|
pubmed:abstractText |
The necessity of using animals to test whether new chemicals and products are eye irritants has been questioned with increasing frequency and fervor over the last 20 years. During this time many new nonanimal methods have been proposed as reliable alternatives to the traditional rabbit (Draize) test. To date, however, none of these nonanimal (in vitro) tests have become universally accepted as a complete replacement for the Draize test. To understand why a complete replacement has not been found, one has to first understand the reasonably complex structure of the eye, the standard Draize scoring scale--which is based on a qualitative evaluation of three different tissues--the differences between human and rabbit eyes, the intrinsic variability of the animal test, and the details of the different in vitro tests that have been proposed as replacements. The in vitro tests vary from relatively simple assays using single cells to more sophisticated assays that use discarded animal tissue or artificially constructed human tissue. It is clear that appropriately designed in vitro tests will eventually give more useful mechanistic information about ocular injury from which we can more comfortably predict the risk of human eye irritation from new products and ingredients.
|
