ReviewEnvironmental health perspectives1998
In vitro techniques for the assessment of neurotoxicity.
Review in Environmental health perspectives, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 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
25 citing papers in PubMed.
- FRESH extrusion 3D printing of type-1 collagen hydrogels photocrosslinked using ruthenium.PloS one · 2025Article
- Recent advances and current challenges of new approach methodologies in developmental and adult neurotoxicity testing.Archives of toxicology · 2024Review
- Neurotoxicity of Engineered Nanomaterials: Testing Considerations.Frontiers in public health · 2022Review
- Roadbumps at the Crossroads of Integrating Behavioral andFrontiers in toxicology · 2022Review
- Recording from an Identified Neuron Efficiently Reveals Hazard for Brain Function in Risk Assessment.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Impact of environmental neurotoxic: current methods and usefulness of human stem cells.Heliyon · 2020Review
- Strategies to improve the regulatory assessment of developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) using in vitro methods.Toxicology and applied pharmacology · 2018Article
- Comparison of neurons derived from mouse P19, rat PC12 and human SH-SY5Y cells in the assessment of chemical- and toxin-induced neurotoxicity.BMC pharmacology & toxicology · 2017Article
- Adoptive Autophagy Activation: a Much-Needed Remedy Against Chemical Induced Neurotoxicity/Developmental Neurotoxicity.Molecular neurobiology · 2017Review
- ToxiM: A Toxicity Prediction Tool for Small Molecules Developed Using Machine Learning and Chemoinformatics Approaches.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2017Article
- Design and demonstration of an intracortical probe technology with tunable modulus.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A · 2017Article
- Electrochemically reduced water protects neural cells from oxidative damage.Oxidative medicine and cellular longevity · 2014Article
- Morphological and functional differentiation in BE(2)-M17 human neuroblastoma cells by treatment with Trans-retinoic acid.BMC neuroscience · 2013Article
- Improved cellular infiltration into nanofibrous electrospun cross-linked gelatin scaffolds templated with micrometer-sized polyethylene glycol fibers.Biomedical materials (Bristol, England) · 2011Article
- Single-cell ELISA and flow cytometry as methods for highlighting potential neuronal and astrocytic toxicant specificity.Neurotoxicity research · 2011Article
- Possible role of heme oxygenase-1 and prostaglandins in the pathogenesis of cerebral malaria: heme oxygenase-1 induction by prostaglandin D(2) and metabolite by a human astrocyte cell line.The Korean journal of parasitology · 2010Article
- Evaluation of the importance of astrocytes when screening for acute toxicity in neuronal cell systems.Neurotoxicity research · 2010Article
- Human cell-based micro electrode array platform for studying neurotoxicity.Frontiers in neuroengineering · 2010Article
- Hazard identification on a single cell level using a laser beam.Analytical chemistry insights · 2007Article
- Workgroup report: incorporating in vitro alternative methods for developmental neurotoxicity into international hazard and risk assessment strategies.Environmental health perspectives · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Risk assessment is a process often divided into the following steps: a) hazard identification, b) dose-response assessment, c) exposure assessment, and d) risk characterization. Regulatory toxicity studies usually are aimed at providing data for the first two steps. Human case reports, environmental research, and in vitro studies may also be used to identify or to further characterize a toxic hazard. In this report the strengths and limitations of in vitro techniques are discussed in light of their usefulness to identify neurotoxic hazards, as well as for the subsequent dose-response assessment. Because of the complexity of the nervous system, multiple functions of individual cells, and our limited knowledge of biochemical processes involved in neurotoxicity, it is not known how well any in vitro system would recapitulate the in vivo system. Thus, it would be difficult to design an in vitro test battery to replace in vivo test systems. In vitro systems are well suited to the study of biological processes in a more isolated context and have been most successfully used to elucidate mechanisms of toxicity, identify target cells of neurotoxicity, and delineate the development and intricate cellular changes induced by neurotoxicants. Both biochemical and morphological end points can be used, but many of the end points used can be altered by pharmacological actions as well as toxicity. Therefore, for many of these end points it is difficult or impossible to set a criterion that allows one to differentiate between a pharmacological and a neurotoxic effect. For the process of risk assessment such a discrimination is central. Therefore, end points used to determine potential neurotoxicity of a compound have to be carefully selected and evaluated with respect to their potential to discriminate between an adverse neurotoxic effect and a pharmacologic effect. It is obvious that for in vitro neurotoxicity studies the primary end points that can be used are those affected through specific mechanisms of neurotoxicity. For example, in vitro systems may be useful for certain structurally defined compounds and mechanisms of toxicity, such as organophosphorus compounds and delayed neuropathy, for which target cells and the biochemical processes involved in the neurotoxicity are well known. For other compounds and the different types of neurotoxicity, a mechanism of toxicity needs to be identified first. Once identified, by either in vivo or in vitro methods, a system can be developed to detect and to evaluate predictive ability for the type of in vivo neurotoxicity produced. Therefore, in vitro tests have their greatest potential in providing information on basic mechanistic processes in order to refine specific experimental questions to be addressed in the whole animal.
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.