Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Michael Balls

Publications and source records attributed to Michael Balls.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
PubMed2001

[Good cell culture practice (GCCP)--an initiative for standardization and quality control of in vitro studies. The establishment of an ECVAM Task Force on GCCP].

Cultured human and animal cells are increasingly used as the basis for simplified, direct test systems that have the potential to be more controllable and more reproducible than in vivo test systems. However, if a biological test system is simplified to fundamental levels then it is paramount that the essential components of such a reduced systems are closely defined and reproducible. Thus, minimal requirements for quality standards in cell and tissue culture have to be defined. It is the aim of this GCCP initiative to establish principles for standardisation, rationalisation, and international harmonisation of cell and tissue culture laboratory practices. Therefore, in analogy to Good Laboratory Practice (GLP), a Good Cell Culture Practice (GCCP) was initiated at the 3rd World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences, Bologna, 29. August-2. September 1999. This "Bologna Statement on Good Cell Culture Practice" was presented, discussed, and refined in a Workshop, and a final version was approved at the closing ceremony of the Congress by the scientific audience. Based on the Bologna Statement, an ECVAM Task Force on GCCP was initiated, that is chaired by Thomas Hartung and Sandra Ceocke, in which experts in the field should elaborate minimal requirements for quality standards in cell culture. It is the intention of the GCCP Guidelines to encourage consensus among all concerned with the use of in vitro systems, in order to establish and maintain best laboratory practices, to promote effective quality control systems, to facilitate education and training, to support journal editors, and to help any authorities who need to interpret and apply conclusions based on in vitro data.

Animal Testing Alternatives↗
PubMed1998

[Use of transgenic animals in the European Union]

Transgenic animals present unique possibilities for medical, agricultural and fundamental research, and as a means of producing valuable pharmaceutical and nutrient products. Their use has increased dramatically in recent years and is set to increase further in the near future. It has been claimed that transgenic animals might allow reduction and refinement in animal use, via more-precise gene targeting in breeding programmes. However, these objectives are threatened by transgenic procedures which may promote greater animal use, more-varied applications, and the greater likelihood of animal suffering. Current legislation on animal experimentation, for example, Directive 86/609/EU, was passed and implemented before the full implications of transgenesis were recognised. For this reason, ECVAM organised a workshop which was held in Southwell, Nottinghamshire, UK, on 7-11 April 1997. The aim of this workshop was to reach a consensus on a set of guidelines designed to assist regulatory authorities in their decision-making process. The conclusions of the workshop are subdivided into general considerations, proposals to use transgenic animals, production and use of transgenic animals, specific considerations relating to animals used as basic research/disease models, animals used in testing for toxicity and carcinogenicity, and transgenic farm animals. 14 recommendations have been derived from these conclusions and should make an important contribution to ensuring that the interests and welfare of animals are given due respect. They demonstrate a willingness by scientists to respond to public concerns and they should facilitate a consistent, harmonised and equitable regulatory approach within the EU.

Journal Article↗
PubMedDate not supplied

ECVAM's contributions to the implementation of the Three Rs in the production and quality control of biologicals.

A summary is presented of the activities initiated, and the progress achieved, between April 1993 and December 2001 in implementing the Three Rs in one of the main priority areas of the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) - the production and quality control of biologicals. These have included organising eight key workshops, and financial contributions to, and sponsorship of, relevant international workshops, symposia and conferences. Noteworthy activities include financial support and/or participation in a number of prevalidation and validation studies. These involved alternative methods for the batch potency testing of: human tetanus vaccines; human and veterinary tetanus antisera and immunoglobulin; rabies vaccines; Leptospira hardjo vaccines; Clostridium perfringens vaccines; and erysipelas vaccines. They also involved a cell culture test for specific toxicity testing of diphtheria toxoid vaccines. In addition, ECVAM funded a study on the use of humane endpoints for vaccine quality control tests involving severe suffering, such as the potency testing of erysipelas, rabies and pertussis vaccines. ECVAM has also contributed financially to the compilation of manuals and expert reports, and to training in test methods. Following the report of an ECVAM Task Force, ECVAM financially supported the prevalidation of some in vitro methods for the potency testing of a recombinant hormone. A proposal is presented for promotion of regulatory acceptance, and suggestions are made for possible future activities.

Animal Testing Alternatives↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Follow-up to the ECVAM prevalidation study on in vitro tests for acute skin irritation. The European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods Skin Irritation Task Force report 2.

The European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) Skin Irritation Task Force was established in 1996, to review the status of the development and validation of alternative tests for skin irritation and corrosion, and to identify appropriate non-animal tests for predicting human skin irritation that were sufficiently well-developed to be prevalidated and validated by ECVAM. The EpiDerm method, based on a reconstituted human skin model, was proposed as being sufficiently well advanced to enter a prevalidation (PV) study. Based on a review of test protocols, prediction models (PMs), and data submitted by test developers on ten specified chemicals, with 20% sodium lauryl sulphate as a reference standard, the task force recommended the inclusion of four other tests: EPISKIN and PREDISKIN, based on reconstituted human epidermis or on human skin; the non-perfused pig-ear test, based on pig skin; and the skin integrity function test (SIFT), with ex vivo mouse skin. The prevalidation study on these methods was funded by ECVAM, and took place during 1999-2000. The outcome of the PV study was that none of the methods was ready to enter a formal validation study, and that the protocols and PMs of the methods had to be improved in order to increase their predictive abilities. Improved protocols and PMs for the EpiDerm and EPISKIN methods, the pig ear test, and the SIFT were presented at an extended Task Force meeting held in May 2001. It was agreed that, in the short term, the performance of the revised and harmonised EpiDerm and EPISKIN methods, as well as the modified SIFT, should be evaluated in a further study with a new set of 20 test chemicals. In addition, it was decided that the SIFT and the pig ear test would be compared to see if common endpoints (transepidermal water loss, methyl green-pyronine stain) could be identified.

Animal Testing Alternatives↗
PubMedDate not supplied

An overall strategy for the testing of chemicals for human hazard and risk assessment under the EU REACH system.

In its White Paper, "Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy," published in 2001, the European Commission (EC) proposed the REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of CHemicals) system to deal with both existing and new chemical substances. This system is based on a top-down approach to toxicity testing, in which the degree of toxicity information required is dictated primarily by production volume (tonnage). If testing is to be based on traditional methods, very large numbers of laboratory animals could be needed in response to the REACH system, causing ethical, scientific and logistical problems that would be incompatible with the time-schedule envisaged for testing. The EC has emphasised the need to minimise animal use, but has failed to produce a comprehensive strategy for doing so. The present document provides an overall scheme for predictive toxicity testing, whereby the non-animal methods identified and discussed in a recent and comprehensive ECVAM document, could be used in a tiered approach to provide a rapid and scientifically justified basis for the risk assessment of chemicals for their toxic effects in humans. The scheme starts with a preliminary risk assessment process (involving available information on hazard and exposure), followed by testing, based on physicochemical properties and (Q)SAR approaches. (Q)SAR analyses are used in conjunction with expert system and biokinetic modelling, and information on metabolism and identification of the principal metabolites in humans. The resulting information is then combined with production levels and patterns of use to assess potential human exposure. The nature and extent of any further testing should be based strictly on the need to fill essential information gaps in order to generate adequate risk assessments, and should rely on non-animal methods, as far as possible. The scheme also includes a feedback loop, so that new information is used to improve the predictivity of computational expert systems. Several recommendations are made, the most important of which is that the European Union (EU) should actively promote the improvement and validation of (Q)SAR models and expert systems, and computer-based methods for biokinetic modelling, since these offer the most realistic and most economical solution to the need to test large numbers of chemicals.

Cytochrome P-450 Enzyme System↗
PubMedDate not supplied

A critical assessment of the European Commission's proposals for the risk assessment and registration of chemical substances in the European Union.

In May, 2003, the European Commission published detailed proposals relating to its 2001 White Paper - Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy. The White Paper described a new registration system called the REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) system, for both new and existing chemicals. Subsequently, these detailed proposals were available for an eight-week consultation period for stakeholders to voice their views and concerns. In this paper, we describe our reactions to the Commission's more-detailed proposals. These include the creation of a European Chemicals Agency to implement the REACH system in conjunction with Competent Authorities (CAs) in Member States and the Commission itself. Unfortunately, many of our concerns and suggestions, previously voiced and shared with several other key stakeholders, remain unanswered, but are as relevant as when the White Paper was published. In particular, we are concerned about the lack of a clear and coherent strategy. There is no guidance for registrants on intelligent testing to maximise the use of non-animal approaches to safety testing, based on a combination of factors for estimating exposure levels, rather than mainly on production volumes. We are also concerned about the absence of a clear programme for the development, improvement and validation of new alternative methods, in conjunction with the Commission's own unit, the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, as well as other organisations with relevant expertise and experience, including FRAME. Finally, we explain why such measures should be introduced, together with clearer guidelines for the respective roles of the Agency, the CAs and the Commission in implementing and harmonising the REACH system at the European Union and Member State levels. A series of recommendations are made, to improve the situation and to improve the risk assessment process.

Animal Use Alternatives↗