Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Validation of Alternative Methods for Toxicity Testing

Part of the book series: Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology ((AEMB,volume 856))

Abstract

In this chapter, we explain how Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment (IATA) offer a means of integrating and translating the data generated by toxicity testing methods, thereby serving as flexible and suitable tools for toxicological decision making in the twenty-first century. In addition to traditional in vitro and in vivo testing methods, IATA are increasingly incorporating newly developed in vitro systems and measurement technologies such as high throughput screening and high content imaging. Computational approaches are also being used in IATA development, both as a means of generating data (e.g. QSARs), interpreting data (bioinformatics and chemoinformatics), and as a means of integrating multiple sources of data (e.g. expert systems, bayesian models). Decision analytic methods derived from socioeconomic theory can also play a role in developing flexible and optimal IATA solutions. Some of the challenges involved in the development, validation and implementation of IATA are also discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahlers J, Stock F, Werschkun B (2008) Integrated testing and intelligent assessment-new challenges under REACH. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 15:565–572

    Google Scholar 

  • Aptula AO, Roberts DW (2006) Mechanistic applicability domains for nonanimal-based prediction of toxicological end points: general principles and application to reactive toxicity. Chem Res Toxicol 19:1097–1105

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Aptula AO, Patlewicz G, Roberts DW, Schultz TW (2006) Non-enzymatic glutathione reactivity and in vitro toxicity: a non-animal approach to skin sensitization. Toxicol In Vitro 20:239–247

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Becker RA, Simon T, Patlewicz G, Kennedy SW, Farhat A, Budinsky R (2014) Improving the development of adverse outcome pathways: lessons learned from the AhR Rodent Liver Tumor and AhR Avian Teratogenicity/Embryolethality AOPs. Presented at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Society of Toxicology, 23–27 March, 2014

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharya S, Shoda LKM, Zhang Q et al (2012) Modeling drug- and chemical-induced hepatotoxicity with systems biology approaches. Front Physiol 3:462

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Blaauboer BJ (2010) Biokinetic modeling and in vitro-in vivo extrapolations. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev 13:242–252

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blaauboer BJ, Balls M, Bianchi V et al (1994) The ECITTS integrated toxicity testing scheme: the application of in vitro test systems to the hazard assessment of chemicals. Toxicol In Vitro 8:845–856

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blaauboer B, Barratt MD, Houston JB (1999) The integrated use of alternative methods in toxicological risk evaluation. ECVAM integrated test strategies task force report 1. Altern Lab Anim 27:229–237

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buist H, Aldenberg T, Batke M et al (2013) The OSIRIS Weight of Evidence approach: ITS mutagenicity and ITS carcinogenicity. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 67:170–181

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clemedson C, Kolman A, Forsby A (2007) The Integrated Acute Systemic Toxicity project (ACuteTox) for the optimisation and validation of alternative in vitro tests. Altern Lab Anim 35:33–38

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Council of Canadian Academies (2012) Integrating emerging technologies into chemical safety assessment. http://www.scienceadvice.ca/en/assessments/completed/pesticides.aspx

  • Cox LA, Douglas D, Marty S, Rowlands JC, Patlewicz G, Goyak KO, Becker RA (2014) Developing scientific in HTS-derived prediction models for endocrine endpoints: lessons learned from an endocrine case study. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 69:443–450

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cramer GM, Ford RA, Hall RL (1978) Estimation of toxic hazard—a decision tree approach. Food Cosmet Toxicol 16:255–276

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dejongh J, Forsby A, Houston JB et al (1999) An Integrated Approach to the Prediction of Systemic Toxicity using Computer-based Biokinetic Models and Biological In vitro Test Methods: Overview of a Prevalidation Study Based on the ECITTS Project. Toxicol In Vitro 13:549–554

    Google Scholar 

  • De Wever B, Fuchs HW, Gaca M et al (2012) Implementation challenges for designing integrated in vitro testing strategies (ITS) aiming at reducing and replacing animal experimentation. Toxicol In Vitro 26:526–534

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dewhurst I, Renwick AG (2013) Evaluation of the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC)—challenges and approaches. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 65:168–177

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • ECHA (2012) Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment. Chapter R.7a: Endpoint specific guidance. In: Guidance for the implementation of REACH. Version 2.0. November 2012. http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13632/information_requirements_r7a_en.pdf

  • EFSA (2012) Scientific Opinion on exploring options for providing advice about possible human health risks based on the concept of Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC). EFSA J 10(7):2750, European Food Safety Authority. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/2750.pdf

  • Emter R, Ellis G, Natsch A (2010) Performance of a novel keratinocyte-based reporter cell line to screen skin sensitisers in vitro. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 245:281–290

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gabbert S, van Ierland EC (2010) Cost-effectiveness analysis of chemical testing for decision-support: how to include animal welfare? Hum Ecol Risk Assess 16(3):603–620

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gabbert S, Weikard H-P (2013) Sequential testing of chemicals when costs matter: a value of information approach. Hum Ecol Risk Assess An Int J 19:1067–1088

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gajewska M, Worth A, Urani C, Briesen H, Schramm K-W (2014) Application of physiologically-based toxicokinetic modelling in oral-to-dermal extrapolation of threshold doses of cosmetic ingredients. Toxicol Lett 227:189–202

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gerberick GF, Vassallo JD, Bailey RE et al (2004) Development of a peptide reactivity assay for screening contact allergens. Toxicol Sci 81:332–343

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gerberick GF, Vassallo JD, Foertsch LM et al (2007) Quantification of chemical peptide reactivity for screening contact allergens: a classification tree model approach. Toxicol Sci 97:417–427

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grindon C, Combes R, Cronin MTD et al (2008) Integrated testing strategies for use with respect to the requirements of the EU REACH legislation. Altern Lab Anim 36(Suppl 1):7–27

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hartung T, Luechtefeld T, Maertens A, Kleensang A (2013) Integrated testing strategies for safety assessments. ALTEX 30:3–18

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hennes EC (2012) An overview of values for the threshold of toxicological concern. Toxicol Lett 211:296–303

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann S, Kinsner-Ovaskainen A, Prieto P et al (2010) Acute oral toxicity: variability, reliability, relevance and interspecies comparison of rodent LD50 data from literature surveyed for the ACuteTox project. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 58:395–407

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • IOM (2010) Evaluation of biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in chronic disease. Institute of Medicine, Washington, DC. ISBN 978-0-309-15129-0

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaworska J, Hoffmann S (2010) Integrated Testing Strategy (ITS)—Opportunities to better use existing data and guide future testing in toxicology. ALTEX 27:231–242

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jaworska J, Gabbert S, Aldenberg T (2010) Towards optimization of chemical testing under REACH: a Bayesian network approach to Integrated Testing Strategies. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 57:157–167

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jaworska J, Dancik Y, Kern P et al (2013) Bayesian integrated testing strategy to assess skin sensitization potency: from theory to practice. J Appl Toxicol 33:1353–1364

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kalkhof H, Herzler M, Stahlmann R, Gundert-Remy U (2012) Threshold of toxicological concern values for non-genotoxic effects in industrial chemicals: re-evaluation of the Cramer classification. Arch Toxicol 86:17–25

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kinsner-Ovaskainen A, Akkan Z, Casati S et al (2009) Overcoming barriers to validation of non-animal partial replacement methods/Integrated Testing Strategies: the report of an EPAA-ECVAM workshop. Altern Lab Anim 37:437–444

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinsner-Ovaskainen A, Maxwell G, Kreysa J et al (2012) Report of the EPAA-ECVAM workshop on the validation of Integrated Testing Strategies (ITS). Altern Lab Anim 40:175–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Lapenna S, Worth A (2011) Analysis of the Cramer classification scheme for oral systemic toxicity—implications for its implementation in Toxtree. JRC Scientific and Technical Report EUR 24898 EN. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/

  • Marx-Stoelting P et al (2009) A review of the implementation of the embryonic stem cell test (EST). The report and recommendations of an ECVAM_ReProTect Workshop. Altern Lab Anim 37:313–328

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell G, MacKay C, Cubberley R et al (2014) Applying the skin sensitisation adverse outcome pathway (AOP) to quantitative risk assessment. Toxicol In Vitro 28:8–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Meek ME, Boobis A, Cote I et al (2014) New developments in the evolution and application of the WHO/IPCS framework on mode of action/species concordance analysis. J Appl Toxicol 34:1–18

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Munro IC, Ford RA, Kennepohl E, Sprenger JG (1996) Correlation of structural class with no-observed-effect levels: a proposal for establishing a threshold of concern. Food Chem Toxicol 34:829–867

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Norlen H, Worth AP, Gabbert S (2014) A tutorial for analysing the cost-effectiveness of alternative methods for assessing chemical toxicity: the case of acute oral toxicity prediction. Altern Lab Anim 42:115–127

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nukada Y, Miyazawa M, Kazutoshi S et al (2013) Data integration of non-animal tests for the development of a test battery to predict the skin sensitizing potential and potency of chemicals. Toxicol In Vitro 27:609–6188

    Google Scholar 

  • Nel AE, Nasser E, Godwin H et al (2013) A multi-stakeholder perspective on the use of alternative test strategies for nanomaterial safety assessment. ACS Nano. 7:6422–6433

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC (2007) Toxicity testing in the 21st century: a vision and a strategy. National Academic Press, Washington, DC. http://www.nap.edu/read/11970/chapter/1

  • OECD (2002) Test No. 404: Acute Dermal Irritation/Corrosion, OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4. http://www.oecd.org/env/testguidelines

  • OECD (2007) Guidance document on the validation of (Quantitative) structure-activity relationships [(Q)SAR] models. ENV/JM/MONO(2007)2. http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/displaydocumentpdf?cote=env/jm/mono(2007)2&doclanguage=en

  • OECD (2012) The adverse outcome pathway for skin sensitisation initiated by covalent binding to proteins part 1: scientific evidence. Series on Testing and Assessment No. 168. ENV/JM/MONO(2012)10/PART1. http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/testing/seriesontestingandassessmentpublicationsbynumber.htm

  • OECD (2013) Guidance document on developing and assessing adverse outcome pathways. OECD Environment, Health and Safety Publications. Series on Testing and Assessment No. 184. ENV/JM/MONO(2013)6. http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/testing/seriesontestingandassessmentpublicationsbynumber.htm

  • OECD (2014a) Guidance document for describing non-guideline in vitro test methods. Series on Testing and Assessment no.211. ENV/JM/MONO(2014)35. http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/testing/seriesontestingandassessmentpublicationsbynumber.htm

  • OECD (2014b) How to use the Toolbox AOP workflow for Skin Sensitization. http://www.oecd.org/env/ehs/risk-assessment/Tutorial_1_How%20to%20use%20AOP%20for%20Skin%20sensitization_F_28012014.pdf

  • OECD (2015a) Report of the workshop on a Framework for the development and use of Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment. ENV/JM/HA(2015)1

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2015b) Test Guideline 442c: in chemico skin sensitisation (Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay DPRA). http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/testing/oecdguidelinesforthetestingofchemicals.htm

  • OECD (2015c) Test Guideline 442d: in vitro skin sensitisation (ARE-Nrf2 luciferase test method). http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/testing/oecdguidelinesforthetestingofchemicals.htm

  • OECD (2016) Guidance Document on the Reporting of Defined Approaches to be used within Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment. ENV/JM/HA(2016)10

    Google Scholar 

  • Oomen AG, Bos PMJ, Fernandes TF et al (2014) Concern-driven integrated approaches to nanomaterial testing and assessment-report of the NanoSafety Cluster Working Group 10. Nanotoxicology 8:334–348

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Patlewicz G, Simon T, Goyak K et al (2013) Use and validation of HT/HC assays to support 21st century toxicity evaluations. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 65:259–268

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Patlewicz G, Kuseva C, Kesova A, Popova I, Zhechev T, Pavlov T, Roberts DW, Mekenyan OM (2014) Towards AOP application—implementation of an integrated approach to testing and assessment (IATA) into a pipeline tool for skin sensitization. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 69:529–545

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Patlewicz G, Simon TW, Rowlands JC, Budinsky RA, Becker RA (2015) Proposing a scientific confidence framework to help support the application of adverse outcome pathways for regulatory purposes. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 71:463–477

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Piersma AH, Bosgra S, van Duursen MBM et al (2013) Evaluation of an alternative in vitro test battery for detecting reproductive toxicants. Reprod Toxicol 38:53–64

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Python F, Goebel C, Aeby P (2007) Assessment of the U937 cell line for the detection of contact allergens. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 220(2):113–124

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reif DM, Martin MT, Tan SW et al (2010) Endocrine profiling and prioritization of environmental chemicals using ToxCast data. Environ Health Perspect 118:1714–1720

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts DW, Patlewicz G (2009) Chemistry based non-animal predictive modeling for skin sensitization. In: Devillers J (ed) Ecotoxicology modeling. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 61–83

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts DW, Patlewicz GY (2014) Integrated testing and assessment approaches for skin sensitization: a commentary. J Appl Toxicol 34(4):436–440

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts DW, Aptula AO, Patlewicz G, Pease C (2008) Chemical reactivity indices and mechanism-based read-across for non-animal based assessment of skin sensitisation potential. J Appl Toxicol 28:443–454

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rorije E, Aldenberg T, Buist H et al (2013) The OSIRIS Weight of Evidence approach: ITS for skin sensitisation. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 67:146–156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rotroff DM, Dix DJ, Houck KA, Knudsen TB, Martin MT, McLaurin KW, Reif DM, Crofton KM, Singh AV, Xia M, Huang R, Judson RS (2013) Using in vitro high throughput screening assays to identify potential endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Environ Health Perspect 121:7–14

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rovida C, Roggen EL (2007) Management of an Integrated Project (Sens-it-iv) to develop in vitro tests to assess sensitisation. Altern Lab Anim 35:317–322

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rowbotham AL, Gibson RM (2011) Exposure-driven risk assessment: applying exposure-based waiving of toxicity tests under REACH. Food Chem Toxicol 49:1661–1673

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sakaguchi H, Ashikaga T, Kosaka N, Sono S, Nishiyama N, Itagaki H (2007) The in vitro skin sensitization test; human cell line activation test (h-CLAT) using THP-1 cells. Toxicol Letts 172:S93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaafsma G, Kroese ED, Tielemans EL et al (2009) REACH, non-testing approaches and the urgent need for a change in mind set. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 53:70–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz TW, Yarbrough JW, Johnson EL (2005) Structure-activity relationships for reactivity of carbonyl-containing compounds with glutathione. SAR QSAR Environ Res 16:313–322

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stone V, Pozzi-Mucelli S, Tran L et al (2014) ITS-NANO—Prioritising nanosafety research to develop a stakeholder driven intelligent testing strategy. Part Fibre Toxicol 11:9

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas RS, Black MB, Li L, Healy E, Chu TM, Bao W, Andersen ME, Wolfinger RD (2012) A comprehensive statistical analysis of predicting in vivo hazard using high-throughput in vitro screening. Toxicol Sci 128:398–417

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas RS, Philbert MA, Auerbach SS et al (2013) Incorporating new technologies into toxicity testing and risk assessment: moving from 21st century vision to a data-driven framework. Toxicol Sci 136:4–18

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Tluczkiewicz I, Buist HE, Martin MT et al (2011) Improvement of the Cramer classification for oral exposure using the database TTC RepDose—a strategy description. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 61:340–350

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tluczkiewicz I, Batke M, Kroese D et al (2013) The OSIRIS Weight of Evidence approach: ITS for the endpoints repeated-dose toxicity (RepDose ITS). Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 67:157–169

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tollefsen KE, Scholz S, Cronin MT, Edwards SW, de Knecht J, Crofton K, Garcia-Reyero N, Hartung T, Worth A, Patlewicz G (2014) Applying Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOPs) to support Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment (IATA). Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 70:629–640

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations (2013) Report of the Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods and on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals on its sixth session: amendments to the fourth revised edition of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) (ST/SG/AC.10/30/Rev.4). http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/doc/2013/dgac10/ST-SG-AC10-40a3e.pdf

  • Van Leeuwen CJ, Patlewicz GY, Worth AP (2007) Intelligent testing strategies. In: van Leeuwen CJ, Vermeire TG (eds) Risk assessment of chemicals. An introduction, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 467–509

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vermeire T, van de Bovenkamp M, de Bruin YB et al (2010) Exposure-based waiving under REACH. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 58:408–420

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vermeire T, Aldenberg T, Buist H et al (2013) OSIRIS, a quest for proof of principle for integrated testing strategies of chemicals for four human health endpoints. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 67:136–145

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Willett CE, Bishop PL, Sullivan KM (2011) Application of an integrated testing strategy to the U.S. EPA endocrine disruptor screening program. Toxicol Sci 123:15–25

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Worth AP (2000) The integrated use of physicochemical and in vitro data for predicting chemical toxicity. PhD thesis, Liverpool John Moores University

    Google Scholar 

  • Worth AP (2004) The tiered approach to toxicity assessment based on the integrated use of alternative (non-animal) tests. In: Cronin MTD, Livingstone D (eds) Predicting chemical toxicity and fate. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 389–410

    Google Scholar 

  • Worth AP (2010) The role of QSAR methodology in the regulatory assessment of chemicals. In: Puzyn T, Leszczynski J, Cronin MTD (eds) Recent advances in QSAR studies: methods and applications. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 367–382

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Worth AP, Balls M (2001) The importance of the prediction model in the validation of alternative tests. Altern Lab Anim 29:135–144

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Worth AP, Cronin MT (2001) The use of bootstrap resampling to assess the variability of Draize tissue scores. Altern Lab Anim 29:557–573

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Worth AP, Fentem JH (1999) A general approach for evaluating stepwise testing strategies. Altern Lab Anim 27:161–177

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Worth AP, Fentem JH, Balls M, Botham PA, Curren RD, Earl LK, Esdaile DJ, Liebsch M (1998) An evaluation of the proposed OECD testing strategy for skin corrosion. Altern Lab Anim 26:709–720

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Rick Becker (American Chemistry Council, Washington DC, USA) for critically reviewing this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy

    Andrew P. Worth

  2. Dupont Haskell Global Centers for Health and Environmental Sciences, Newark, DE, USA

    Grace Patlewicz

  3. National Center for Computational Toxicology (NCCT), US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, USA

    Grace Patlewicz

Authors
  1. Andrew P. Worth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Grace Patlewicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew P. Worth .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. SeCAM Services & Consultation on Alternative Methods, Magliaso, Switzerland

    Chantra Eskes

  2. European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy

    Maurice Whelan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Worth, A.P., Patlewicz, G. (2016). Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment. In: Eskes, C., Whelan, M. (eds) Validation of Alternative Methods for Toxicity Testing. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, vol 856. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33826-2_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation