Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T11:40:53.024Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Fish embryos as alternative models for drug safety evaluation

from II - INTEGRATED APPROACHES OF PREDICTIVE TOXICOLOGY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 December 2010

Jinghai J. Xu
Affiliation:
Merck Research Laboratory, New Jersey
Laszlo Urban
Affiliation:
Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research, Massachusetts
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Approval of new medicinal products requires demonstration of their efficacy and safety. Therefore, development of new drugs is processed in distinct phases including basic research, lead discovery/development, preclinical testing, and final clinical trials. Drug safety is initially evaluated preclinically in laboratory animals (rodents and other mammals). Preclinical safety data are then submitted to appropriate authorities such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) for the approval of subsequent clinical trials in human subjects. Clinical trials are performed in three phases in human patients with increasing number of volunteers starting with 20 to 80 healthy volunteers in phase I and ending with about 200 to 2,000 people in phase III to demonstrate that the drug offers significant clinical benefit. In these studies only part of the patients receive the new drug, the remainder are treated with a placebo or comparator.

Due to the thorough preclinical and clinical trial phases development of new drugs has become a lengthy (10–15 years) and expensive process. From the early identification of lead compounds to preclinical and clinical trials expenditures of $0.5 to 2 billion are estimated (see References 3, 4, 5, and references therein). Although the actual cost estimates for new drugs may be inflated in some calculations and only valid for compounds with new molecular entities, all estimates demonstrate the enormous investments associated with the development of a new drug.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Li, AP. Accurate prediction of human drug toxicity: A major challenge in drug development. Chem Biol Interact. 2004;150(1):3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greener, M. Drug safety on trial – Last year's withdrawal of the anti-arthritis drug Vioxx triggered a debate about how to better monitor drug safety even after approval. Embo Rep. 2005;6(3):202–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DiMasi, J, Hansen, R, Grabowski, H. The price of innovation: New estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ. 2003;22(2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, CP, Brantner, VV. Estimating the cost of new drug development: Is it really $802 million?Health Affairs. 2006;25(2):420–428.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
,FDA. Challenge and opportunity on the critical path to new medicinal products. Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov. 2004.
Light, DW, Warburton, RN. Setting the record straight in the reply by DiMasi, Hansen and Grabowski. J Health Econ. 2005;24(5):1045–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riggs, TL. Research and development costs for drugs. Lancet. 2004;363(9404): 184–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, JA. Designing safe drugs: what to consider?Expert Opin Drug Discov. 2008;3(7):707–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuster, D, Laggner, C, Langer, T. Why drugs fail – A study on side effects in new chemical entities. Curr Pharma Design. 2005;11(27):3545–3559.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woosley, RL, Rice, G. A new system for moving drugs to market. Issues Sci Technol. 2005;21(2):63–68.Google Scholar
,Commission of the European Communities. Fifth Report on the Statistics on the Number of Animals used for Experimental and other Scientific Purposes in the Member States of the European Union {SEC(2007)1455}. 2007.
Knight, A. Non-animal methodologies within biomedical research and toxicity testing. ALTEX Alternat Tierexp. 2008;25(3):213–231.Google ScholarPubMed
Taylor, K, Gordon, N, Langley, G, et al. Estimates for worldwide laboratory animal use in 2005. Altern Lab Anim. 2008;36(3):327–342.Google ScholarPubMed
Fieldent, MR, Kolaja, KL. The role of early in vivo toxicity testing in drug discovery toxicology. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2008;7(2):107–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amir-Aslani, A. Toxicogenomic predictive modeling: Emerging opportunities for more efficient drug discovery and development. Technol Forecast Social Change. 2008;75(7):905–932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunnarsson, L, Jauhiainen, A, Kristiansson, E, et al. Evolutionary conservation of human drug targets in organisms used for environmental risk assessments. Environ Sci Technol. 2008;42(15):5807–5813.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chakraborty, C, Hsu, CH, Wen, ZH, et al. Zebrafish: A complete animal model for in vivo drug discovery and development. Curr Drug Metab. 2009;10(2): 116–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Redfern, WS, Waldron, G, Winter, MJ, et al. Zebrafish assays as early safety pharmacology screens: Paradigm shift or red herring?J Pharmacol Toxicol Method. 2008;58(2):110–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zon, LI, Peterson, RT. In vivo drug discovery in the zebrafish. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2005;4(1):35–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eimon, PM, Rubinstein, AL. The use of in vivo zebrafish assays in drug toxicity screening. Expert Opin Drug Metabol Toxicol. 2009;5(4):393–401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wittbrodt, J, Shima, A, Schartl, M. Medaka – A model organism from the far East. Nat Rev Genet. 2002;3(1):53–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shima, A, Mitani, H. Medaka as a research organism: Past, present and future. Mech Dev. 2004;121(7–8):599–604.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yamamoto, T-O. Medaka (Killifish): Biology and Strains. Tokyo: Keigaku Publishing Company; 1975.Google Scholar
Westerfield, M. The Zebrafish Book. A Guide for the Laboratory Use of Zebrafish (Danio rerio). 4 ed. Eugene: University of Oregon Press; 2000.Google Scholar
Coverdale, , Lean, D, Martin, CC. Not just a fishing trip – Environmental genomics using zebrafish. Curr Genom. 2004;5(5):395–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, AJ, Teraoka, H, Heideman, W, et al. Zebrafish as a model vertebrate for investigating chemical toxicity. Toxicol Sci. 2005;86(1):6–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eaton, RC, Farley, RD. Spawning cycle and egg production of zebrafish, Brachydanio rerio, in the laboratory. Copeia. 1974;1(1):195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nanda, I, Kondo, M, Hornung, U, et al. A duplicated copy of DMRT1 in the sex-determining region of the Y chromosome of the medaka, Oryzias latipes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2002;22(18):11778–11783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, A. Zebrafish as an alternative model organism for disease modelling and drug discovery: Implications for the 3Rs. NC3Rs, Iss. 10, National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in research. Retrieved from www.nc3rs.org.uk. 2007:1–7.
Urho, L. Characters of larvae – what are they. Folia Zool. 2002;51(3):161–186.Google Scholar
,EFSA. Opinion on the “Aspects of the biology and welfare of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes”. EFSA J. 2005;292:1–46.Google Scholar
,Anonymous. Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. London: HMSO; 1986.Google Scholar
Nagel, R. DarT: The embryotest with the zebrafish Danio rerio – A general model in ecotoxicology and toxicology. ALTEX Alternat Tierexp. 2002;19(Suppl 1/02): 38–48.Google ScholarPubMed
Braunbeck, T, Boettcher, M, Hollert, H, et al. Towards an alternative for the acute fish LC(50) test in chemical assessment: The fish embryo toxicity test goes multi-species – An update. ALTEX. 2005;22(2):87–102.Google Scholar
Lammer, E, Carr, GJ, Wendler, K, et al. Is the fish embryo toxicity test (FET) with the zebrafish (Danio rerio) a potential alternative for the fish acute toxicity test?Comp Biochem Physiol Part C: Toxicol Pharmacol. 2009;149(2):196–209.Google ScholarPubMed
Parng, C, Seng, WL, Semino, C, et al. Zebrafish: A preclinical model for drug screening. Assay Drug Devel Technol. 2002;1(1):41–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schirmer, K, Tanneberger, K, Kramer, N, et al. Developing a list of reference chemicals for testing alternatives to whole fish toxicity tests. Aquat Toxicol. 2008;90(2):128–137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heiden, TCK, Dengler, E, Kao, WJ, et al. Developmental toxicity of low generation PAMAM dendrimers in zebrafish. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2007;225(1):70–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robinson, S, Delongeas, J-L, Donald, E, et al. A European pharmaceutical company initiative challenging the regulatory requirement for acute toxicity studies in pharmaceutical drug development. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2008;50(3):345–352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
,FDA. International Conference on Harmonisation; Guidance on the Duration of Chronic Toxicity Testing in Animals (Rodent and Nonrodent Toxicity Testing). Notice. Fed Reg. 1999;64:34259–34260.Google Scholar
Weil, M, Sacher, F, Scholz, S, et al. Gene expression analysis in zebrafish embryos: A potential approach to predict effect concentrations in the fish early life stage test. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2009;28(9):1970–1978.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scholz, S, Fischer, S, Gündel, U, et al. The zebrafish embryo model in environmental risk assessment – Applications beyond acute toxicity testing. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2008;15:394–404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
,ICH. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use: Guidance for Industry S2B Genotoxicity: A Standard Battery for Genotoxicity Testing of Pharmaceuticals. Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov. 1997.
Lorge, E, Gervais, V, Becourt-Lhote, N, et al. Genetic toxicity assessment: Employing the best science for human safety evaluation. Part IV: A strategy in genotoxicity testing in drug development: Some examples. Toxicol Sci. 2007;98(1):39–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kosmehl, T, Krebs, F, Manz, W, et al. Differentiation between bioavailable and total hazard potential of sediment-induced DNA fragmentation as measured by the comet assay with zebrafish embryos. Journal of Soils and Sediments. 2007;7(6): 377–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kosmehl, T, Hallare, AV, Reifferscheid, G, et al. A novel contact assay for testing genotoxicity of chemicals and whole sediments in zebrafish embryos. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2006;25(8):2097–2106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Amanuma, K, Takeda, H, Amanuma, H, et al. Transgenic zebrafish for detecting mutations caused by compounds in aquatic environments. Nat Biotechnol. 2000;18(1):62–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McElroy, AE, Bogler, A, Weisbaum, D, et al. Uptake, metabolism, mutant frequencies and mutational spectra in [lambda] transgenic medaka embryos exposed to benzo[[alpha]]pyrene dosed sediments. Mar Environ Res. 2006;62(Suppl. 1):S273–S277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winn, RN, Norris, MB, Brayer, KJ, et al. Detection of mutations in transgenic fish carrying a bacteriophage lambda cII transgene target. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2000;97(23):12655–12660.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stephens, TD, Bunde, CJW, Fillmore, BJ. Mechanism of action in thalidomide teratogenesis. Biochem Pharmacol. 2000;59(12):1489–1499.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
,OECD 414. OECD guideline for testing of chemicals. Test No. 414: Prenatal Developmental Toxicity Study. Available at www.oecd.org. 2000.
,OECD 421. OECD guideline for testing of chemicals. Test No. 421: Reproduction/Developmental Toxicity Screening Test. Available at www.oecd.org. 2000.
Bailey, J, Knight, A, Balcombe, J. The future of teratology research is in vitro. Biogen Amines. 2005;19(2):97–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spielmann, H, Seiler, A, Bremer, S, et al. The practical application of three validated in vitro embryotoxicity tests – The Report and Recommendations of an ECVAM/ZEBET Workshop (ECVAM Workshop 57). ATLA. 2006;34(5):527–538.Google Scholar
Jensen, GE, Niemelä, JR, Wedebye, EB, Nikolov, NG. QSAR models for reproductive toxicity and endocrine disruption in regulatory use – a preliminary investigation. SAR and QSAR in Environmental Research. 2008;19(7):631–641.
Klopman, G, Dimayuga, ML. Computer Automated Structure Evaluation (CASE) of the teratogenicity of retinoids with the aid of a novel geometry index. Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design. 1990;4(2):117–130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vijay, KG, Borgstedt, H, Enslein, K et al. A QSAR Model of Teratogenesis. Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships. 1991;10(4):306–332.Google Scholar
Langheinrich, U. Zebrafish: A new model on the pharmaceutical catwalk. BioEssays. 2003;25(9):904–912.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bachmann, J. Entwicklung und Erprobung eines Teratogenitäts-Screening-Testes mit Embryonen des Zebrabärblings Danio rerio [doctoral thesis], TU Dresden; 2002.Google Scholar
DarT, Nagel R.. The embryotest with the zebrafish Danio rerio – a general model in ecotoxicology and toxicology. ALTEX Alternativen zu Tierexperimenten. 2002;19 (Suppl 1/02):38–48.Google Scholar
Ito, T, Ando, H, Suzuki, T, et al. Identification of a Primary Target of Thalidomide Teratogenicity. Science. 2010;327(5971):1345–1350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stigson, M, Kultima, K, Jergil, M, et al. Molecular targets and early response biomarkers for the prediction of developmental toxicity in vitro. Altern Lab Anim. 2007;35(3):335–342.Google ScholarPubMed
Busquet, F, Nagel, R, Landenberg, F, et al. Development of a new screening assay to identify proteratogenic substances using zebrafish Danio rerio embryo combined with an exogenous mammalian metabolic activation system (mDarT). Toxicol Sci. 2008;104(1):177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwamatsu, T. Stages of normal development in the medaka Oryzias latipes. Mech Devel. 2004;121(7–8):605–618.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berman, DM, Karhadkar, SS, Hallahan, AR, et al. Medulloblastoma growth inhibition by hedgehog pathway blockade. Science. 2002;297(5586):1559–1561.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, JK, Taipale, J, Young, KE, et al. Small molecule modulation of smoothened activity. PNAS. 2002;99(22):14071–14076.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Incardona, J, Gaffield, W, Kapur, R, et al. The teratogenic Veratrum alkaloid cyclopamine inhibits sonic hedgehog signal transduction. Development. 1998;125(18):3553–3562.Google ScholarPubMed
Ferrari, S, Yanega, R. Effect of cyclopamine on medaka (Oryzias latipes) embryos. Course Experiment, Developmental Biology, Franklin & Marshall College. Retrieved from http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/sgilber1/DB_lab/Student/Medaka_cyclo.html. 2000.
Büttner, A, Seifert, K, Cottin, T, et al. Synthesis and biological evaluation of SANT-2 and analogues as inhibitors of the hedgehog signaling pathway. Bioorg Med Chem. 2009;17(14):4943–4954.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yap, YG, Camm, AJ. Drug induced QT prolongation and torsades de pointes. Heart. 2003;89(11):1363–1372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
,EMEA. ICH Topic S7B: The nonclinical evaluation of the potential for delayed ventricular repolarization (QT interval prolongation) by human pharmaceuticals. Retrieved from http://www.emea.europe.eu. 2005.
Kimmel, CB, Ballard, WW, Kimmel, SR, et al. Stages of embryonic development of the zebrafish. Developmental Dynamics. 1995;203(3):253–310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chan, PK, Lin, CC, Cheng, SH. Noninvasive technique for measurement of heartbeat regularity in zebrafish (Danio rerio) embryos. BMC Biotechnol. 2009;9:11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Senior, JR. Drug Hepatotoxicity from a Regulatory Perspective. Clinics in Liver Disease. 2007;11(3):507–524.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
,FDA. Nonclinical assessment of potential hepatotoxicity in man. Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov. 2000.
McGrath, P, Li, C-Q. Zebrafish: A predictive model for assessing drug-induced toxicity. Drug Discov Today. 2008;13(9–10):394–401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vanparys, P, Spanhaak, S, Steemans, M, et al. Larvae of the zebrafish as test organism for hepatotoxicity testing. EPAA (The European partnership for alternative approaches to animal testing) 2007 Annual Conference. Poster. Retrieved from http://ec.europe.eu. 2007.
Foster, WR, Chen, S-J, He, A, et al. A retrospective analysis of toxicogenomics in the safety assessment of drug candidates. Toxicol Pathol. 2007;35(5):621–635.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
,FDA. Memorandum of understanding between the United States Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging, Laboratory of Neurosciences and the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. MOU number: 225–94–3001. Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov. 1994.
Richards, FM, Alderton, WK, Kimber, GM, et al. Validation of the use of zebrafish larvae in visual safety assessment. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods. 2008;58:50–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berghmans, S, Butler, P, Goldsmith, P, et al. Zebrafish based assays for the assessment of cardiac, visual and gut function – Potential safety screens for early drug discovery. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods. 2008;58:59–68.CrossRef
Ton, C, Parng, C. The use of zebrafish for assessing ototoxic and otoprotective agents. Hearing Res. 2005;208(1–2):79–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chiu, L, Cunningham, L, Raible, D, et al. Using the zebrafish lateral line to screen for ototoxicity. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2008;9(2):178–190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winter, MJ, Redfern, WS, Hayfield, AJ, et al. Validation of a larval zebrafish locomotor assay for assessing the seizure liability of early-stage development drugs. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods. 2008;57(3):176–187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giacomini, NJ, Rose, B, Kobayashi, K, et al. Antipsychotics produce locomotor impairment in larval zebrafish. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2006;28(2):245–250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milan, DJ, Peterson, TA, Ruskin, JN, et al. Drugs that induce repolarization abnormalities cause bradycardia in zebrafish. Circulation. 2003;107(10):1355–1358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Langheinrich, U, Vacun, G, Wagner, T. Zebrafish embryos express an orthologue of HERG and are sensitive toward a range of QT-prolonging drugs inducing severe arrhythmia[star, open]. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2003;193(3):370–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mittelstadt, SW, Hemenway, CL, Craig, MP, et al. Evaluation of zebrafish embryos as a model for assessing inhibition of hERG. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods. 2008;57(2):100–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hentschel, DM, Park, KM, Cilenti, L, et al. Acute renal failure in zebrafish: A novel system to study a complex disease. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2005;288(5):F923–929.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herbomel, P, Thisse, B, Thisse, C. Ontogeny and behaviour of early macrophages in the zebrafish embryo. Development. 1999;126(17):3735–3745.Google ScholarPubMed
Sar, AM, Appelmelk, BJ, Vandenbroucke-Grauls, CM, et al. A star with stripes: Zebrafish as an infection model. Trends Microbiol. 2004;12(10):451–457.Google ScholarPubMed
Pressley, ME, Phelan, PE, Witten, PE, et al. Pathogenesis and inflammatory response to Edwardsiella tarda infection in the zebrafish. Dev Comp Immunol. 2005;29(6):501–513.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watzke, J, Schirmer, K, Scholz, S. Bacterial lipopolysaccharides induce genes involved in the innate immune response in embryos of the zebrafish (Danio rerio). Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2007;23:901–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alder, AC, Bruchet, A, Carballa, M, et al. Consumption and occurrence. In: Ternes, T, ed. Human Pharmaceuticals, Hormones and Fragrances: The Challenge of Micropollutants in Urban Water Management. London: IWA Publ.; 2006:15–54.Google Scholar
Heberer, T. Occurrence, fate, and removal of pharmaceutical residues in the aquatic environment: a review of recent research data. Toxicol Lett. 2002;131(1–2):5–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fent, K. Effects of pharmaceuticals on aquatic organisms. In: Kümmer, K, ed. Pharmaceuticals in the Environment – Sources, Fate, Effects and Risks. Berlin: Springer; 2008:175–203.Google Scholar
Sumpter, JP. Environmental effects of human pharmaceuticals. Drug Inf J. 2007;41(2):143–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, OAH, Voulvoulis, N, Lester, JN. Aquatic environmental assessment of the top 25 English prescription pharmaceuticals. Water Res. 2002;36(20):5013–5022.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zwiener, C, Glauner, T, Frimmel, FH.Biodegradation of pharmaceutical residues investigated by SPE- GC/ITD-MS and on-line derivatization. Hrc-J High Res Chromat. 2000;23(7–8):474–478.3.0.CO;2-B>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,EMEA/CHMP. Guideline on the environmental risk assessment of medicinal products for human use. EMEA/CHMP/SWP/4447/00; 2006.
,FDA. Guidance for industry – environmental assessment of human drug and biologics applications. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, CMC6, revision 1. 1998.
Scholz, S, Schirmer, K, Altenburger, R. Pharmaceutical contaminants in urban water cycles – A discussion of novel concepts for environmental risk assessment. In: Kassinos, F, Bester, K, Kümmerer, K, eds. Xenobiotics in the Urban Water Cycle: Mass Flows, Environmental Processes and Mitigation Strategies. Vol 16. Heidelberg: Springer; 2010.Google Scholar
,OECD 210. OECD guideline for testing of chemicals. Test No. 210: Fish, early life stage toxicity test. 1992.
Renshaw, SA, Loynes, CA, Trushell, DM, et al. A transgenic zebrafish model of neutrophilic inflammation. Blood. 2006;108(13):3976–3978.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burns, CG, Milan, DJ, Grande, EJ, et al. High-throughput assay for small molecules that modulate zebrafish embryonic heart rate. Nat Chem Biol. 2005;1(5):263–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MJr, Carvan, Dalton, TP, Stuart, GW, et al. Transgenic zebrafish as sentinels for aquatic pollution. Ann N Y Acad Sci USA. 2000;919:133–147.Google Scholar
Russell, W, Burch, R. The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. London: Methuen; 1959.Google Scholar
Yang, L, Kemadjou, J, Zinsmeister, C, et al. Transcriptional profiling reveals barcode-like toxicogenomic responses in the zebrafish embryo. Genome Biol. 2007;8(10):R227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garner, RC. Less is more: the human microdosing concept. Drug Discov Today. 2005;10(7):449–451.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×