Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38772524›Full record

ReviewRegulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP2024

Differences in the anatomy and physiology of the human and rat respiratory tracts and impact on toxicological assessments.

Andreas O Stucki, Ursula G Sauer, David G Allen, Nicole C Kleinstreuer, Monique M Perron, Krystle L Yozzo, Anna B Lowit, Amy J Clippinger

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Bionic breathing-type airway exposure system for inhalation exposure studies.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026
    Article
  13. The importance of mechanical forces in chronic respiratory diseases.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Tools of the trade: leveraging 3DFrontiers in pharmacology · 2026
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

8 authors.

Andreas O StuckiPETA Science Consortium International e.V., Stuttgart, Germany. Electronic address: AndreasS@thepsci.eu.
Ursula G SauerScientific Consultancy - Animal Welfare, Neubiberg, Germany.
David G AllenInternational Collaboration on Cosmetics Safety (ICCS), Mount Royal, NJ, USA.
Nicole C KleinstreuerNational Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NC, USA.
Monique M PerronUS Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC, USA.
Krystle L YozzoUS Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC, USA.
Anna B LowitUS Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Washington, DC, USA.
Amy J ClippingerPETA Science Consortium International e.V., Stuttgart, Germany.

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Inhalation is a critical route through which substances can exert adverse effects in humans; therefore, it is important to characterize the potential effects that inhaled substances may have on the human respiratory tract by using fit for purpose, reliable, and human relevant testing tools. In regulatory toxicology testing, rats have primarily been used to assess the effects of inhaled substances as they-being mammals-share similarities in structure and function of the respiratory tract with humans. However, questions about inter-species differences impacting the predictability of human effects have surfaced. Disparities in macroscopic anatomy, microscopic anatomy, or physiology, such as breathing mode (e.g., nose-only versus oronasal breathing), airway structure (e.g., complexity of the nasal turbinates), cell types and location within the respiratory tract, and local metabolism may impact inhalation toxicity testing results. This review shows that these key differences describe uncertainty in the use of rat data to predict human effects and supports an opportunity to harness modern toxicology tools and a detailed understanding of the human respiratory tract to develop testing approaches grounded in human biology. Ultimately, as the regulatory purpose is protecting human health, there is a need for testing approaches based on human biology and mechanisms of toxicity.

Indexed as

Respiratory SystemSpecies SpecificityToxicity TestsAnimalsHumansInhalation ExposureRatsRisk AssessmentChemical exposureHuman-relevanceInhalation toxicity testing(Max 10)Pulmonary toxicityRespiratory tractSpecies differences

Identifiers

PMID38772524
PMCPMC11198871

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.