Martina Angela Checco , Riccardo Villa , Andrea Cacciamali , Silvia Dotti
{"title":"A replacement approach to rodent model for the toxicity evaluation of gram-positive autogenous vaccine","authors":"Martina Angela Checco , Riccardo Villa , Andrea Cacciamali , Silvia Dotti","doi":"10.1016/j.rvsc.2024.105443","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The Abnormal Toxicity Test (ATT) is an <em>in vivo</em> assay traditionally used in the autogenous vaccine release. That test, commonly applied to verify vaccine quality, is subject to ethical and practical limitations and should be removed as reference methods.</div><div>This approach is necessary to update the regulatory framework and to apply the 3Rs principle in the pharmaceutical field.</div><div>In this study, two <em>in vitro</em> cell viability assays were used to evaluate the potential toxicity of autogenous vaccines. Cells were treated with base-2 dilutions of autogenous vaccines, and viability was detected by MTT and ATP assays.</div><div>Differences and similarities between these tests were analysed. The ATP test showed good cell viability at 1:32 or 1:64 vaccine dilutions. The MTT assay gave discordant results and vaccines were not cytotoxic from the first dilutions. For this reason, a preference has been highlighted for the ATP method, a more sensitive test, capable of providing more accurate results.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":21083,"journal":{"name":"Research in veterinary science","volume":"180 ","pages":"Article 105443"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in veterinary science","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034528824003102","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The Abnormal Toxicity Test (ATT) is an in vivo assay traditionally used in the autogenous vaccine release. That test, commonly applied to verify vaccine quality, is subject to ethical and practical limitations and should be removed as reference methods.
This approach is necessary to update the regulatory framework and to apply the 3Rs principle in the pharmaceutical field.
In this study, two in vitro cell viability assays were used to evaluate the potential toxicity of autogenous vaccines. Cells were treated with base-2 dilutions of autogenous vaccines, and viability was detected by MTT and ATP assays.
Differences and similarities between these tests were analysed. The ATP test showed good cell viability at 1:32 or 1:64 vaccine dilutions. The MTT assay gave discordant results and vaccines were not cytotoxic from the first dilutions. For this reason, a preference has been highlighted for the ATP method, a more sensitive test, capable of providing more accurate results.
期刊介绍:
Research in Veterinary Science is an International multi-disciplinary journal publishing original articles, reviews and short communications of a high scientific and ethical standard in all aspects of veterinary and biomedical research.
The primary aim of the journal is to inform veterinary and biomedical scientists of significant advances in veterinary and related research through prompt publication and dissemination. Secondly, the journal aims to provide a general multi-disciplinary forum for discussion and debate of news and issues concerning veterinary science. Thirdly, to promote the dissemination of knowledge to a broader range of professions, globally.
High quality papers on all species of animals are considered, particularly those considered to be of high scientific importance and originality, and with interdisciplinary interest. The journal encourages papers providing results that have clear implications for understanding disease pathogenesis and for the development of control measures or treatments, as well as those dealing with a comparative biomedical approach, which represents a substantial improvement to animal and human health.
Studies without a robust scientific hypothesis or that are preliminary, or of weak originality, as well as negative results, are not appropriate for the journal. Furthermore, observational approaches, case studies or field reports lacking an advancement in general knowledge do not fall within the scope of the journal.