Symposium Proceedings: Replacing the Draize Eye Irritation Test: Scientific Background and Research Needs Technical Committee on Alternatives to Animal Testing

References

• Council Directive 93/35/EEC. Sixth Amendment to the Cosmetics Directive 76/768/EEC. European Communities, Luxembourg 1993
   Google Scholar
• Frazier J. M., Gad S. C., Goldberg A. M., McCulley J. P. A critical evaluation of alternatives to acute ocular irritancy testing. Alternative Methods in Toxicology, A. M. Goldberg. Mary Ann Liebert, New York 1987; Vol. 4
   Google Scholar
• Bradlaw J., Gupta K., Green S., Hill R., Wilcox N. Practical application of non‐whole animal alternatives: Sumary of the IRAG workshop on eye irritation testing. Toxicologic 1995; 15: 287
   Google Scholar
• Friedenwald J. S., Hughes W. F., Herrmann H. Acid‐base tolerance of the cornea. Arch. Ophthalmol. 1944; 31: 279–283
   Google Scholar
• Draize J. H., Woodard G., Calvery H. O. Method for the study of irritation and toxicity of substances applied topically to the skin and mucous membranes. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 1944; 82: 377–389
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balls M., Botham P. A., Bruner L. H., Spielmann H. The EC/HO international validation study on alternatives to the Draize eye irritation test. Toxicol, in Vitro 1996; 9: 871–829
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Federal Register. Test for eye irritants, Federal Hazardous Substances Act. Sept. 17, 1964, Title 21, C.F.R. 13009–191.12
   Google Scholar
• Buehler E. V., Newmann E. A. A comparison of eye irritation in monkeys and rabbits. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 1964; 6: 701–710
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beckley J. H. Critique of the Draize eye test. Am. Perfume Cosmet. 1965; 80: 51–54
   Google Scholar
• Beckley J. H. Comparative eye testing: Man vs. animal. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 1965; 7: 93–101
   Google Scholar
• Gershbein L. L., McDonald J. E. Evaluation of the corneal irritancy of test shampoos and detergents in various animal species. Food Cosmet. Toxicol. 1977; 15: 131–134
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Beckley J. H., Russell T. J., Rubin L. F. Use of the rhesus monkey for predicting human response to eye irritants. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 1969; 15: 1–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Obenberger J. Paper strips and rings as simple tools for standardization of experimental eye injuries. Ophthalm. Res 1975; 7: 363–367
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffith J. F., Nixon G. A., Bruce R. D., Reer P. J., Bannan E. A. Dose‐response studies with chemical irritants in the albino rabbit eye as a basis for selecting optimum testing conditions for predicting hazard to the human eye. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 1980; 55: 501–503
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marzulli F. N., Ruggles D. I. Rabbit eye irritation test: Collaborative study. J. Assoc. Off. Analyt. Chem. 1973; 56: 905–914
   Google Scholar
• Williams S. J., Graepel G. J., Kennedy G. L. Evaluation of ocular irritancy potential: Interlaboratory variability and effective dosage volume. Toxicol. Lett. 1982; 12: 235–241
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weil C. S., Scala R. A. Study of intra‐ and interlaboratory variability in the results of rabbit eye and skin irritation tests. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 1971; 19: 276–360
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green W. R., Sullivan J. B., Hehir R. M., Scharpf L. F., Dickinson A. W. A Systematic Comparison of Chemically‐Induced Eye Injury in the Albino Rabbit and Rhesus Monkey. The Soap and Detergent Association, New York 1978
   Google Scholar
• Sinow J., Wei E. Ocular toxicity of paraquat. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 1973; 9: 163–168
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ballantyne B., Swanston D. W. The scope and limitations of acute eye irritation tests. Current Approaches in Toxicology, B. Ballantyne. Chemical Research Establishment, Porton DownUK 1977
   Google Scholar
• Burton A. B. G. A method for the objective assessment of eye irritation. Food Cosmet. Toxicol. 1972; 10: 209–217
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Conquet P. H., Durand G., Laillier J., Plazonnet B. Evaluation of ocular irritation in the rabbit: Objective versus subjective assessment. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 1977; 39: 129–139
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kay J. H., Calandra J. C. Interpretation of eye irritation tests. J. Soc. Cosmet. Chem. 1962; 13: 281
   Google Scholar
• Guillot J. P., Gonnot J. F., Clement C., Caillard L., Truhaut R. Evaluation of the ocular irritation potential of 56 compounds. Food Chem. Toxicol. 1982; 20: 573–582
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ballantyne B., Gazzard M. F., Swanston D. W., Williams P. The ophthalmic toxicology of O‐chlorobenzylidene malonitrate. Arch. Toxicol. 1974; 32: 149–168
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chew S. J., Beuerman R. W., Kaufman H. E. In‐vivo real‐time tandem scanning confocal microscope examination of wound healing in the cornea following an alkali burn. SPIE Ophthalm. Technol. 1994; IV: 128–135
   Google Scholar
• Walker A. P. A more realistic animal technique for predicting human eye response. Food Chem. Toxicol. 1985; 23: 175–178
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beuerman R. W., Tanelian D. L. Corneal pain evoked by thermal stimulation. Pain 1979; 7: 1–14
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beuerman R. W., Snow A., Thompson H., Stern M. Action potential response of the corneal nerves to irritants. Lens Eye Toxicity Res. 1992; 9: 193–210
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dupuy B., Thompson H., Beuerman R. W. Psychophysical threshold of the human cornea to capsaicin. Soc. Neurosci. 1987; 13: 110
   Google Scholar
• Krootila K., Uusitalo H., Palkama H. Effect of neurogenic irritation and calcitonin glue‐related peptide (CGRP) on ocular blood flow in the rabbit. Curr. Eye Res. 1988; 7: 695–703
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bagley D. M., Rizvi R. Y., Kong B. M., DeSalva S. J. Factors affecting use of the hen's egg chorioallantoic membrane as a model for predicting eye irritation potential. J. Toxicol. Cut. Ocular Toxicol. 1991; 10: 95–104
   Google Scholar
• Meyer D. R., McCulley J. P. Osmotic tolerance of rabbit corneal epithelium in tissue culture. J. Toxicol. Cut. Ocular Toxicol. 1991; 10: 59–78
   Google Scholar
• Milstein S. R., Hume R. D. Correlating the L‐929 and SIRC variants of the in vitro agarose diffusion method for the assessment of cosmetic product eye irritation potential. J. Toxicol. Cut. Ocular Toxicol. 1991; 10: 3–14
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salomen E. M., Vaheri A., Tervo T., Beuerman R. Toxicity of ingredients in artificial tears and ophthalmic drugs in a cell attachment and spreading test. J. Toxicol. Cut. Ocular Toxicol. 1991; 10: 157–160
   Google Scholar
• Kruszewski F. H., Walker T. L., Ward S. L., DiPasquale L. C. Progress in the use of human ocular tissues for in vitro alternative methods. Comments Toxicol. 1995; 5: 203–224
   Google Scholar
• Russell W. M. S., Burch R. L. The Principles of Humane Experimental Techniques. Methuen, London 1959
   Google Scholar
• Muir C. K., Flower C., Van Abbe N. J. A novel approach to the search for in vitro alternatives to in vivo eye irritancy testing. Toxicol. Lett. 1983; 18: 1–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borenfreund E., Puerner J. A. Toxicity determined in vitro by morphological alterations and neutral red adsorption. Toxicol. Lett. 1985; 24: 119–124
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muir C. K. Opacity of bovine cornea in vitro induced by surfactants and industrial chemicals compared with ocular irritancy in vivo. Toxicol. Lett. 1985; 24: 157–162
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Price J. B., Andrews I. J. The in vitro assessment of eye irritancy using isolated eyes. Food Chem. Toxicol. 1985; 23: 313–315
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lüpke N. P. Hen's egg chorioallantoic membrane test for irritation potential. Food Chem. Toxicol. 1985; 23: 287–291
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sivak J. G., Stuart D. D., Herbert K. L., Van Oostrom J. A., Segal I. Optical properties of the cultured bovine lens as an in vitro alternative to the Draize eye toxicity test: Preliminary validation for alcohols. Toxicol. Methods 1992; 2: 280–294
   Google Scholar
• Bruner L. H., Kain D. J., Roberts D. A., Parker R. D. Evaluation of seven in vitro alternatives for ocular safety testing. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 1991; 17: 136–149
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Spielmann H., Kalweit S., Liebsch M., Wirnsberger T., Gerner I., Bertram‐Neis E., Krauser K., Kreiling R., Miltenburger H. G., Pape W., Steiling W. Validation study of alternatives to the Draize eye irritation test in Germany: Cytotoxicity testing and HET‐CAM test with 136 industrial chemicals. Toxicol, in Vitro 1993; 7: 505–510
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruner L. H., Miller K. R., Owicki J. C., Parce J. W., Muir V. C. Testing ocular toxicity in vitro with the silicon microphysiometer. Toxicol, in Vitro 1991; 5: 277–284
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bagley D. M., Bruner L. H., deSilva O., Cottin M., O'Brien K. A. F., Uttley M., Walker A. P. An evaluation of five potential in vitro alternatives to the rabbit eye irritation test in vivo. Toxicol, in Vitro 1992; 6: 275–284
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reader S. J., Blackwell V., O'Hara R., Clothier R. H., Griffin G., Balls M. Neutral red release from pre‐loaded cells as an in vitro approach to testing for eye irritancy potential. Toxicol, in Vitro 1990; 4: 264–266
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis R. W., McCall J. C., Botham P. A. A comparison of two cytotoxicity tests for predicting the ocular irritancy of surfactants. Toxicol, in Vitro 1993; 7: 155–158
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tchao R. Trans‐epithelial permeability of fluorescein in vitro as an assay to determine eye irritants. Alternative Methods in Toxicology, A. M. Goldberg. Mary Ann Liebert, New York 1988; Vol. 6
   Google Scholar
• Shaw A. J., Clothier R. H., Balls M. Loss of trans‐epithelial impermeability of a confluent monolayer of Madin‐Darby canine kidney (MDCK) cells as a determinant of ocular irritancy potential. ATLA 1990; 18: 145–151
   Google Scholar
• Gordon V. C., Bergman H. C. EYTEX, an in vitro method for the evaluation of ocular irritancy. Alternative Methods in Toxicology, A. M. Goldberg. Mary Ann Liebert, New York 1987; Vol. 5
   Google Scholar
• Gautheron P., Dukic M., Alix D., Sina J. F. Bovine corneal opacity and permeability test: An in vitro assay of ocular irritancy. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 1992; 18: 442–449
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Prinsen M. K., Koëter H. B. W. M. Justification of the enucleated eye test with eyes from slaughterhouse animals as an alternative to the Draize eye irritation test with rabbits. Food Chem. Toxicol. 1993; 31: 69–76
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perkins M. A., Roberts D. A., Osborne R. Human skin cell cultures for in vitro skin and eye irritancy assessments of neat test materials. Toxicologist 1992; 12: 296
   Google Scholar
• Triglia D., Braa S., Donnelly T., Kidd I., Naughton G. K. A 3‐dimensional human dermal model substrate for in vitro toxicological studies. Alternative Methods in Toxicology, A. M. Goldberg. Mary Ann Liebert, New York 1992; Vol. 8
   Google Scholar
• Osborne R., Roberts D. A., Perkins M. A., Wallace K., Mun G., Curren R. Interlaboratory validation of a new in vitro tissue equivalent assay (TEA) for eye irritation assessments. Toxicologist 1993; 13: 449
   Google Scholar
• Booman K. A., Cascieri T. M., Demetrulias J., Driedger A., Griffith J. F., Grochoski G. T., Kong B., McCormack W. C., 3rd, North‐Root H., Rozen M. G., Sedlak R. I. In vitro methods for evaluating eye irritancy of cleaning products. Phase I: preliminary assessment. J. Toxicol. Cut. Ocular Toxicol. 1988; 7: 173–185
   Google Scholar
• Booman K. A., DeProspo J., Demetrulias J., Driedger A., Griffith J. F., Grochoski G. T., Kong B., McCormack W. C., 3rd, North‐Root H., Rozen M. G., Sedlak R. I. The SDA alternatives program: Comparison of in vitro data with Draize test data. J Toxicol. Cut. Ocular Toxicol. 1988; 8: 35–49
   Google Scholar
• Gettings S. D. The current status of in vitro test validation (evaluation in the United States). ATLA 1991; 19: 432–436
   Google Scholar
• Bagley D. M., Waters D., Kong B. M. Development of a 10‐day chorioallantoic membrane vascular assay as an alternative to the Draize rabbit eye irritation test. Food Chem. Toxicol. 1994; 32: 1155–1160
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahn C. R., Young E., Lee I. H., Rhim J. S. Human corneal epithelial primary cultures and cell lines with extended lifespan: In Vitro model for ocular studies. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 1993; 34: 3429–3441
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward S. L., Kahn C. R., Walker T. L., Dimitrijevich S. D. Response and recovery of a human corneal epithelial cell line to chemical insult. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 1993; 35: 1942
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward S. L., Gleich G. J., Dimitrijevich S. D., Kruszewski F. H., Walker T. L., Trocme S. D. The barrier properties of an in vitro human corneal epithelial model are not altered by eosinophil major basic protein or eosinophil cationic protein. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 1995; 36: S699
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCulley J. P. Chemical injuries. The Cornea: Scientific Foundations and Clinical Practice2nd Ed., G. Smolin, R. A. Thoft. Little, Brown, Boston 1987
   Google Scholar
• Wagoner M. D., Kenyon K. R. Chemical Injuries of the Eye. Principles and Practice of Ophthalmology, D. M. Albert, F. A. Jakobiec. W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia 1994; Vol. 1
   Google Scholar
• Haanen C., Vermes I. Apoptosis and inflammation. Mediators Inflamm. 1995; 4: 5–15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berta A. Enzymology of the Tears. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL 1992
   Google Scholar
• Alvagar T., Smith T. J., Vijai F. The use of artificial neural networks in biomedical technologies: An introduction. Biomed. Instrum. Technol. 1994; 28: 315–322
   PubMedGoogle Scholar