ALTERNATIVES TO LABORATORY ANIMALS IN EXPERIMENTAL METHODS EMPLOYED IN BIOLOGICAL  RESEARCH - A REVIEW

Biswadeep Behera; S. Vairamuthu; N. Pazhanivel

doi:10.56093/ijvasr.v52i6.149097

Authors

Biswadeep Behera Department of Veterinary Pathology, Madras Veterinary College, TANUVAS, Chennai – 600 007
S. Vairamuthu Professor and Head, Centralised Clinical Laboratory, Madras Veterinary College, TANUVAS, Chennai – 600 007
N. Pazhanivel Professor, Department of Veterinary Pathology, Madras Veterinary College, TANUVAS, Chennai – 600 007

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijvasr.v52i6.149097

Keywords:

Alternative, Biological, Experimental, Laboratory animal, Research

Abstract

With the advancement of research and development of medical technology, there is an increase in the number of animals used in research. As millions of experimental animals are being used in different experiments worldwide, there is a lot of debate about the pain, distress, and death experienced by animals during scientific experiments. Experimental animals also require skilled manpower, time-consuming protocols and are costly. There are various alternatives to animal testing to overcome the drawbacks of animal experiments and avoid unethical procedures. Russell and Burch published principles of the Humane Experimental Technique which includes a strategy of 3 Rs (i.e. reduction, refinement, and replacement) in 1959. They introduced and defined the terms replacement, reduction, and refinement, which subsequently have become known as ‘alternatives’ or ‘alternative methods’ for minimizing the potential for animal pain and distress in biomedical research. Therefore, different methods and different alternative organisms are being used to implement the 3 Rs strategy. So, a brief account of these alternatives and the advantages associated is discussed in this review with examples. An integrated application of these approaches would give insight into the minimum use of animals in scientific experiments.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Anderson, A.C. (2003). The process of 10 structure-based drug design. Chemistry and Biology, 10(9): 787 - 797.

Balls, M. (1994). Replacement of animal procedures: alternatives in research, education, and testing. Laboratory Animals, 28: 193 - 211.

Combes, R.D., Berridge, T., Connelly, J., Eve, M.D., Garner, R.C., Toon, S. and Wilcox, P. (2003). Early micro dose studies in human volunteers can minimize animal testing: proceedings of a workshop organized by volunteers in research and testing. European Journal of Pharmaceutical Science, 19: 1 - 11.

CULABBR (Committee on use of laboratory animals in biomedical and behavioural research), national research council and institute of medicine, (1988). Use of laboratory animals in biomedical and behavioral research. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Daina, A., Blatter, M.C., Baillie Gerritsen, V., Palagi, P.M., Marek, D., Xenarios, I., Schwede, T., Michielin, O. and Zoete, V. (2017). Drug Design Workshop: A Web-based educational tool to introduce computer-aided drug design to the general public. Journal of Chemical Education, 94(3): 335 - 344.

De Silva, O., Basketter, D.A., Barratt, M.D., Corsini, E., Cronin, M.T., Das, P.K. and Ponec, M. (1996). Alternative methods for skin sensitization testing. Atla Nottingham, 24: 683 - 706.

Dewhurst, D.G., Hardcastle, J., Hardcastle, P.T. and Stuart, E. (1994). Comparison of a computer simulation program and a traditional laboratory practical class for teaching the principles of intestinal absorption. American Journal of Physiology, 267: 95 – 104.

Guedes, I.A., de Magalhães, C.S. and Dardenne, L.E. (2014). Receptor– ligand molecular docking. Biophysical Reviews, 6: 75 - 87.

Hendriksen, C. (2007). Three Rs achievements in vaccinology. AATEX Special, pp. 14.

Hill, A.J., Teraoka, H., Heiderman, W. and Peterson, R.E. (2005). Zebrafish as a model vertebrate for investigating chemical toxicity. Toxicological Science, 86: 6 – 19.

Hume, C. and Russell, W. (1957). The strategy and tactics of experimentation. Lancet, 23: 1049 –1052.

Hunniford, V.T., Montroy, J., Fergusson, D.A., Avey, M.T., Wever, K.E., McCann, S.K., Foster, M., Fox, G., Lafreniere, M., Ghaly, M. and Mannell, S. (2021). Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of preclinical systematic reviews. PloS Biology, 19(5): e3001177.

Imam, S.S. and Gilani, S.J. (2017). Computer aided drug design: A novel loom to drug discovery. Organic and Medicinal Chemistry International Journal, 1(3): 113 - 118.

Kimber, I., Pichowski, J.S., Betts, C.J., Cumberbatch, M., Basketter, D.A. and Dearman, R.J. (2001). Alternative approaches to the identification and characterization of chemical allergens. Toxicology In-vitro, 15: 307 - 312.

Lill, M. (2013). Virtual screening in drug design. In silico models for drug discovery, humana Press, Totowa, NJ, pp.1 - 12.

Lynch, S., Pridgeon, C.S., Duckworth, C.A., Sharma, P., Park, B.K. and Goldring, C.E. (2019). Stem cell models as an in vitro model for predictive toxicology. Biochemical Journal, 476(7): 1149 - 1158.

Macalino, S.J., Gosu, V., Hong, S. and Choi, S. (2015). Role of computer-aided drug design in modern drug discovery. Archives of Pharmacal Research, 38(9): 1686 - 1701.

Mell, J.C. and Burgess, S.M. (2002). Yeast is a model genetic organism. In: Encyclopedia of Life Sciences. Mcmillan Publishers Ltd.

Nepal, M.R., Shakya, R., Kang, M.J. and Jeong, T.C. (2018). Example in the chemical method for testing skin sensitizing potential of chemicals using endogenous molecules, Toxicological Letter, 289: 75 - 85.

OECD. (1994). OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals. OECD.

Raetz, C.R.H. and Whitfield, C. (2002). Lipopolysaccharide endotoxins. Annual Review of Biochemistry, 71: 635 – 700.

Ranganatha, N. and Kuppast, I.J. (2012). A review of alternatives to animal testing methods in drug development. International Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Science, 4: 28 –32.

Repetto, G., Del Peso, A. and Zurita, J.L. (2008). Neutral red uptake assay for the estimation of cell viability/ cytotoxicity. Nature Protocols, 3(7): 1125 - 1131.

Rollin, B.E. (2003). Toxicology and new social ethics for animals.

Rudbach, J.A., Akiya, F.I., Elin, R.J., Hochstein, H.D., Luoma, M.K., Milner, C.B., Milner, K.C. and Thomas, K.R. (1976). Preparation and properties of a national reference endotoxin. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 3(10): 21 – 25.

Russell, W.M.S. and Burch, R.L. (1959). The principles of humane experimental technique, London, UK.

Sandle, T. (2013). Sterility, sterilization and sterility assurance for pharmaceuticals: technology, validation, and current regulations. Cambridge: Wood head Publishing, pp. 171 – 188.

Shay, J.W. and Wright, W.E. (2000). The use of telomerase cells for tissue engineering. Nature Biotechnology, 18: 22 - 23.

Steinhoff, G., Stock, U., Karim, N., Mertschin, H., Timke, A., Meliss, R.R. and Bader, A. (2000). Tissue engineering of pulmonary heart valves on allogenica cellular matrix conduits in vivo restoration of valve tissue. Circulation, 102: 50 - 55.

Stobbe, J.L., Drake, K.D. and Maier, K.J. (2003). Comparison of in vivo (Draize method) and in vitro (Corrositex assay) dermal corrosion values for selected industrial chemicals. International Journal of Toxicology, 22(2): 99 - 107.

Syama, S. and Mohanan, P.V. (2021). Microfluidic based human-on-a-chip: A scientific research. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 110: 711 - 728.

Vijay, U., Gupta, S., Mathur, P., Suravajhala, P. and Bhatnagar, P. (2018). Microbial mutagenicity assay: Ames test. Bioprotocol, 8(6): e2763 - e2763.

Wilson-Sanders, S.E. (2011). Invertebrate models for biomedical research, testing, and education. ILAR Journal, 52: 126 - 152.

Xiang, M., Cao, Y., Fan, W., Chen, L. and Mo, Y. (2012). Computer-aided drug design: lead discovery and optimization. Combinatorial chemistry and high throughput screening, 15(4): 328 - 337.

Zurlo, J., Rudacille, D. and Goldberg, A.M. (1996). The three Rs: the way forward. Environmental Health Perspectives, 104: 878.