vila Real, Portugal.
Paula A OliveiraAnimal and Veterinary Research Centre (CECAV), Associate Laboratory for Animal and Veterinary Sciences (AL4AnimalS), University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro (UTAD), Vila Real, Portugal.
Carlos VenâncioDepartment of Animal Science, School of Agrarian and Veterinary Sciences (CECAV), University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro (UTAD), Vila Real, Portugal. cvenanci@utad.pt.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Today, the use of animal models from different species continues to represent a fundamental step in teratogenic testing, despite the increase in alternative solutions that provide an important screening to the enormous quantity of new substances that aim to enter the market every year. The maintenance of these models is due to the sharing of similar development processes with humans, and in this way they represent an important contribution to the safety in the use of the compounds tested. Furthermore, the application of advances in embryology to teratology, although hampered by the complexity of reproductive processes, continues to prove the importance of sensitivity during embryonic and fetal development to detect potential toxicity, inducing mortality/abortion and malformations.In this chapter, essential periods of development in different models are outlined, highlighting the similarities and differences between species, the advantages and disadvantages of each group, and specific sensitivities for teratogenic testing. Models can be divided into invertebrate species such as earthworms of the species Eisenia fetida/Eisenia andrei, Caenorhabditis elegans, and Drosophila melanogaster, allowing for rapid results and minor ethical concerns. Vertebrate nonmammalian species Xenopus laevis and Danio rerio are important models to assess teratogenic potential later in development with fewer ethical requirements. Finally, the mammalian species Mus musculus, Rattus norvegicus, and Oryctolagus cuniculus, phylogenetically closer to humans, are essential for the assessment of complex specialized processes, occurring later in development.Regulations for the development of toxicology tests require the use of mammalian species. Although ethical concerns and costs limit their use in large-scale screening. On the other hand, invertebrate and vertebrate nonmammalian species are increasing as alternative animal models, as these organisms combine low cost, less ethical requirements, and culture conditions compatible with large-scale screening. Their main advantage is to allow high-throughput screening in a whole-animal context, in contrast to the in vitro techniques, not dependent on the prior identification of a target. Better knowledge of the development pathways of animal models will allow to maximize human translation and reduce the number of animals used, leading to a selection of compounds with an improved safety profile and reduced time to market for new drugs.

Indexed as

OligochaetaTeratogenesisTeratologyAnimalsCaenorhabditis elegansDrosophila melanogasterFemaleHumansMammalsMiceModels, AnimalPregnancyRabbitsRatsTeratogensTeratogensAnimal modelsDevelopmental toxicityDevelopment anatomyEmbryologyIn vivoReproductive cycleTeratology

Identifiers

PMID38285334

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.