↓ Skip to main content

Teratogenicity Testing

Overview of attention for book
Cover of 'Teratogenicity Testing'

Table of Contents

  1. Altmetric Badge
    Book Overview
  2. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 1 The ICH S5(R2) Guideline for the Testing of Medicinal Agents
  3. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 2 Nonclinical Reproductive Toxicity Testing Requirements for Drugs, Pesticides, and Industrial Chemicals in India and China
  4. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 3 The Developmental Toxicity Testing of Biologics
  5. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 4 The OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals and Pesticides
  6. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 5 Teratology Testing Under REACH
  7. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 6 The Teratology Testing of Food Additives
  8. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 7 Developmental Toxicity Testing of Vaccines
  9. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 8 The Teratology Testing of Cosmetics
  10. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 9 Teratology Studies in the Rat
  11. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 10 Teratology Studies in the Mouse
  12. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 11 Combined Fertility and Embryotoxicity Study
  13. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 12 Teratology Studies in the Rabbit
  14. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 13 Teratology Studies in the Minipig
  15. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 14 Embryo fetal Development Studies in Nonhuman Primates
  16. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 15 The Enhanced Pre- and Postnatal Development Study for Monoclonal Antibodies
  17. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 16 Skeletal Examination by Alizarin Staining
  18. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 17 Skeletal Examination by Double Staining for Ossified Bone and Cartilaginous Tissue
  19. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 18 Small Animal Imaging and Examination by Micro-CT
  20. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 19 Fetal Soft Tissue Examination by Serial Sectioning
  21. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 20 Fetal Soft Tissue Examinations by Microdissection
  22. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 21 Soft Tissue Examination of the Fetal Rat and Rabbit Head by Magnetic Resonance Imaging
  23. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 22 Historical Control Data in Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity Studies
  24. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 23 Reporting of Teratology Studies
  25. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 24 Maternal toxicity.
  26. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 25 Innovations in Testing Strategies in Reproductive Toxicology
  27. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 26 Predictive models and computational toxicology.
  28. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 27 The Embryonic Stem Cell Test
  29. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 28 Zebrafish Teratogenicity Testing
  30. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 29 Frog Embryo Teratogenesis Assay on Xenopus and Predictivity Compared with In Vivo Mammalian Studies
  31. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 30 The Rat Whole Embryo Culture Assay Using the Dysmorphology Score System
  32. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 31 Toxicogenomic Approaches in Developmental Toxicology Testing
  33. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 32 Teratogenicity Testing
  34. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 33 Regulatory Assessment of Reproductive Toxicology Data
  35. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 34 Hazard and Risk Assessment of Teratogenic Chemicals Under REACH
  36. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 35 Reproductive toxicity risk assessment for pesticides.
  37. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 36 The thalidomide disaster, lessons from the past.
Attention for Chapter 24: Maternal toxicity.
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Chapter title
Maternal toxicity.
Chapter number 24
Book title
Teratogenicity Testing
Published in
Methods in molecular biology, November 2012
DOI 10.1007/978-1-62703-131-8_24
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-62703-130-1, 978-1-62703-131-8
Authors

Danielsson BR, Bengt R. Danielsson, Danielsson, Bengt R.

Abstract

Although demonstration of some degree of maternal toxicity is required in regulatory developmental toxicology studies, marked maternal toxicity may be a confounding factor in data interpretation. Reduction in maternal body weight gain is the far most frequently used endpoint of toxicity, but alternative endpoints, like organ toxicity or exaggerated pharmacological response, can also be taken into consideration. The following conclusions are based on literature data and discussions at maternal toxicity workshops attended by representatives from regulatory agencies, academia, and industry: (1) Available results do not support that maternal toxicity (defined as clinical signs, decreased body weight gain or absolute body weight loss of up to 15% in rats or 7% in rabbits) can be used to explain the occurrence of major malformations. (2) There is clear evidence that substantial reductions in maternal weight gain (or absolute weight loss) are linked with other manifestations of developmental toxicity. Among these can be mentioned decreased fetal weight, and skeletal anomalies (e.g., wavy ribs) in rats and decreased fetal weights, post implantation loss, abortions, and some skeletal anomalies in rabbits. (3) There are several examples of misinterpretation among companies, where it was incorrectly expected that regulatory authorities would not label chemicals/drugs as "teratogens/developmental toxicants" because embryo fetal adverse effects were only observed at doses also causing signs of maternal toxicity. (4) Similarly, even if mechanistic studies indicate that a substance causes developmental toxicity via exaggerated pharmacological effects in the mother, such a mechanism does not automatically negate the observed fetal adverse effects.From a regulatory perspective, an observed developmental toxic finding is considered to be of potential human relevance (even if it is mediated via maternal pharmacological effects or occur at doses causing signs of maternal toxicity) unless the company can provide appropriate mechanistic and/or other convincing evidence to the contrary.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 1 6%
Unknown 17 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 22%
Other 3 17%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Student > Master 1 6%
Unknown 8 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Neuroscience 1 6%
Chemistry 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 August 2014.
All research outputs
#20,233,547
of 22,759,618 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#9,864
of 13,089 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,038
of 180,197 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#36
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,759,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,089 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 180,197 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.