Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Bioassay

A bioassay is a quantitative biological procedure for estimating the concentration, potency, or activity of a physical, chemical, or biological agent by measuring and comparing the magnitude of its response in a suitable living system—such as organisms, tissues, or cells—to that of a known standard under standardized conditions.^[1]^[2] This approach relies on observable dose-response relationships, where the test material's effects must demonstrate parallelism with the standard to ensure reliable relative potency calculations.^[1] Bioassays are particularly vital when physicochemical methods fail to capture complex biological functions, as in biologics or environmental mixtures.^[2] Originating in the early 20th century with efforts to standardize antitoxins, such as Paul Ehrlich's development of assays for diphtheria treatment using animal models, bioassays addressed the need for empirical potency measurement amid inconsistent preparations.^[3] They evolved into regulatory cornerstones for pharmaceuticals, enabling lot release, stability testing, and process validation through in vivo, ex vivo, or in vitro formats.^[2] In pharmacology, bioassays quantify drug efficacy by eliciting specific responses like contraction in isolated tissues; in toxicology, they assess hazards via endpoints such as lethality or mutagenicity in models ranging from bacteria to rodents.^[1]^[4] Despite their precision in revealing causal biological effects unattainable by non-living analytics, bioassays face inherent variability from biological systems, necessitating rigorous statistical controls and validation to minimize errors like non-parallelism or matrix interference.^[2] Key methods include matching for threshold responses, interpolation for graded effects, and quantal assays for all-or-nothing outcomes, with modern adaptations incorporating high-throughput cell-based techniques to reduce animal use while preserving whole-system insights.^[1] Their defining strength lies in bridging empirical observation with causal realism, underpinning safety assessments in drug development and environmental monitoring where surrogate measures often underperform.^[2]^[4]

Definition and Principles

Core Principles

A bioassay determines the potency or concentration of a substance through its measurable effects on a biological system, such as living organisms, tissues, cells, or molecular components, where direct chemical quantification may be impractical or insufficient. This approach relies on eliciting a specific, reproducible biological response that correlates with the substance's activity, often prioritizing functional outcomes over structural analysis. For instance, the United States Pharmacopeia (USP) General Chapter <1032> emphasizes designing bioassays around a signal-generating mechanism tied to the product's intended biological function, ensuring the assay captures relevant activity rather than surrogate markers alone.^[2] Central to bioassays is the dose-response relationship, where the intensity of the biological effect increases predictably with the dose, typically yielding a sigmoidal curve when response is plotted against the logarithm of the dose. This principle enables estimation of potency by interpolating responses from test samples against a calibrated standard preparation, assuming the test substance acts via a comparable mechanism. Validity demands parallelism between the dose-response curves of the test and standard, as deviations indicate non-equivalent actions or assay artifacts; statistical tests, such as analysis of variance, confirm this alignment to derive a potency ratio with confidence intervals.^[1]^[5] Reliability in bioassays requires controlled conditions to minimize variability, including randomization of treatments, replication across multiple preparations, and incorporation of positive/negative controls to assess specificity and sensitivity. Specificity ensures the response stems from the target substance, while sensitivity detects biologically relevant concentrations, often validated against acceptance criteria like linearity over a defined range (e.g., 50-150% of nominal potency). Quantitative bioassays further employ statistical models, such as probit or logit analysis for quantal responses or linear regression for graded ones, to compute potency estimates with defined precision, as outlined in FDA guidance for biological products where assays must demonstrate accuracy within ±20-30% relative to standards. These elements collectively ensure causal inference from observed effects to substance potency, grounded in empirical replication rather than assumption.^[6]^[7]

Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches

Quantitative bioassays measure the magnitude of a biological response to estimate the potency or concentration of a substance relative to a standard preparation, relying on graded or quantal endpoints analyzed via statistical methods such as linear regression or probit analysis.^[8] Graded responses involve continuous variation in effect intensity, such as the degree of muscle contraction or blood glucose reduction following insulin dosing, while quantal responses record binary outcomes (e.g., survival or mortality) across a population to derive metrics like the median lethal dose (LD50).^[9] These assays require precise dose-response relationships, with parallelism between standard and test curves ensuring validity, as deviations may indicate non-specific effects or assay failure.^[10] In contrast, qualitative bioassays assess the presence, absence, or type of biological activity without quantifying its extent, often yielding binary results suitable for screening or detecting non-measurable effects like morphological deformities.^[11] For instance, the historical rabbit pregnancy test involved injecting urine samples into female rabbits and examining ovarian corpora lutea formation after 24-48 hours, confirming pregnancy through visible changes rather than dose metrics.^[12] Such assays prioritize simplicity and rapidity over precision, though they risk higher variability due to subjective interpretation or biological heterogeneity.^[9] Quantitative approaches offer greater accuracy for regulatory standardization, as seen in potency assays for biologics like monoclonal antibodies, where cell-based methods quantify effector functions such as antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity via luminescence readout proportional to activity.^[13] Qualitative methods, however, complement by providing initial triage, reducing resource demands in high-throughput contexts, though both must control for confounders like animal strain variability or environmental factors to maintain reliability.^[11] Hybrid designs sometimes integrate qualitative endpoints into quantitative frameworks for enhanced resolution.^[8]

Historical Development

Early Foundations (Pre-20th Century)

The practice of bioassay originated in rudimentary observations of substance effects on living organisms, evolving into systematic experimentation during the 19th century amid advances in experimental physiology and pharmacology. Early efforts focused on determining toxicity, potency, and physiological actions through dose-response observations in animals, laying groundwork for quantitative biological testing without chemical standardization.^[14] François Magendie, a French physiologist active from the early 1800s, established foundational methods by administering pure alkaloids and plant extracts to dogs and other animals to elicit measurable responses such as convulsions or emesis. For instance, in studies around 1818, Magendie tested nux vomica (containing strychnine) on dogs, identifying the spinal cord as the primary site of action by varying doses and observing motor effects, thus demonstrating early dose-dependent quantification of biological activity.^[15] His approach emphasized isolating active principles from crude materials and using controlled animal exposures to discern mechanisms, influencing modern pharmacology's reliance on empirical biological endpoints over anecdotal evidence.^[16] Claude Bernard, Magendie's protégé, refined these techniques in the 1850s–1870s through vivisections on frogs and mammals to study paralytic agents like curare. By administering graduated doses and monitoring neuromuscular blockade—such as isolated muscle contractions—he quantified thresholds for effect, elucidating site-specific actions independent of vital functions. These experiments prioritized causal inference from reproducible biological responses, distinguishing targeted toxicity from systemic lethality.^[17] By the late 19th century, Paul Ehrlich advanced bioassays toward standardization in serum therapy. In 1897, he devised a protocol using guinea pigs to titrate diphtheria antitoxin's potency: animals received escalating toxin doses neutralized by serum dilutions, with survival rates defining units of activity, enabling reproducible potency assessment for clinical use.^[12] This method addressed variability in biological preparations, marking a transition to regulated, comparative testing that prioritized empirical protection over descriptive observation.^[18]

Standardization Era (1900s–1950s)

The variability in potency of early biological therapeutics, such as antitoxins and extracts derived from animal tissues, necessitated formal standardization efforts beginning in the early 1900s. Building on Paul Ehrlich's foundational work with diphtheria antitoxin units in the late 1890s, international conferences addressed batch-to-batch inconsistencies in sera, establishing reference standards to ensure therapeutic reliability across manufacturers.^[19] The U.S. Pharmacopeia (USP) similarly adopted bioassays for plant-derived cardiac glycosides like digitalis, employing frog heart contraction or lethal dose endpoints in pigeons to quantify activity, with methods refined by the 1910s to support consistent dosing in heart failure treatment.^[20] These animal-based protocols emphasized relative potency comparisons against reference preparations, highlighting the era's reliance on empirical, observable physiological responses over chemical analysis.^[21] The discovery of insulin in 1921 accelerated standardization, as initial extracts from bovine pancreas varied widely in hypoglycemic effect, prompting rapid regulatory intervention. The British Medical Research Council (MRC), under Henry Dale's leadership, defined the insulin international unit in 1922 based on blood glucose reduction in rabbits, with the League of Nations adopting the first international reference standard in 1925 to calibrate global production.^[22] This rabbit bioassay, requiring parallel-line logarithmic dose-response modeling, became a model for hormone potency estimation and influenced U.S. regulations, culminating in the 1941 Insulin Amendment mandating certification of purity and strength.^[23] Similar quantitative approaches were extended to posterior pituitary extracts and sex hormones by the 1930s, where uterine contraction or estrus induction in rodents served as endpoints.^[22] Vitamin standardization emerged in the 1930s amid nutritional deficiency research, with bioassays using curative growth responses in depleted rats for vitamin A or rickets healing in chicks for vitamin D. The USP formed a Vitamin Advisory Board in 1932, issuing initial reference standards for vitamins A and D in cod liver oil to benchmark commercial supplements against biological activity.^[24] These rat- and bird-based tests, often employing slope-ratio designs to account for baseline variability, addressed the instability of fat-soluble vitamins and supported fortification efforts.^[25] By the 1940s, amid wartime demands for antibiotics like penicillin, frog or mouse lethality assays adapted these principles for microbial product potency, though variability in animal responses underscored ongoing challenges in precision and reproducibility.^[26] This period's frameworks, coordinated through precursors to the World Health Organization, prioritized causal links between dose and biological effect, laying groundwork for post-1950 international harmonization.^[22]

Modern Expansion (1960s–Present)

The period from the 1960s onward marked a significant expansion of bioassays into regulatory toxicology and environmental monitoring, driven by growing concerns over chemical carcinogens and pollutants. In the late 1960s, the U.S. National Cancer Institute initiated systematic rodent bioassay programs to evaluate long-term carcinogenicity, establishing two-year studies in rats and mice as a cornerstone for assessing substances like food additives and industrial chemicals.^[27] These efforts formalized bioassays as predictive tools for human risk, with protocols emphasizing dose-response relationships and histopathological endpoints, though later critiques highlighted limitations in sensitivity and relevance to human physiology.^[27] The 1970s introduced short-term bioassays to complement lengthy animal studies, reducing reliance on vertebrates while targeting specific mechanisms like genotoxicity. The Ames test, developed by Bruce Ames in 1973, utilized Salmonella typhimurium strains to detect mutagenic potential via reversion to histidine prototrophy, offering a rapid, cost-effective screen for carcinogens that correlated well with rodent data in many cases. This bacterial reverse mutation assay became a standard in regulatory batteries, such as those adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, enabling high-volume screening of environmental contaminants. Concurrently, aquatic bioassays gained prominence for ecotoxicology, with standardized fish lethality tests emerging to assess pesticide runoff and wastewater effluents.^[28] By the 1980s and 1990s, automation and miniaturization propelled bioassays into high-throughput formats, particularly in pharmaceutical drug discovery. High-throughput screening (HTS) originated in pharmaceutical laboratories around 1987, employing robotic liquid handling and 96-well (later 384- and 1536-well) microplates to test thousands of compounds daily against cellular targets, accelerating lead identification for potency and selectivity.^[29] In vitro cell-based assays, such as MTT reduction for viability, proliferated as alternatives to whole-animal models, aligning with the 3Rs principles (replacement, reduction, refinement) formalized earlier but increasingly implemented amid ethical and efficiency pressures.^[30] These advancements integrated fluorescence, luminescence, and imaging readouts, enhancing throughput while minimizing animal use.^[29] In the 21st century, bioassays have further diversified with molecular and systems-level integrations, including reporter gene assays and organ-on-chip models for predictive toxicology. OECD guidelines, updated iteratively since the 1980s, standardized in vitro methods like the estrogen receptor transactivation assay (adopted in 2012) for endocrine disruption screening, reflecting a shift toward mechanism-based testing. High-content screening combines microscopy with multiparametric analysis to capture complex phenotypes, applied in safety pharmacology to detect off-target effects.^[31] Despite these innovations, challenges persist, including inter-laboratory variability and the need for validation against in vivo outcomes, prompting hybrid approaches that couple bioassays with computational modeling for causal inference in toxicity pathways.^[32]

Types and Classifications

In Vivo Bioassays

In vivo bioassays evaluate the potency, toxicity, or biological activity of substances through their effects on intact living organisms, encompassing processes like absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion that isolated systems cannot replicate.^[33] These assays contrast with in vitro methods by providing holistic physiological responses, making them essential for assessing real-world impacts in pharmacology and toxicology.^[34] Common model organisms include rodents for mammalian studies, zebrafish embryos for developmental toxicity, and invertebrates like Daphnia magna for aquatic ecotoxicity, where endpoints such as mortality, reproduction rates, or behavioral changes are measured.^[12] Mammalian in vivo bioassays often follow standardized protocols, such as the OECD Test No. 474 mammalian erythrocyte micronucleus test, which detects chromosomal damage in bone marrow cells of rodents exposed to test chemicals via oral, dermal, or inhalation routes over 24-48 hours.^[35] Endocrine screening assays include the uterotrophic bioassay (OECD 440) in immature female rodents, measuring uterine weight gain after 3 days of subcutaneous estrogen agonist exposure to identify potential disruptors, and the Hershberger bioassay (OECD 441) in castrated male rats, assessing accessory sex organ weights following 10-day androgenic treatments.^[36]^[37] Genetic toxicity tests like the rodent dominant lethal assay (OECD 478) evaluate germ cell mutations by tracking embryonic lethality in mated females after male exposure.^[38] Non-mammalian models reduce ethical concerns and costs while offering rapid throughput; for instance, Daphnia magna immobilization tests expose neonates to serial dilutions of contaminants for 48 hours, quantifying EC50 values for mobility impairment in environmental risk assessments.^[33] The OECD framework emphasizes these assays for regulatory validation, with guidelines updated periodically to incorporate advances like the in vivo alkaline comet assay (OECD 489) for DNA strand breaks in multiple tissues.^[39]^[40] Advantages of in vivo bioassays include their ability to capture systemic interactions and long-term effects, yielding data more translatable to human outcomes than cellular models.^[41] However, they involve high variability from inter-individual differences, extended timelines (weeks to years for chronic studies), substantial costs, and ethical challenges related to animal welfare, prompting efforts to refine or replace them under the 3Rs principle (replacement, reduction, refinement).^[42]^[43] Despite these drawbacks, in vivo data remain the gold standard for hazard identification in agencies like the EPA and EU REACH, where they inform no-observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAELs) for safe exposure limits.^[39]

In Vitro Bioassays

In vitro bioassays evaluate the biological effects of substances using cellular, enzymatic, or microbial systems outside a living organism, typically in controlled laboratory settings such as multi-well plates or test tubes.^[44] These assays measure responses like cell viability, proliferation, enzyme activity, or mutation induction to quantify potency, toxicity, or efficacy.^[45] Unlike in vivo methods, they isolate specific biological pathways, enabling high-throughput screening while minimizing ethical concerns associated with animal use.^[46] Common types include cell-based assays for cytotoxicity and microbial assays for genotoxicity. The MTT assay, for instance, assesses mitochondrial dehydrogenase activity in cultured cells by converting tetrazolium dye to purple formazan crystals, measurable via spectrophotometry at 570 nm; reduced absorbance indicates compromised cell viability.^[45] The Ames test employs histidine-requiring Salmonella typhimurium strains to detect reverse mutations induced by test chemicals, with or without metabolic activation via rat liver S9 fraction; increased revertant colonies signal mutagenic potential.^[47] Both assays support quantitative dose-response analysis, often using linear concentration-response models for improved precision over traditional sigmoidal curves in low-effect regimes.^[48] Procedures typically involve seeding cells or bacteria, exposing them to serial dilutions of the test agent, incubating under standardized conditions (e.g., 37°C, 5% CO₂ for mammalian cells), and quantifying endpoints via colorimetric, fluorescent, or luminescent readouts.^[49] Validation requires controls for background activity, metabolic activation where relevant, and statistical analysis to establish EC50 values or benchmark dose levels.^[50] Advantages encompass speed, reproducibility, and scalability, facilitating early-stage pharmaceutical screening and environmental mixture analysis with lower costs than animal models—e.g., processing hundreds of samples daily via automation. Limitations include oversimplification of systemic interactions, potential false positives from non-physiological conditions, and poor extrapolation to whole-organism effects, as in vitro metabolism may differ from in vivo.^[51] Complementary use with in vivo data is thus recommended for regulatory decisions.^[52]

Direct versus Indirect Assays

In bioassays, direct and indirect assays differ fundamentally in experimental design, response measurement, and potency estimation. Direct assays involve administering doses of the standard and test preparations adjusted to produce a predetermined, specific response—such as a fixed percentage of maximal effect or a quantal endpoint like lethality—and directly measuring the relative doses required to achieve it. This approach assumes the response is unambiguous and binary or threshold-based, enabling straightforward comparison of potencies without constructing full dose-response curves. For example, in the historical cat method for digitalis assay, doses were titrated to elicit a standardized heart rate change, with the ratio of doses yielding the potency estimate.^[53] Direct assays typically demand fewer subjects per preparation, as multiple dose levels are unnecessary, but they risk inaccuracy if the assumed equivalence of responses across preparations does not hold, potentially overlooking non-parallel dose-response relationships.^[54] Indirect assays, by contrast, employ fixed, graded doses of both standard and test administered to separate groups of subjects, followed by measurement of the resulting quantitative responses to generate parallel dose-response curves. Potency is then inferred statistically, often via methods like the parallel-line logit model or slope-ratio analysis, which compare curve positions or slopes while testing for parallelism. This design suits graded, continuous responses, such as bronchoconstriction magnitude in guinea pigs exposed to histamine or acetylcholine analogs. Indirect assays offer greater robustness for validating bioassay assumptions, as deviations in curve shape or slope can signal impurities, antagonists, or mechanistic differences between preparations, but they require more experimental units—typically 4–6 dose levels per curve—and advanced statistical validation to ensure validity.^[55] For instance, the USP assay for oxytocin uses isolated rat uterus contractions across dilutions to plot log-dose vs. response curves, estimating relative potency from horizontal displacement.^[56] The choice between direct and indirect depends on the biological endpoint's nature: quantal responses (e.g., survival in microbial assays) favor direct methods for efficiency, while graded endpoints (e.g., cell proliferation inhibition) necessitate indirect approaches for precision. Direct assays minimize variability from intra-subject differences but may inflate errors in heterogeneous populations; indirect assays mitigate this through replication but amplify costs and time, with statistical power hinging on achieving at least 20–30% fiducial limits for potency ratios. Empirical data from pharmacopeial standards, such as those in the European Pharmacopoeia, consistently show indirect assays dominating modern regulatory bioassays due to their capacity for curve-fitting validation, though direct methods persist in resource-limited settings like early toxicity screens.^[57] Both types demand controls for biological variability, with indirect assays often incorporating software like PLA (parallel line assay) for automated analysis to enhance reproducibility.^[58]

Methods and Procedures

Experimental Design

The experimental design of a bioassay commences with clearly defining its purpose, such as potency estimation for lot release, stability assessment, or comparability studies, to ensure the assay aligns with intended use and regulatory requirements.^[2] Selection of the biological system—whether in vivo (e.g., animal models), in vitro (e.g., cell-based assays), or ex vivo—follows, prioritizing systems that exhibit a quantifiable dose-response relationship reflective of the substance's mechanism of action.^[2] Mathematical models, such as linear parallel-line or sigmoidal four-parameter logistic curves, are chosen based on empirical data from pilot studies to fit the expected response profile.^[2] Central to design is the incorporation of controls, including a reference standard assigned 100% potency and vehicle or negative controls, to verify system suitability through criteria like slope steepness or EC50 values within predefined limits.^[2] Dose levels are selected to span the linear portion of the response curve, typically 3–6 concentrations per sample with logarithmic spacing, ensuring at least two points above and below the midpoint for robust estimation.^[59] Replication involves multiple independent dilutions and technical duplicates (e.g., n ≥ 3 biological replicates per condition) to partition variability and enhance precision, with sample size powered statistically to achieve confidence intervals of 20–50% for relative potency.^[2]^[60] Randomization and blocking mitigate systematic biases, such as positional effects in multi-well plates or environmental gradients in animal studies, by assigning treatments randomly across experimental units and stratifying into blocks (e.g., plate rows or animal litters matched by weight).^[59] Design of Experiments (DoE) methodologies, including factorial screening to identify critical factors (e.g., pH, incubation time) and response surface designs for optimization, systematically explore interactions and define a robust design space, reducing experiments compared to one-factor-at-a-time approaches.^[60] For relative potency assays, designs test parallelism between standard and test curves via slope ratios (e.g., 0.77–1.3 acceptance), ensuring biological similarity and validity of comparisons.^[2] Blinding of operators to treatment identities, where feasible, further controls observer bias, particularly in subjective endpoints like histological scoring.^[61] Pre-specified statistical analysis plans, incorporating variance components and outlier rejection rules (e.g., gap tests at P=0.05), are integrated to validate assumptions of normality and homoscedasticity post-design.^[59] Pilot runs confirm feasibility, adjusting for variability sources like inter-animal differences, which can exceed 20% in in vivo assays, before full implementation.^[2]

Execution and Measurement

Execution of bioassays demands rigorous control of experimental parameters to minimize variability and ensure reproducible outcomes. In in vivo assays, organisms such as rodents or invertebrates are acclimated to defined housing conditions, randomized into groups to mitigate bias, and administered the test substance through routes like oral gavage, subcutaneous injection, or immersion, often in geometrically spaced doses (e.g., 2-fold intervals across 3-6 levels) to capture dose-response dynamics.^[62] Exposure durations range from acute (hours to days, as in OECD Test Guideline 425 for oral toxicity) to subchronic (weeks), with concurrent monitoring of vital signs, feed intake, and morbidity.^[63] Controls include vehicle-treated and positive reference groups to benchmark responses.^[62] In vitro bioassays proceed by seeding responsive cell lines or primary cells into multi-well plates (e.g., 96- or 384-well formats), allowing stabilization, then introducing test agents in serial dilutions under standardized incubation (typically 37°C, 5% CO₂, humidified atmosphere).^[64] Treatment periods vary from minutes in high-throughput screens to days in cytotoxicity evaluations, with automation facilitating precise pipetting and timing to support scalability.^[64] Measurement quantifies biological endpoints via calibrated techniques tailored to the assay. In vivo, responses include survival rates, organ weights (e.g., blotted uterine mass post-necropsy in uterotrophic bioassays, measured to 0.1 mg precision), histopathological scoring, or biomarker levels via ELISA.^[65] In vitro readouts encompass spectrophotometric absorbance (e.g., MTT assay at 570 nm for formazan production indicating viable cell dehydrogenase activity), fluorescence intensity, or luminescence, processed through plate readers with background subtraction.^[64] Data from replicates (n≥3) undergo statistical modeling, such as four-parameter logistic regression for EC₅₀ or LD₅₀ estimation, with validation against acceptance criteria like Z' factor >0.5 for signal robustness and coefficient of variation <20% for precision.^[62] Relative potency calculations compare test curves to standards using parallel-line analysis, ensuring traceability to certified references.^[62] All procedures adhere to Good Laboratory Practice, with blinding and independent scoring where subjective elements arise.^[66]

Data Analysis and Validation

Data analysis in bioassays typically involves fitting statistical models to dose-response data to estimate key parameters such as potency, efficacy, and effective concentrations (e.g., EC50 for half-maximal effective concentration). For graded responses, where the outcome is continuous (e.g., enzyme activity or cell proliferation), nonlinear regression models like the four-parameter logistic (4PL) sigmoid curve are commonly applied, capturing the baseline, maximum response, slope, and inflection point.^[67] ^[68] Quantal responses, yielding binary outcomes (e.g., survival or toxicity), employ probit or logit transformations to linearize the sigmoid relationship, enabling maximum likelihood estimation of the dose producing a specified response probability, such as LD50 (lethal dose for 50% of subjects).^[69] Relative potency, comparing test samples to standards, often assumes parallel log-dose response curves via slope-ratio or parallel-line assays, with tests for slope equality (e.g., t-tests or F-tests) to validate comparability; deviations indicate non-equivalent mechanisms or assay artifacts.^[69] ^[68] Goodness-of-fit assessments, such as chi-squared tests for quantal data or residual analysis for regression models, ensure model adequacy, while outlier detection (e.g., via Cook's distance) addresses anomalies from biological variability without unduly biasing estimates.^[70] Confidence intervals, typically 95%, are derived via Fieller's theorem or bootstrapping to quantify uncertainty, accounting for intra- and inter-assay variability inherent in biological systems.^[67] Experimental designs incorporate randomization, blocking, and sufficient replicates (often n=3–6 per dose) to mitigate sources of error like animal strain differences or environmental factors, with software such as R's drc package or SAS facilitating computations.^[58] Validation of bioassay methods follows harmonized guidelines to confirm reliability for regulatory purposes, evaluating parameters including accuracy (mean bias within ±15–20% of nominal), precision (coefficient of variation ≤15–20%), linearity (R² >0.95 over the reportable range), specificity (no interference from matrix or degradants), and robustness to minor variations in conditions.^[71] ^[72] Per ICH M10 and FDA bioanalytical guidance, full validation includes calibration curve establishment (at least 6 non-zero standards), quality control samples at low, medium, and high levels (analyzed in triplicate across runs), and stability assessments under intended storage.^[73] ^[72] Partial revalidation is required for method changes, such as new equipment or minor formulation tweaks, while system suitability criteria (e.g., control responses within predefined limits) precede each run to flag invalid data.^[74] Biological assays demand higher acceptance criteria than physicochemical methods due to inherent variability (e.g., CV up to 25% for cell-based assays), emphasizing replicate testing and historical data trending for ongoing verification.^[75] Failure to meet criteria, often from poor parallelism or excessive noise, necessitates assay redesign rather than forced acceptance.^[76]

Applications

Pharmaceutical Potency Testing

Bioassays for pharmaceutical potency testing quantify the biological activity of drug products, especially biologics such as monoclonal antibodies, cytokines, vaccines, and gene therapies, by comparing their effects to a reference standard in a biological system. Unlike physicochemical assays, which measure attributes like protein content or purity, potency bioassays assess functional efficacy through dose-response relationships, ensuring batch consistency, stability, and compliance with regulatory release criteria. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) defines potency as the specific ability or capacity of a product to effect a given result, often requiring a quantitative bioassay that links biological activity to clinical performance.^[5] Common designs include relative potency assays, where log-dose response curves of the test sample and standard are parallel, enabling estimation via models like parallel-line analysis, which fits sigmoidal curves to calculate the ratio of effective doses (e.g., ED50 values). For instance, cell-based proliferation assays measure potency of hematopoietic growth factors like erythropoietin (EPO) by quantifying cell division in responsive cell lines, such as TF-1 cells, with potency expressed as the relative units per milligram compared to WHO international standards. Receptor-binding assays, often using radiolabeled ligands or fluorescence, determine potency for peptide hormones or ligands by competition with the test drug for binding sites, as validated for phase I/II trials of certain biologics. In vivo examples persist for some products, like the mouse bioassay for insulin potency, though in vitro alternatives are increasingly adopted to reduce variability and ethical concerns.^[77]^[13]^[78] Validation of these bioassays follows guidelines emphasizing specificity, accuracy, precision, and robustness, with variability sources—including cell-line drift, reagent lots, and operator effects—quantified through intermediate precision studies and confidence intervals around potency estimates (typically 80-125% acceptance for release). For cellular and gene therapies, potency assays must demonstrate mechanism-of-action relevance, such as transgene expression via qPCR or functional outcomes like viral transduction efficiency in target cells, as only 23% of approved U.S. products in 2023 explicitly used bioassays per FDA reviews, highlighting a shift toward orthogonal methods but retaining bioassays for complex activities. Challenges include assay sensitivity to manufacturing changes, necessitating lifecycle management per ICH Q5C, with statistical tools like lack-of-fit tests ensuring model validity.^[79]^[80]^[81]

Toxicology and Risk Assessment

Bioassays serve as essential tools in toxicology for evaluating the adverse effects of chemicals and mixtures on living organisms, enabling the quantification of toxicity through dose-response curves. Acute toxicity tests, commonly performed on rodents, determine the median lethal dose (LD50), defined as the exposure level causing death in 50% of the test population, which classifies substances by hazard category under guidelines like those from the OECD.^[82] Subchronic and chronic bioassays identify the no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL), the highest dose without statistically significant toxic effects, used as a point of departure for deriving human reference doses with uncertainty factors accounting for interspecies and intraspecies variability.^[83]^[84] In risk assessment, bioassay data support hazard identification, particularly for genotoxicity and carcinogenicity, where in vitro assays like the Ames test—employing Salmonella typhimurium strains to detect reverse mutations—flag potential mutagens for regulatory scrutiny.^[85] Positive Ames results, observed in approximately 70% of known carcinogens, prompt mechanistic follow-up but require integration with in vivo data due to false positives from bacterial-specific metabolism.^[86] The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mandates such genotoxicity bioassays in drug safety evaluations to predict human risk, while the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) incorporates them into chemical registration for environmental fate and exposure modeling.^[87]^[88] Environmental toxicology leverages bioassays for assessing ecosystem impacts, with standardized tests on Daphnia magna measuring immobilization or reproduction endpoints to gauge acute and chronic toxicity of effluents and sediments.^[89] The EPA's whole effluent toxicity program uses 48-hour Daphnia bioassays to enforce discharge limits, detecting bioavailability and synergistic effects missed by chemical analysis alone.^[90] In vitro alternatives, such as MTT assays for cell viability, are increasingly validated for high-throughput screening in mixture toxicity, reducing reliance on vertebrates while prioritizing empirical potency over predictive modeling uncertainties.^[91] These approaches ensure risk assessments reflect causal biological responses, informing thresholds like acceptable daily intakes with empirical grounding.^[92]

Environmental and Ecological Monitoring

Bioassays serve as essential tools in environmental and ecological monitoring by quantifying the biological impacts of pollutants on organisms, thereby detecting toxicity from chemical mixtures or unidentified substances that chemical analyses alone may overlook.^[90] These tests integrate effects across exposure pathways, providing empirical measures of ecological risk in water, soil, sediment, and effluents.^[93] In aquatic systems, standardized bioassays using sensitive invertebrates like Daphnia magna evaluate water quality and effluent toxicity through acute lethality endpoints, such as 48-hour LC50 determinations.^[94] The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency mandates such tests for industrial discharges to ensure toxicity does not exceed permissible limits, with Daphnia selected for its broad contaminant sensitivity and rapid reproduction cycle.^[95]^[96] Chronic feeding bioassays with Daphnia magna further assess sublethal effects like reproduction inhibition, offering cost-effective screening for environmental risk assessment.^[97] Soil bioassays employ plants, nematodes, and microbes to assess phytotoxicity, invertebrate survival, and microbial respiration, revealing ecological disruptions from heavy metals, hydrocarbons, or pesticides.^[98] For instance, seed germination tests in soil plates quantify inhibition rates as indicators of pollution severity, providing a simple alternative to multi-species evaluations.^[98] Chronic soil bioassays detect mineral oil impacts more sensitively than acute extract tests, linking lab results to field ecological impairments.^[99] In situ bioassays enhance monitoring by deploying organisms directly in polluted environments, as applied in oil spill assessments to measure real-time toxicity to benthic and pelagic species.^[100] Fungal bioassays complement these by offering reproducible detection of genotoxicants and heavy metals in sediments and wastewater, often outperforming physicochemical methods in sensitivity.^[101] Overall, bioassays bridge chemical detection and ecological outcomes, though their results demand correlation with field population dynamics to avoid overgeneralization from controlled conditions.^[102]

Advantages and Limitations

Empirical Strengths

Bioassays exhibit empirical strengths in their capacity to measure integrated biological responses, encompassing pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and synergistic interactions that analytical chemical assays often overlook. By employing living organisms or cells, these assays capture real-time physiological effects, such as bioavailability and metabolism, yielding data that more closely mirrors in vivo conditions. For example, microbial bioassays demonstrate high sensitivity and reproducibility in detecting toxicity from complex environmental mixtures, outperforming chemical speciation alone by identifying holistic impacts on cellular processes.^[103] A key empirical advantage lies in the predictive validity demonstrated by standardized protocols. The Ames test, a reverse mutation bioassay using Salmonella strains, achieves concordance rates of 77-90% with rodent carcinogenicity outcomes, enabling reliable early detection of genotoxic potential across diverse chemical classes, including nitrosamines where sensitivity reaches 93-97%.^[104] ^[105] ^[106] Similarly, whole-organism assays like those with Daphnia magna integrate multiple exposure routes and detoxification mechanisms, providing evidence-based toxicity endpoints that correlate with ecological risks, as validated in sediment assessments where bioassays revealed hazards undetected by chemical analysis.^[107] ^[108] In pharmaceutical contexts, bioassays offer quantifiable potency assessments for biologics and undefined substances, with regulatory reliance on their reproducibility—such as in vaccine lot release—supported by historical data showing consistent alignment with clinical efficacy. High-throughput variants further bolster this by minimizing variability through automation, achieving specificity and efficiency in screening thousands of compounds while maintaining low false-positive rates in optimized formats.^[109] ^[110]

Inherent Challenges and Variability

Bioassays inherently exhibit high variability due to the complex, dynamic nature of biological systems, where responses in living cells, tissues, or organisms fluctuate from genetic heterogeneity, physiological states, and subtle environmental influences such as temperature, pH, or media composition.^[8] This leads to coefficients of variation often exceeding 20-30% in cell-based potency assays, far higher than the <5% typical in physicochemical methods, complicating precise quantification and requiring larger sample sizes for statistical power.^[111] ^[112] Key sources of this variability include intra-run factors like pipetting inconsistencies or cell seeding density, and inter-run factors such as reagent lot differences, analyst technique, and day-to-day culture conditions, which can amplify noise in endpoint measurements like cell viability or growth inhibition.^[113] Biological contributors encompass donor-specific genetic variations in animal models or drift in cell lines over passages, reducing assay reproducibility across laboratories.^[114] In vivo assays face additional challenges from animal health status, housing conditions, and circadian rhythms, often resulting in failure rates up to 50% in initial replication attempts without rigorous controls.^[115] These inherent challenges manifest in difficulties achieving standardization, as protocols must balance sensitivity with robustness, yet even optimized designs struggle with outliers from unmodeled variables, demanding advanced statistical tools like robust regression to mitigate undue influence.^[116] Maintenance of biological reagents remains costly and labor-intensive, with cell lines prone to phenotypic shifts that erode long-term reliability, underscoring the trade-off between bioassays' physiological relevance and their empirical precision limits.^[117] Despite procedural refinements, such variability persists as a fundamental limitation, influencing regulatory acceptance and necessitating parallel validation with orthogonal methods for critical applications.^[118]

Ethical and Regulatory Considerations

Animal Use and Welfare Debates

Animal bioassays, particularly those assessing toxicity and carcinogenicity, routinely involve vertebrates such as rodents, with national toxicology programs like the U.S. National Toxicology Program conducting long-term studies on rats and mice to evaluate chemical effects, often resulting in tumor development or mortality as endpoints.^[119]^[120] These procedures contribute to substantial animal usage, with toxicity testing accounting for a significant fraction of the estimated 10-12 million vertebrates used annually in U.S. research, though exact bioassay-specific figures vary by regulatory context.^[121] Welfare concerns center on the inherent distress inflicted during dosing, observation of adverse effects, and euthanasia, as animals in toxicity bioassays frequently endure pain from organ damage, weight loss, or neoplastic growth without analgesics to avoid confounding results.^[122] Critics, including ethicists and animal welfare advocates, argue that such suffering violates principles of unnecessary harm, especially given historical procedures like the LD50 test, which systematically killed groups to determine lethal doses, prompting reforms to minimize overt cruelty.^[121] Proponents of animal use counter that welfare is mitigated through institutional oversight, such as the U.S. Animal Welfare Act requiring veterinary care and humane endpoints, though enforcement varies and does not eliminate physiological stress from experimental conditions.^[121] The 3Rs framework—replacement, reduction, and refinement—introduced by Russell and Burch in 1959, has driven efforts to curb animal numbers in bioassays, with pharmaceutical applications showing up to 30-50% reductions in rodent use for toxicology via optimized study designs and statistical modeling.^[123] Refinement includes non-invasive monitoring and early humane endpoints to limit suffering, while reduction leverages power analyses to use fewer animals per group without sacrificing data reliability; EU Directive 2010/63/EU mandates these principles, correlating with reported declines in procedural severity across member states.^[124]^[125] Debates persist over whether animal bioassays remain indispensable, as non-animal alternatives like in vitro assays often fail to replicate systemic pharmacokinetics, immune responses, or chronic exposures that influence real-world toxicity, evidenced by their lower predictive accuracy for human outcomes in complex endpoints compared to integrated animal data.^[126] Systematic reviews indicate that while animal models exhibit poor translatability (e.g., only 5-10% concordance for certain toxicities), animal-free methods lack empirical validation for whole-organism causality, underscoring a causal gap where in silico or cell-based predictions overlook metabolic interactions unique to multicellular physiology.^[126]^[127] Regulatory bodies like the FDA acknowledge these limitations, retaining animal requirements for safety assurance despite over 90% preclinical failure rates, prioritizing causal evidence from vertebrates over unproven substitutes.^[128]

Alternatives and Their Empirical Shortcomings

In vitro methods, including cell culture assays and high-throughput screening platforms like those utilizing MTT for cell viability, represent primary alternatives to traditional animal-based bioassays in toxicology. These approaches enable rapid evaluation of substance potency and toxicity at the cellular level, often at reduced cost compared to in vivo testing. However, empirical data reveal significant shortcomings in predictive validity; for instance, concordance between in vitro bioactivity and in vivo toxicity is low, with only 13% of chemicals demonstrating in vitro activity aligning with observed in vivo effects across 130 tested compounds, primarily due to failures in capturing absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion dynamics absent in isolated systems.^[129] ^[126] This discrepancy arises from the inability of two-dimensional or even three-dimensional cell models to replicate organism-level interactions, such as immune responses or multi-organ crosstalk, leading to high rates of false negatives for systemic toxicities.^[130] Microphysiological systems, such as organ-on-a-chip technologies, aim to bridge this gap by simulating organ-specific microenvironments using human-derived cells in microfluidic devices to assess drug responses and toxicological endpoints. These platforms have shown promise in modeling specific physiological barriers, like lung or liver functions, and align with the 3Rs principle of reducing animal use. Empirical limitations persist, however, including challenges in achieving cell maturity, scalability, and multi-organ integration, which hinder accurate replication of chronic or systemic effects; for example, approximately 30% of drugs failing in human trials due to undetected toxicity underscore that organ-chips have not yet demonstrated superior translatability over in vivo models for complex endpoints like neurodegeneration or sepsis.^[131] Material constraints, such as polydimethylsiloxane absorption of lipophilic compounds, further skew pharmacokinetic data, reducing reliability for long-term exposure assessments.^[132] Computational models, encompassing quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) analyses and machine learning algorithms trained on bioassay datasets, provide non-experimental predictions of toxicity by correlating molecular structures with endpoints like LD50 values or mutagenicity. Some models achieve 80-95% cross-validation accuracy for hazard classification in isolated scenarios. Yet, these in silico approaches fall short empirically for regulatory-grade predictions of systemic or repeat-dose toxicity, lacking validation against whole-organism data and often over-relying on historical datasets that underrepresent metabolic transformations or species-specific responses; no standalone computational framework has been fully validated for food safety or pharmaceutical chronic toxicity endpoints, resulting in persistent gaps when extrapolated to untested chemicals.^[132] ^[130] Concordance with in vivo outcomes varies widely (e.g., 58-78% for thyroid disruption), highlighting their supplementary rather than replacement role.^[133] Overall, while alternatives reduce ethical concerns over animal welfare, their empirical shortcomings—rooted in incomplete causal modeling of biological complexity—necessitate hybrid approaches with bioassays for robust risk assessment.^[126]

Standardization and Regulatory Standards

Bioassays employed in regulatory contexts require rigorous standardization to facilitate reproducible results, inter-laboratory comparability, and reliable risk assessments across pharmaceuticals, toxicology, and environmental monitoring. International bodies such as the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) establish harmonized guidelines, while national agencies like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enforce specific protocols tailored to product safety and environmental protection. These standards mandate validation parameters including accuracy, precision, specificity, linearity, and robustness, often drawing from ICH Q2(R1) for analytical procedure validation. In pharmaceutical and biologics testing, potency bioassays measure the biological activity of products like vaccines, monoclonal antibodies, and cell/gene therapies, as defined under FDA regulations in 21 CFR 610.10, which requires tests demonstrating the product's capacity to yield intended effects through quantitative biological assays linked to mechanisms of action. ICH Q6B guidelines specify that specifications for biotechnological/biological products must include a valid biological assay to quantify activity, with examples encompassing cell-based neutralization or proliferation assays, ensuring consistency from development through lot release. For cellular and gene therapy products, FDA guidance emphasizes multiple orthogonal potency assays validated per ICH principles to assure product consistency, with release testing incorporating functional readouts tied to clinical efficacy.^[134] Toxicological bioassays for chemical safety adhere to OECD Test Guidelines, which detail standardized protocols for endpoints like acute toxicity (e.g., TG 425 up-and-down procedure for oral LD50 estimation in rodents) and endocrine disruption (e.g., TG 440 uterotrophic bioassay measuring uterine weight changes in immature rats). Genotoxicity assessments, such as the Ames bacterial reverse mutation test (TG 471), involve standardized strains of Salmonella typhimurium and Escherichia coli exposed to test substances with metabolic activation, evaluating revertant colony counts against historical controls for mutagenic potential. These guidelines, updated periodically (e.g., Ames test revisions in 2020), incorporate good laboratory practice (GLP) requirements to minimize variability from biological matrices. Environmental bioassays, particularly for effluent and water quality, follow EPA whole effluent toxicity (WET) methods under 40 CFR Part 136, using species like Ceriodaphnia dubia (48-hour chronic survival/reproduction) or Pimephales promelas fathead minnow larvae (96-hour embryo-larval survival/toxicity) to derive no-observed-effect concentrations (NOEC) or inhibition concentrations (IC25).^[135] Tests employ serial dilutions (≥0.5 factor, five concentrations plus control) in synthetic or receiving water, with statistical analyses like ToxCalc software for endpoint calculation, ensuring compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits that limit toxicity to protect aquatic life.^[136] OECD equivalents, such as TG 202 for Daphnia magna immobilization (48 hours), align with EPA approaches for hazard classification in chemical registration.

Recent Advances and Future Outlook

Innovations in Biosensor Technologies

Nanomaterial-enhanced biosensors have significantly improved the sensitivity and specificity of bioassays by amplifying signal transduction and enabling miniaturization. For instance, multi-walled carbon nanotube-gold nanoparticle (MWCNT-AuNP) composites in electrochemical protein biosensors achieve detection limits as low as 0.001 μg mL⁻¹ for cancer biomarkers like CA125, facilitating rapid assessment of biological activity in cytotoxicity assays.^[137] Similarly, reduced graphene oxide-gold (rGO/Au) hybrids in quartz crystal microbalance (QCM) systems detect miRNA-122 at 1.73 pM, supporting gene expression bioassays with enhanced resolution over conventional methods.^[137] These advancements, prominent since 2020, leverage the high surface area and conductivity of nanomaterials such as carbon nanotubes, gold nanoparticles, and quantum dots to bridge biological recognition elements with transducers, reducing assay times from hours to minutes while maintaining reproducibility.^[138] Whole-cell biosensors, engineered via synthetic biology, represent another pivotal innovation for real-time toxicity bioassays, using genetically modified microorganisms to report environmental stressors or contaminants through measurable outputs like fluorescence or pigmentation. A 2021 Escherichia coli-based whole-cell biosensor detects waterborne pathogens such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa at concentrations relevant to contamination thresholds, offering point-of-care viability superior to culture-based assays.^[139] More recently, in 2025, pyomelanin-producing E. coli strains coupled with mercury-responsive promoters (MerR-Pmer) enable naked-eye detection of mercury ions with ultrasensitive limits, bypassing equipment needs and enabling field-deployable toxicity screening.^[140] These systems, often integrated with electrochemical readouts, provide dynamic insights into cellular responses, with limits of detection below regulatory standards (e.g., arsenic sensors at sub-WHO levels), though challenges like matrix interference persist.^[141] Optical and microfluidic integrations further advance biosensor utility in bioassays by enabling multiplexed, label-free detection. Colorimetric protein biosensors using synthetic fluorescence have detected SARS-CoV-2 at 0.28 PFU mL⁻¹ in 2021, adaptable for viral toxicity assays via smartphone interfacing.^[137] Microfluidic chips combined with noble metal nanoparticles streamline sample handling, achieving electrochemical sensitivities for endocrine disruptors that rival animal-based bioassays but with reduced ethical concerns and costs.^[138] Overall, these innovations shift bioassays toward portable, high-throughput platforms, with peer-reviewed validations confirming 10-100-fold sensitivity gains over traditional endpoints, though standardization remains essential for regulatory adoption.^[137]

Integration with Computational and AI Methods

Computational methods, including quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) modeling, complement bioassays by predicting biological responses based on chemical structures without requiring physical experimentation. These in silico approaches integrate bioassay-derived datasets, such as those from high-throughput screening platforms like ToxCast and Tox21, to train predictive models that estimate toxicity endpoints like carcinogenicity or organ-specific effects. For instance, machine learning algorithms applied to ToxCast data have achieved accuracies exceeding 80% in forecasting rat carcinogenicity by combining in vitro bioassay results with structural features.^[142]^[133] Artificial intelligence, particularly deep learning and neural networks, further advances this integration by analyzing complex, high-dimensional bioassay data to identify patterns undetectable through traditional statistics. In drug discovery, AI models trained on bioassay outcomes enable virtual screening of compound libraries, prioritizing candidates for experimental validation and reducing the need for resource-intensive wet-lab tests. A 2021 study demonstrated that feature-enriched models incorporating bioassay and chemical data improved drug-target interaction predictions, with AUC values up to 0.95 for certain targets.^[143]^[144] In ecological monitoring, hybrid frameworks merge bioassay results from organisms like Daphnia magna with machine learning to assess environmental risks from pollutants, such as microplastics or additives. These systems use supervised learning to extrapolate toxicity from limited experimental data to broader chemical spaces, enhancing scalability while acknowledging limitations in capturing long-term or context-specific effects. Recent applications, including AI-driven hazard prioritization via Tox21 bioassays, integrate regulatory data to flag high-risk substances, supporting faster decision-making in chemical safety assessments.^[145]^[146] Ongoing developments emphasize explainable AI (XAI) to interpret model decisions in bioassay contexts, aiding regulatory acceptance by revealing causal links between molecular features and outcomes. For example, XAI techniques applied to toxicity prediction have highlighted key biomarkers influencing drug-induced liver injury, bridging empirical bioassay evidence with computational inference. Despite these gains, empirical validation remains essential, as AI models can overfit to noisy bioassay data or fail to generalize across species.^[147]^[148]

References

[1]
[PDF] Research Journal of Biology - Principles Involved in Bioassay by ...
Apr 19, 2015 · Bioassay is a successful tool in estimation and discovery of biologically active substances and important application in sensitivity and ...
[2]
[PDF] <1032> DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF BIOLOGICAL ASSAYS
Common uses for a bioassay include lot release of drug. 76 substance (active pharmaceutical ingredient) and drug product; stability; qualification of. 77.
[3]
Mini History of the Potency Bioassay and its Regulatory Drivers
It started in 1901 with Jim (Figure 1), an ordinary retired milk delivery horse. At that time, the standard treatment for children with diphtheria was an ...Missing: origin | Show results with:origin
[4]
[PDF] Reference Guide on Toxicology - Federal Judicial Center |
bioassay. A test for measuring the toxicity of an agent ... Clinical toxicology includes the application of pharmacological principles to the treatment of.
[5]
[PDF] Potency Tests for Cellular and Gene Therapy Products | FDA
The traditional approach for assessing the potency of biological products is to develop a quantitative biological assay (bioassay) that measures the activity ...
[6]
Overview of the Fundamentals in Developing a Bioassay - PharmTech
Dec 4, 2019 · Developing and validating a bioassay requires 12 essential steps, including determining the science that creates the signal that indicates biological activity.
[7]
[PDF] Q2(R2) Validation of Analytical Procedures - FDA
For nonseparation techniques (e.g., bioassay, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, quantitative polymerase chain reaction), specificity can be demonstrated ...
[8]
Introduction to the Use of Linear and Nonlinear Regression Analysis ...
Jun 26, 2023 · Biological assays are frequently divided into two main categories, quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative bioassays, the emphasis of this ...
[9]
BIOASSAY AND ITS TYPES - PharmaState Academy
Principle of Bioassay:- Active principle to be assayed should show the same measured response in all animal species. Bioassay involves the comparison of the ...Missing: core | Show results with:core
[10]
Principles Involved in Bioassay by different Methods: A Mini-Review
In indirect bio-assays the relationship between the dose and response of each preparation is first ascertained. Then the dose corresponding to a given response ...Missing: core | Show results with:core
[11]
(PDF) BIO-ASSAY - ResearchGate
the living body. Types of Bioassay. i. Qualitative bioassay: It is used for ... Quantitative bioassay: It involve estimation of concentration or potency.
[12]
Bioassay - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
A biological assay, or bioassay, is an analytical method used to measure the functional activity of a molecule on living organisms, tissue, or live cells.
[13]
Cell-Based Bioassays for Biologics - Charles River Laboratories
Product-Specific Cell-Based Bioassays · ADCC reporter bioassay · ADCP reporter assay · CDC assay · Microneutralization assay.
[14]
Historical development of bioassays | Request PDF - ResearchGate
Bioassays have been developed-since long before the availability of computers-to detect water, air, and soil toxicity. While today ethical considerations ...Missing: origin | Show results with:origin<|control11|><|separator|>
[15]
A brief history of pharmacology - ACS Publications
Thus, François Magendie studied the action of nux vomica (a strychnine-containing plant drug) on dogs, and showed that the spinal cord was the site of its ...
[16]
[PDF] an early history of the british pharmacological society
The British Pharmacological Society was founded in July 1931, on the initiative of Sir Henry Dale, Dr. W. E. Dixon, and Professor J. A. Gunn. Volume I of the ...
[17]
Claude Bernard, the Founder of Modern Medicine - PMC - NIH
May 20, 2022 · By showing that the liver secretes glucose into the blood, Claude Bernard showed that organs can also produce and secrete molecules into the ...
[18]
Paul Ehrlich (1854-1915) and His Contributions to the Foundation ...
Feb 5, 2016 · As Director of the Georg-Speyer-Haus, Paul Ehrlich greatly intensified the production and testing of various chemical compounds; by doing so, he ...
[19]
History of standardisation - NIBSC
The history of biological standardisation dates back well over 100 years and comes from medical interventions such as the use of horse anti-diphtheria sera for ...
[20]
The assay of digitalis. III. The potency of U. S. P. XII digitalis - Braun
The second paper of this series, entitled “The Assay of Digitalis. II. Absorption as Influenced by the Site of Injection” (1), was presented before the ...
[21]
a study of the standardization of digitalis. ii. the - relationship ... - JCI
The cumulation experiments in animals and the clinical experiments reported in this paper were undertaken to learn, in the case of two dif- ferent samples of ...
[22]
Standardization of biological medicines: the first hundred years ...
Sep 22, 2006 · Quantification of these substances depends on biological standardization, a discipline that was refined to a science by the Medical Research Council from the ...Missing: 1900-1950
[23]
100 Years of Insulin - FDA
Jun 8, 2022 · THE 1941 INSULIN AMENDMENT A variety of early 1940s samples of insulin and the components used to improve the drug's performance and stability, ...
[24]
USP and Dietary Supplements ... A Return to Our Roots
Sep 11, 2014 · USP established a Vitamin Advisory Board in 1932 and the very first USP reference standards distributed were Vitamins A & D in Cod Liver Oil.Vitamins As Medicine · Vitamins As Nutrition · Supplements As Drug Vs Food
[25]
The Biological Standardisation of the Vitamins | Nature
SINCE the early 1930's, Dr. Katharine Coward has worked untiringly to popularize sound methods of biological standardization of vitamins.Missing: bioassays 1940s
[26]
Evolution of activities in international biological standardization ...
The main activities in international biological standardization during the 18 years that followed the first international biological standardization meeting ...Missing: 1900-1950 history
[27]
Goodbye to the bioassay - PMC - PubMed Central - NIH
... 1960s that cancer bioassays as we know them today really began. ... Page N., Concept of a bioassay program in environmental carcinogenesis, in Advances in Medical ...
[28]
[PDF] INVESTIGATIONS IN FISH CONTROL
The bioassay methods used were described by Lennon and Walker (1964) for the evalua- tion of fish control agents. All bioassays were conducted in reconstituted ...Missing: advancements | Show results with:advancements
[29]
Origin and evolution of high throughput screening - PMC
This article reviews the origin and evolution of high throughput screening (HTS) through the experience of an individual pharmaceutical company.
[30]
Advances in acute toxicity testing: strengths, weaknesses and ... - NIH
The inspiration about alternative methods to toxicity testing in animals became overwhelming in the 1960s, 1970s ... bioassay. It involves the use of ...
[31]
The Future of High-Throughput Screening - ScienceDirect
In this article, the authors describe the development of HTS over the past decade and point out their own ideas for future directions of HTS in biomedical ...
[32]
The History and Conceptual Framework of Assays and Screens - PMC
Feb 15, 2023 · There is a lack of consistency in distinguishing assays, in which accuracy is the main goal, from screens, in which scalability is prioritized ...
[33]
In Vivo Toxicology - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
In vivo toxicology is the study of hazardous effects of chemicals on living organisms, like laboratory animals, using various toxicity assays.
[34]
https://knyamed.com/blogs/resources/what-is-bioassay-in-pharmacology
[35]
Test No. 474: Mammalian Erythrocyte Micronucleus Test | OECD
The mammalian in vivo micronucleus test is used for the detection of damage induced by the test substance to the chromosomes or the mitotic apparatus of ...Missing: bioassays | Show results with:bioassays
[36]
Test No. 440: Uterotrophic Bioassay in Rodents - OECD
The Uterotrophic Bioassay is an in vivo short-term screening test. It is based on the increase in uterine weight or uterotrophic response.
[37]
[PDF] OECD Test Guideline 441: Hershberger Bioassay in Rats
Sep 7, 2009 · The Hershberger Bioassay is a short-term in vivo screening test using accessory tissues of the male reproductive tract. The assay originated in ...
[38]
[PDF] OECD/OCDE
Jul 29, 2016 · The OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals are periodically reviewed in the light of scientific progress, changing regulatory needs, ...<|separator|>
[39]
Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals - OECD
‌The OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals are a unique tool for assessing the potential effects of chemicals on human health and the environment.
[40]
Test No. 489: In Vivo Mammalian Alkaline Comet Assay | OECD
The in vivo alkaline single cell gel electrophoresis assay, also called alkaline Comet Assay is a method measuring DNA strand breaks in eukaryotic cells.Missing: bioassays | Show results with:bioassays
[41]
In Vivo vs. In Vitro: Advantages & Disadvantages - MedicineNet
In Vivo model involves the internal environment of a living being, results of in vivo studies are considered more reliable or more relevant than those of in ...
[42]
In Vivo vs In Vitro: Definition, Pros and Cons | Technology Networks
Dec 18, 2023 · In this article, we will define these terms and further evaluate the pros and cons of analysis using in vivo and in vitro methods with detailed ...
[43]
What Is Bioassay In Pharmacology: Types & Advantages
Principle of Bioassay in Pharmacology · Determining drug potency · Identifying the minimum effective dose · Studying the mechanism of drug action.Missing: core | Show results with:core<|separator|>
[44]
In vitro bioassays to evaluate complex chemical mixtures in recycled ...
In vitro bioassays are increasingly being used to enable rapid, relatively inexpensive toxicity screening that can be used in conjunction with analytical ...Missing: "peer | Show results with:"peer
[45]
Cell Viability Assays - Assay Guidance Manual - NCBI Bookshelf - NIH
May 1, 2013 · The MTT assay was developed as a non-radioactive alternative to tritiated thymidine incorporation into DNA for measuring cell proliferation (1).
[46]
In Vitro vs In Vivo Potency Assays: Modern Vaccine Batch Release
Dec 12, 2024 · In vitro methods can offer significant benefits over in vivo testing. They can reduce ethical concerns and resource intensity, provide faster ...
[47]
Microbial Mutagenicity Assay: Ames Test - PubMed
Mar 20, 2018 · The Microbial mutagenicity Ames test is a bacterial bioassay accomplished in vitro to evaluate the mutagenicity of various environmental carcinogens and toxins.
[48]
THE ADVANTAGES OF LINEAR CONCENTRATION-RESPONSE ...
Sep 1, 2019 · ... in vitro bioassays. Wagner et al. (2013) reviewed 234 peer-reviewed publications on that topic and came to a very similar conclusion as ...
[49]
General Cytotoxicity Assessment by Means of the MTT Assay
General Cytotoxicity Assessment by Means of the MTT Assay. Methods Mol Biol. 2015:1250:333-48. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-2074-7_26. Authors. Laia Tolosa ...
[50]
Modeling Exposure in the Tox21 in Vitro Bioassays - ACS Publications
JournalsPeer-reviewed chemistry research; SubjectsSpecific research topics from across the ACS portfolio; Books & ReferenceseBooks, monographs, and references
[51]
Value and limitation of in vitro bioassays to support the application of ...
Migration and extraction conditions for chemical analysis are both considered relevant for testing in in vitro bioassays. Either extraction and/or migration ...
[52]
In Vitro Bioassays for Assessing Estrogenic Substances
The advantages and limitations of each assay are discussed. The review concludes that complementary in vivo and in vitro assays are required to accurately ...
[53]
[PDF] STUDY DESIGNS
The common indirect assay is usually one in which the ratio of equipotent ... In a direct assay, the amount of stimulus needed to produce the response.
[54]
[PDF] Design and Analysis for Bioassays 1 Introduction - IITB Math
Types of Bioassays. Three main types (other than qualitative assays)are : (i) DIRECT ASSAYS;. (ii) INDIRECT ASSAYS based upon quantitative responses;. (iii) ...<|separator|>
[55]
[PDF] Biological assays - Lund University Publications
There are two types of quantitative biological assays: direct and indirect assays [1]. The principle of a direct assay is to measure the doses of the standard ...
[56]
Biostatistics and Biometrics Open Access Journal | Juniper Publishers
Oct 23, 2017 · There are two main types of biological assay as shown in Figure 3 direct assay and indirect assay. Moreover, the indirect assay is classified ...
[57]
Bioassay - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
Bioassays can be performed either direct or indirect. In a direct assay, the response must be distinct and unambiguous. The substance must be administered ...
[58]
[PDF] Statistical methods for the analysis of bioassay data
Apr 19, 2016 · types of bioassays: direct and indirect. A direct bioassay measures the dose or concentration of a stimulus that is needed to obtain a ...
[59]
None
### Summary of Key Principles in Design and Analysis of Biological Assays (USP 35, 〈111〉)
[60]
Biological Assay Qualification Using Design of Experiments
Jun 1, 2013 · A novel, systematic approach for bioassay validation using design of experiments (DoE) that incorporates robustness of critical parameters.
[61]
Planning experiments: Updated guidance on experimental design ...
Jun 7, 2022 · This editorial provides guidance for the design of experiments. We have published previously two guidance documents on experimental design and analysis.
[62]
In Vivo Assay Guidelines - Assay Guidance Manual - NCBI Bookshelf
May 1, 2012 · This document is intended to provide guidance for the design, development and statistical validation of in vivo assays residing in flow schemes of discovery ...Abstract · Flow Chart · Introduction · Assay Validation Procedures
[63]
[PDF] OECD Test Guideline 425 - National Toxicology Program
Oct 3, 2008 · OECD guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals are periodically reviewed in the light of scientific progress or changing assessment practices.
[64]
Preface - Assay Guidance Manual - NCBI Bookshelf - NIH
May 1, 2012 · The Assay Guidance Manual (AGM) provides guidance on developing robust in vitro and in vivo assays for biological targets, pathways, and cellular phenotypes
[65]
Guidance Document on the Uterothrophic Bioassay - OECD
This Guidance document focuses on the antioestrogenic protocol; it is the outcome of the experience gained during the validation test programme and the results ...Missing: execution | Show results with:execution
[66]
[PDF] Use of International Standard ISO 10993-1, "Biological evaluation of ...
Sep 8, 2023 · Any in vitro or in vivo biological safety experiments or tests should be conducted in accordance with recognized Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) ...
[67]
Defining a Statistical Analysis for Bioassay: Response Modelling
Aug 6, 2025 · Fundamentally, a bioassay concentration-response curve will almost always take the form of an s-shaped curve if the range of concentrations ...
[68]
The analysis of dose-response curve from bioassays with quantal ...
Apr 25, 2016 · There are two types of approaches for analyzing dose-response curves: a deterministic approach, based on the law of mass action, and a ...
[69]
[PDF] Statistical Techniques In Bioassay
Effective statistical analysis begins with sound experimental design, which minimizes variability and maximizes the information gained. Randomization: Ensures ...
[70]
Outliers in Dose-Response Curves: What are they, and ... - BEBPA
When statistical outliers are present in the dose-response curve, the test of similarity may be compromised and/or the RP value may be estimated with bias. The ...
[71]
[PDF] Bioanalytical Method Validation - Guidance for Industry | FDA
May 24, 2018 · Guiding Principles ... • Changes in analytical methodology (e.g., a change in detection systems).
[72]
[PDF] bioanalytical method validation and study sample analysis m10 - ICH
May 24, 2022 · This guideline describes the validation of bioanalytical methods and study sample analysis that are expected to support regulatory decisions.
[73]
[PDF] ICH M10: Bioanalytical Method Validation and Study Sample Analysis
Feb 24, 2023 · ICH M10 provides recommendations for bioanalytical method validation and study sample analysis, ensuring data quality and consistency for drug ...
[74]
Establishing Systems Suitability and Validity Criteria for Analytical ...
Feb 1, 2022 · Ensuring reliable analytical methods and bioassays requires a well-thought-out strategy for evaluating method validity and systems suitability.
[75]
A bioassay method validation framework for laboratory and semi ...
This report presents a framework for bioassay validation that draws on accepted validation processes from the chemical and healthcare fields and which can be ...
[76]
Bioassay Statistics - Quantics Biostatistics
Quantics can help ensure that your assay validation study follows the appropriate regulatory guidance in all its statistical aspects, both design and analysis.
[77]
Essentials in Bioassay Design and Relative Potency Determination
Apr 1, 2016 · The author describes common components of a relative potency bioassay and provides a framework for assay development, calculation, and control.
[78]
A receptor-binding-based bioassay to determine the potency of a ...
This assay was developed to test drug substance and drug product for release and stability testing for phase I and II clinical trials. The main focus was on ...
[79]
Potency Assay Variability Estimation in Practice - PMC - NIH
In this paper, we discuss different sources of bioassay variability and how this variability can be statistically estimated.
[80]
A Novel Lack-of-Fit Assessment as a System Suitability Test for ...
Bioassay data analysis is used to determine the potency of protein therapeutics. To properly determine potency, the experimental data need to be fitted to a ...
[81]
Analysis of the measurements used as potency tests for the 31 US ...
Mar 4, 2025 · It is unclear if bioassays are commonly used as potency tests since only 7 of 31 CTPs (23%) reported bioassays as potency tests.
[82]
2 Animal and In Vitro Toxicity Testing - The National Academies Press
Historically, the primary focus of an acute toxicity test was to determine a chemical's median lethal dose (LD50), the dose that causes death in 50% of the test ...Acute Toxicity Testing · Neurotoxicity · In Vitro Tests For Cellular...Missing: LD50 | Show results with:LD50
[83]
Practical Considerations in Determining Adversity and the No ...
Mar 1, 2022 · Adversity determination facilitates the identification of a dose at which there is no adverse effect (NOAEL; no-observed-adverse-effect-level).
[84]
[PDF] Derivation of Assessment Factors for Human Health Risk Assessment
In a risk assessment for humans, the NOAEL from an animal study is the typical starting point and assessment factors are then applied to the NOAEL to account ...
[85]
Ames Test - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
The Ames test is one of the most frequently applied tests in toxicology. Almost all new pharmaceutical substances and chemicals used in industry are tested by ...
[86]
Use of the Ames test in toxicology - PubMed
... assay results in risk assessment. Understanding of the … ... Use of the Ames test in toxicology. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 1985 Mar;5(1):59 ...Missing: bioassay | Show results with:bioassay
[87]
[PDF] Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology - FDA
Apr 20, 2020 · General toxicology studies (e.g., single-dose and repeated-dose toxicity studies) evaluate drug safety from a systems-biology perspec- tive, ...
[88]
Use of the Ames test in toxicology - ScienceDirect.com
Use of the Ames test in toxicology☆. Author links open overlay panel. Larry D ... assay results in risk assessment. Understanding of the properties and ...
[89]
[PDF] Bioassay Investigations with Daphnia
Daphnia are effective organisms to use in a bioassay because they are sensitive to changes in the chemicals in their aquatic environment. To compare relative ...
[90]
[PDF] Bioassays for Evaluating Water Quality - EPA
Mar 28, 2018 · Whether the bioassays are high throughput or not, they have the ability to detect toxicity and provide needed biological context, providing some.
[91]
Experimental exposure assessment for in vitro cell-based bioassays ...
Jul 24, 2023 · In vitro cell-based bioassays have great potential for applications in the human health risk assessment of chemicals.
[92]
The application of bioassays in risk assessment of environmental ...
Increased contamination of the environment by toxic chemicals has resulted in the need for sensitive assays to be used in risk assessment of polluted sites.
[93]
Bioassay for Toxic and Hazardous Materials: Training Manual
1 Organisms have an ecological minimum and maximum for each environmental factor with a range in between called the critical range which represents the range of ...
[94]
Procedures For Conducting Daphnia Magna Toxicity Bioassays ...
A standardized protocol has been developed to provide guidance for conducting acute (death or immobility) and chronic (survival and reproduction) toxicity of ...
[95]
Biological test method: acute lethality of effluents to daphnia magna
Mar 22, 2023 · Daphnids are sensitive to a broad range of aquatic contaminants, and are used in toxicity tests internationally. They have the advantages of ...Abstract · Terminology · Section 1: Introduction · Section 2: Culturing Organisms
[96]
Daphnia as a model organism to probe biological responses ... - NIH
Daphnia are a well-established and widely used model organism for freshwater toxicity testing as they are well characterised, have a rapid parthenogenetic ...
[97]
A Daphnia magna feeding bioassay as a cost effective ... - PubMed
Nov 1, 2008 · Here we propose a short-term one day Daphnia magna feeding inhibition test as a cost effective and ecological relevant sublethal bioassay. The ...Missing: toxicology | Show results with:toxicology
[98]
Soil plate bioassay: an effective method to determine ... - PubMed
The SPB is an efficient, simple and economic alternative to other ecotoxicological assays to assess toxicity risks deriving from soil pollution.Missing: ecological | Show results with:ecological
[99]
The use of acute and chronic bioassays to determine the ecological ...
Chronic bioassays on soil samples are more sensitive in assessing the toxicity of mineral oil contamination in soil than acute bioassays on soil extracts.
[100]
Assessing Oil Spill Toxicity to Aquatic Life in the Field
Bioassays, tests that expose animals to oil to measure the toxic impacts, are usually done in the lab with scientists attempting to recreate oil spill ...
[101]
Fungal bioassays for environmental monitoring - PMC - NIH
Aug 25, 2022 · Mainly due to their sensitivity and reproducibility, bioassays have great advantages over other physical or chemical methods to detect ...
[102]
Bioassays - Environmental Science | Baylor University
Bioassays are typically conducted to measure the effects of a substance on a living organism and are essential in the development of new drugs and in ...
[103]
Microbial bioassays in environmental toxicity testing - ResearchGate
Aug 10, 2025 · Mainly due to their sensitivity and reproducibility, bioassays have great advantages over other physical or chemical methods to detect ...
[104]
Ames test study designs for nitrosamine mutagenicity testing
A mutagenic response in the Ames test is predictive of rodent carcinogenicity with high concordance, ranging from ~90% [6] to 77% [13], depending on 'chemical ...
[105]
THE MUTAGENICITY OF CARCINOGENIC COMPOUNDS
McCann and Ames asserted that approximately 90% of chemical carcinogens would be mutagenic in the Salmonella/microsome assay and that most noncarcinogens would ...
[106]
[PDF] Trejo-Martin-2022-use-of-Ames-to-predict-carcinogenicity.pdf
Aug 23, 2022 · The OECD 471 bacterial reverse mutation assay (Ames test) repre- sents a cornerstone of genetic toxicology used to de-risk impurities that.
[107]
Application of bioassays in toxicological hazard, risk and impact ...
Aug 6, 2025 · The present paper addresses the issue of the applicability of in vitro and in vivo bioassays for hazard, risk and local impact assessment of ...
[108]
Bioassays as one of the Green Chemistry tools for assessing ...
The advantage of bioassays in this case lies in their ability to assess the toxicity of a sample as a whole, and it does not matter whether the tested sample ...Missing: benefits | Show results with:benefits
[109]
Exploring the Benefits of Bioassay in Pharmacology
These assays are particularly valuable in the early stages of drug development, allowing researchers to assess potential compounds quickly and cost-effectively.
[110]
Bioassay - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
One of the first described bioassays was a bioassay for diphtheria antitoxin developed by Paul Ehrlich [8]. In medicine, bioassays have been historically used ...Missing: origin | Show results with:origin
[111]
Potency Assay Variability Estimation in Practice - Wiley Online Library
Jul 8, 2024 · Due to multiple operational and biological factors, higher variability is usually observed in bioassays compared with physicochemical methods.
[112]
Potency Assay Variability Estimation in Practice - PubMed
Jul 8, 2024 · In this paper, we discuss different sources of bioassay variability and how this variability can be statistically estimated.
[113]
1. introduction
General chapter 1033 provides validation goals pertaining to relative potency bioassays. Relative potency bioassays are based on a comparison of bioassay ...
[114]
Treating Cells as Reagents to Design Reproducible Assays
A major challenge with using cell-based assays is that cultured cells are inherently variable. A better understanding of parameters that contribute to ...
[115]
Bioassay complexities—exploring challenges in aquatic ... - Frontiers
Jan 2, 2024 · We evaluate common challenges including assumed readiness of individuals to respond, lack of information on the animals' physiological and social status.
[116]
Addressing Unusual Assay Variability with Robust Statistics - PubMed
However, assays may occasionally display unusually high variability and fall outside the assumptions inherent in these standard analyses.
[117]
Bioassay Development for Bispecific Antibodies—Challenges ... - NIH
May 19, 2021 · Despite efforts to implement measures to ensure method control, cell-based bioassays can be inherently variable and often lack the precision and ...
[118]
[PDF] The Special World of Bioassay - CASSS
May 6, 2025 · Bioassays are typically the only test on a product specification list able to detect conformational changes that may arise based on the manner.Missing: core | Show results with:core
[119]
[PDF] BIOASSAY OF TOLBUTAMIDE FOR POSSIBLE ... - GovInfo
CONTRIBUTORS: This report presents the results of the bioassay of tolbutamide for possible carcinogenicity, conducted for the.
[120]
[PDF] BIOASSAY OF DIELDRIN FOR POSSIBLE CARCINOGENICITY ...
CONTRIBUTORS; This report presents the results of the bioassay of dieldrin for possible carcinogenicity, conducted for the. Carcinogenesis Testing Program ...
[121]
Ethical considerations regarding animal experimentation - PMC - NIH
... Toxicity In: scientific frontiers in developmental toxicology and risk assessment. ... Animal studies in spinal cord injury: a systematic review of ...
[122]
Animal Welfare Considerations in Biomedical Research and Testing
Animals that develop toxic injury or disease during toxicology research and testing studies often experience significant pain, distress, suffering, and/or death ...
[123]
Strategic Focus on 3R Principles Reveals Major Reductions in the ...
The 3Rs, defined as Replacement, Reduction and Refinement, are fundamental principles for driving ethical research, testing and education using animals. The ...
[124]
3Rs Principle and Legislative Decrees to Achieve High Standard of ...
Jan 13, 2023 · The principle of Reduction refers to the reduction in the number of experimental units used in an experimental protocol to obtain relevant and ...
[125]
The 'R' principles in laboratory animal experiments
Dec 9, 2020 · Since the Three Rs of replacement, reduction and refinement was proposed by Russel and Birch in 1959, researchers have a moral duty to ...Abstract · Introduction · Main Text
[126]
Limitations of Animal Studies for Predicting Toxicity in Clinical Trials
Nov 25, 2019 · ... toxicity issues despite safety in ... Systematic reviews of animal experiments demonstrate poor human clinical and toxicological utility.The Price Of Wrong Decisions · Ppv, Npv, And Lr · Figure 3
[127]
[PDF] Systematic Reviews of Animal Experiments Demonstrate Poor ...
The poor human clinical and toxicological utility of most animal models for which data exists, in conjunction with their generally sub- stantial animal welfare ...
[128]
[PDF] Roadmap to Reducing Animal Testing in Preclinical Safety Studies
Apr 10, 2025 · 1 Over 90% of drugs that appear safe and effective in animals do not go on to receive FDA approval in humans predominantly due to safety and/or ...
[129]
Identifying Attributes That Influence In Vitro-to-In Vivo Concordance ...
Whereas concordance amongst inactive chemicals was high (89%), concordance amongst chemicals showing in vitro activity was only 13%, suggesting that follow-up ...
[130]
Alternatives to animal testing in toxicity testing: Current status and ...
In this paper, we review the current alternatives and their applicability and limitations in food safety evaluations. ... Alternative Animal Toxicity Testing and ...
[131]
Bioethical implications of organ-on-a-chip on modernizing drug ...
Aug 14, 2023 · (1) Economy of scale and the limitations of the chip size, materials available to create the three-dimensional microenvironment can reduce the ...
[132]
A Review on Alternative Methods to Experimental Animals in ... - NIH
These chips can be used for drug testing, disease research, and toxicity studies rather than using animals. Organoids, computer simulations, and other ...
[133]
AI-based toxicity prediction models using ToxCast data
They observed concordance between in vitro bioactivity and in vivo thyroid impacts ranging from 58 % to 78 % in their study.
[134]
[PDF] Potency Assurance for Cellular and Gene Therapy Products Draft ...
For the purpose of this guidance document, when discussing products that are themselves composed of living cells or tissues, we use the term bioassay more ...
[135]
Whole Effluent Toxicity Methods | US EPA
Feb 5, 2025 · The EPA recommends the use of ≥0.5 dilution factor and five effluent concentrations and a control. The test duration is typically 24, 48, or 96 ...
[136]
[PDF] Method Guidance and Recommendations for Whole Effluent Toxicity ...
If the objective of the test is to determine the absolute toxicity of an effluent, EPA recommends the use of a standard synthetic dilution water. ... toxicity, ...Missing: bioassays | Show results with:bioassays
[137]
https://doi.org/10.1039/D4RA06791F
[138]
Nanomaterials-based biosensor and their applications: A review
This review summarizes the development of biosensors made of NPssuch as noble metal NPs and metal oxide NPs, nanowires (NWs), nanorods (NRs), carbon nanotubes ...
[139]
A Whole-Cell Biosensor for Point-of-Care Detection of Waterborne ...
Jan 26, 2021 · In this study, we created a novel whole-cell biosensor to detect water contamination by Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Burkholderia pseudomallei.
[140]
Pyomelanin-powered whole-cell biosensor for ultrasensitive and ...
Aug 26, 2025 · Here, we engineered Escherichia coli into a naked-eye whole-cell biosensor by coupling a redesigned. MerR-Pmer element to the pyomelanin.
[141]
Sensitive and Specific Whole-Cell Biosensor for Arsenic Detection
May 16, 2019 · In this study, we designed an arsenic WCB with a positive feedback amplifier. It is highly sensitive and able to detect arsenic below the WHO limit level.<|control11|><|separator|>
[142]
Combining machine learning models of in vitro and in vivo ... - PubMed
Combining machine learning models of in vitro and in vivo bioassays improves rat carcinogenicity prediction. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2018 Apr:94:8-15.Missing: applications | Show results with:applications
[143]
Integrating bioassay data for improved prediction of drug-target ...
In this study, a feature enrichment method integrating bioassay and chemical structure data was developed to predict drug-target interaction.
[144]
Machine Learning Strategies When Transitioning between ...
Jun 21, 2021 · Predictive computational toxicology to support drug safety assessment ... model performance at the example of chemical toxicity data.<|separator|>
[145]
Integrating bioassay and machine learning data for ecological risk ...
This approach establishes a scalable framework for ecological risk evaluation by integrating experimental and computational methodologies. The resulting data ...
[146]
AI-driven hazard prioritization of plastic additives using Tox21 ...
Sep 16, 2025 · Active chemicals identified by Tox21 bioassays and deep learning models were integrated with existing hazard and regulatory information to ...<|separator|>
[147]
Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) to find optimal in-silico ...
Oct 14, 2024 · This study addresses this gap by implementing explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) to illuminate the impact of individual biomarkers in drug toxicity ...Methods · Biomarker Extraction · The Grid Search For...
[148]
AI in Bioassay: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly. - BEBPA
AI can predict active compounds and analyze outcomes, but may fail to capture long-term effects, and may overlook issues with messy data.