Where do alternatives to animal testing work?
The present graph illustrates the quantitative reporting of tests used at each stage of the chemical testing strategy by both academia and industry (represented by coloured bars) compared to industry only (represented by adjacent black bars).
Of particular interest are the results for in vivo (mammalian) assays, which continue to dominate during the stages of hazard identification, hazard characterization, and risk characterization.
The figure highlights which types of alternative methods are more widely used compared to animal testing. For example, during the exposure assessment stage, methods such as biomarkers, toxicokinetics, and IVIVE (In Vitro to In Vivo Extrapolation) are quantitatively more utilized.
At the risk characterization stage, there is potential for increased application of #grouping/#read-across, #QSAR (Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship), #biomarkers, #toxicokinetics, #IVIVE, #IATA (Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment), and DA (Defined Approaches).
The figure also indicates the extent of academic involvement. Academia is particularly active during the exposure assessment stage, where they employ in vitro assays, other in vitro assays, #HTS (High-Throughput Screening), QSAR, metabolomics, biomarkers, and #AOP (Adverse Outcome Pathways) (see blue and shorter black bars next to them).
Academia is also involved in the hazard characterization stage, using methods such as in vitro assays, QSAR, genomics, transcriptomics, metabolomics, and AOP (see yellow and short black bars next to them).
This overview clearly demonstrates where alternatives to animal testing are effectively applied and where testing approaches are still under development.