CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 33Animal testing and alternativesViral Infectious Diseases and Gene Expression in InsectsBiomedical Ethics and Regulation

A worldwide survey on the use of animal‐derived materials and reagents in scientific experimentation

Open access
Cassotta, Manuela, Bartnicka, Joanna Julia, Pistollato, Francesca, Parvatam, Surat, Weber, Tilo, D'Alessandro, Vito, Bastos, Luisa Ferreira, Coecke, Sandra·2022·Engineering in Life Sciences
DOI 10.1002/elsc.202100167PMC PMC9444711
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The use of cell and tissue‐based methods in basic, applied and regulatory science has been increasing exponentially. Animal‐derived components, including serum, coating materials, growth factors and antibodies are routinely used in cell/tissue cultures and in general laboratory practices. In addition to ethical issues, the use and production of animal‐derived materials and reagents raises many scientific concerns, generally associated with presence of undefined components and batch‐to‐batch variability, which may compromise experimental reproducibility. On the other hand, non‐animal materials and reagents, such as human cells, alternatives to animal sera or non‐animal recombinant antibodies, are becoming increasingly available, and their use is encouraged by the EU Directive 2010/63 and the Guidance Document on Good In vitro Method Practices (GIVIMP), published by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). In an effort to map the current state of use of animal‐derived reagents across different sectors and to identify the obstacles possibly hampering the implementation of non‐animal derived alternatives, a global online survey addressed to scientists working on in vivo, in vitro, in silico methods, in academia as well as pharmaceutical or cosmetic companies, was conducted with the goal to understand: 1) the most commonly used animal‐derived materials and reagents, 2) the main issues associated with the production and use of animal‐derived materials and reagents, 3) the current level of knowledge on available non‐animal alternative materials and reagents, and 4) what educational and information sources could be most useful or impactful to disseminate knowledge on non‐animal alternatives. This paper provides an overview of the survey replies and discusses possible proposals to increase awareness, acceptance and use of non‐animal ingredients.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This global online survey of 551 scientists from 52 countries maps the use of animal-derived materials and reagents in scientific experimentation and identifies barriers to adopting non-animal alternatives. It reports that serum, antibodies, and dissociation enzymes are most used, while lack of awareness, protocol inertia, and cost are major obstacles to replacement.

Key findings

  • Most-used animal-derived reagents were animal serum (77%), animal-derived antibodies (71%), dissociation enzymes (65%), cellular growth factors (47%), and coating materials such as Matrigel or laminin (40%).
  • Main perceived issues with animal-derived materials were batch-to-batch variability or low reproducibility (57%), ethical concerns (51%), interspecies differences (41%), undefined components (38%), pathogen contamination risk (26%), and cross-contamination risk (15%); 9% were not aware of any issues.
  • Non-animal alternatives had been considered for serum by 43% of respondents, antibodies by 23%, growth factors by 21%, coating materials by 19%, and dissociation enzymes by 17%; 31% had never considered non-animal materials. Reasons for not considering them included lack of awareness of availability (33%), preference for existing lab protocols (31%), high costs or lack of funding (21%), belief animal-derived materials were irreplaceable (20%), and insufficient information (18%).
  • Perceived advantages of non-animal reagents were ethics (76%), increased reproducibility (51%), higher scientific relevance/reliability (38%), improved biosafety (34%), and lower costs (19%); 68% rated their own education/information on animal-free alternatives as inadequate, and 61% expressed interest in knowing more. For animal suffering, the Results text reports 53% for serum and 49% for antibodies as “very high or high” (Table 1 lists 48% and 44%, respectively).

Methods

  • Online survey conducted between December 2020 and May 2021 using the European Union’s EU Survey system, comprising 19 multiple-choice questions in four sections: personal information, methodological approaches/materials/reagents, awareness, and knowledge/information sources.
  • Disseminated through social media, a promotional video, emails, international seminars, and collaborating partners’ websites; targeted email lists were also generated via PubMed search-term combinations.
  • A total of 551 persons from 52 countries participated; 62% worked in academia, 8% in educational institutions, 8% in governmental institutions, 6% in biotechnology companies, and 6% in non-profit/non-governmental institutions. Results were organized and analyzed using Microsoft Office Excel, GraphPad Prism 8.4.3, and RStudio.

Limitations

  • Stated by the authors: industry/private-sector responses were relatively low (about 6%; 35 biotechnology, 13 pharmaceutical, and 5 cosmetics replies), and responses were limited from countries such as China, Australia, Russia, and France; the dissemination strategy may have been more effective at reaching academic researchers.
  • Stated by the authors: the survey combined whole animal- and human cell-derived materials into one answer option, so the exact number of respondents using whole animals to derive cell materials cannot be retrieved; the survey also excluded reagents from animals outside Directive 2010/63/EU (e.g., arthropod-derived reagents) and in vivo test methods.
  • Evident from the text: this was a voluntary, self-selected online survey with no overall response rate reported, so the findings may not be representative of the broader scientific community.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/elsc.202100167

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

1 of 23 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Findingown data

    Most respondents (76%) believe that the benefits of using non-animal reagents instead of animal-derived ones would be mainly of ethical nature.

    “Most of respondents believe that the benefits would be mainly of ethical nature (76%)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    A smaller percentage of students (about 46%) considered the use of any animal-free alternatives compared to post-doctoral researchers (56%), senior scientists or team leaders (66%), and professors/teachers/lecturers (70%).

    “smaller percentage of students (about 46%) considered the use of any animal‐free alternatives, compared to post‐doctoral researchers (56%), senior scientists or team leaders (66%), and professors/teachers/lecturers (70%)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    A total of 551 persons from 52 countries participated in the survey.

    “A total of 551 persons from 52 countries participated in the survey, which was launched on December 6th 2020 and remained opened for 5 months.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    51% of respondents linked the benefits of using non-animal reagents to increase of reproducibility.

    “or linked to increase of reproducibility (51%)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    21% of respondents reported high costs or lack of funding as a reason for not considering animal-free alternatives.

    “high costs or lack of funding (21%)”
    • Also stated in: § DISCUSSION · plain
      “Another obstacle identified is the cost of replacing animal‐derived ingredients (21% of participants)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 14
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 7
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    LAL and TAL are cell extracts from the hemolymph of different horseshoe crab species, at least two of which are considered vulnerable or endangered by the IUCN Red List.

    “LAL and TAL [57] are cell extracts from the hemolymph of different horseshoe crab species, at least two are already considered vulnerable [58] or even endangered [59] by the International Union for Conservation of Nature's Red List of Threatened Species, respectively.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [57] Gorman R. Atlantic horseshoe crabs and endotoxin testing: perspectives on alternatives, sustainable methods, and the 3Rs (replacement, reduction, and refinement). Front Mar Sci. 2020; 7: 830. 10.3389/fmars.2020.582132 PMC7612741 35591980 source

      The Introduction (page unavailable) says the LAL test uses the blood of Atlantic horseshoe crabs, supporting the LAL portion of the claim. Our copy does not identify TAL or say that LAL and TAL come from different species. The vulnerable and endangered classifications are attached to separate citations [58] and [59] in the citing sentence, not to this source [57]. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [58] Smith DR, Beekey MA, Brockmann HJ, et al. Limulus polyphemus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species; 2016. Accessed November 8 2021. https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/11987/80159830

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [59] Laurie K, Chen C‐P, Cheung SG, et al. Tachypleus tridentatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species; 2019. Accessed November 8 2021. https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/21309/149768986

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The highest majority of survey participants work in academia (62%, 342 in 551).

    “With regards to their affiliations, the highest majority (62%, 342 in 551) work in academia”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    About 6% of survey participants work in biotechnology companies and about 6% in non-profit/non-governmental institutions.

    “an equal 6% in either biotechnology companies or in non‐profit/non‐governmental institutions”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There were 35 replies from biotechnology companies, 13 from pharmaceutical companies, and 5 from cosmetics companies.

    “There were only 35 replies from the biotechnology companies, 13 from pharmaceutical companies, and 5 from cosmetics companies.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    83% of respondents working with stem cells considered the use of animal-free alternatives, compared to 60% of all survey respondents.

    “83% of respondents working with stem cells considered the use of animal‐free alternatives, compared to 60% of all survey respondents”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingnone given

    Compared to the pooled survey participants, a subgroup of researchers working with stem cells as a test system had larger proportions of respondents who already considered the use of animal-free alternatives or rated their awareness on these alternatives as high.

    “had larger proportions of respondents who already considered the use of animal‐free alternatives or rated their awareness on these alternatives as high.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Compared to other types of organizations surveyed, respondents from biotechnology companies rated higher their awareness and knowledge on animal-free alternatives and a larger proportion of them considered the use of animal-free alternatives.

    “Indeed, compared to other types of organizations surveyed, respondents from biotechnology companies rated higher their awareness and knowledge on animal‐free alternatives and a larger proportion of them considered the use of animal‐free alternatives (Fig. S2).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Fig. S2

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Only 10% of respondents from academia rated their awareness/knowledge as high and 30% as medium.

    “only 10% of respondents from academia rated their awareness/knowledge as high and 30% as medium”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    22% of surveyed researchers using stem cells as one of the main test systems declared high awareness or knowledge on animal-free alternatives, while on average 13% of all survey respondents gave this answer.

    “Twenty two percent of surveyed researchers using stem cells as one of the main test systems declared high awareness or knowledge on the animal‐free alternatives, while on average 13% of all survey respondents gave this answer”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationown data

    The significant lack of knowledge about the possibility to replace animal-derived ingredients with non-animal alternatives (about a third of survey participants) points to the importance of investing in activities aimed at raising awareness about the existence of animal-free alternatives.

    “The significant lack of knowledge about the possibility to replace animal‐derived ingredients with non‐animal alternatives (about a third of survey participants), points to the importance of investing in activities aimed at raising awareness about the existence of animal‐free alternatives.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Scientists operate in research silos and are predominantly exposed to new information emerging in their respective research fields.

    “Despite the fact that scientists strive for progress and innovation, it is a well‐known phenomenon that they also operate in research silos [39], and are predominantly exposed to new information emerging in their respective research fields.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [39] Carusi W, Wittwehr. Bridging across methods in the biosciences. Publications Office of the European Union; 2019. 10.2760/190697 (online), 10.2760/41124 (print), JRC116305

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The worldwide annual production of FBS is about 600,000 to 800,000 L collected from around 1 to 2 million fetuses.

    “Rigorous examination of the global use of FBS has shown that the worldwide annual production of FBS is about 600,000 to 800,000 L collected from around 1 to 2 million fetuses [15, 16].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [15] Festen R. Understanding animal sera: Considerations for use in the production of biological therapeutics. In: Stacey G, Davis J, eds. Medicines from Animal Cell Culture, 2007: 45‐ 58. 10.1002/9780470723791.ch4

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [16] Jochems CE, van der Valk JB, Stafleu FR, Baumans V. The use of fetal bovine serum: ethical or scientific problem? Altern Lab Anim. 2002; 30: 219‐ 227. 10.1177/026119290203000208 11971757 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Synthetic alternatives to Matrigel have been described.

    “Synthetic alternatives to Matrigel have been described [26].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [26] Aisenbrey EA, Murphy WL. Synthetic alternatives to Matrigel. Nat Rev Mater. 2020; 5: 539‐ 551. 10.1038/s41578-020-0199-8 32953138 PMC7500703 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The survey focused only on reagents derived from animals covered by the scope of Directive 2010/63/EU.

    “For the sake of completeness, it has also to be noted that this survey focussed only on reagents derived from animals covered by the scope of Directive 2010/63/EU.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Animal-free alternatives such as chemically-defined media or recombinant proteins, when consisting of defined reagents with a publicly disclosed and reproducible composition, can provide lower to no batch-to-batch variation than reagents purified from animals.

    “It should also be noted that “animal‐free alternatives,” such as chemically‐defined media or recombinant proteins, when consisting of defined reagents with a publicly disclosed and reproducible composition, can provide lower to no batch‐to‐batch variation than reagents purified from animals.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Other animal-derived materials and reagents, such as Matrigel, collagen from diverse animal origins, and animal-derived antibodies, result in significant animal welfare concerns, which are in opposition to the original 3Rs principle.

    “Other animal‐derived materials and reagents, such as Matrigel™ (a basement membrane preparation derived from the Engelbreth‐Holm‐Swarm sarcoma grown and propagated in mice), collagen from diverse animal origins, and animal‐derived antibodies, also results in significant animal welfare concerns, which are in opposition to the original 3Rs principle [17].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [17] Gray AC, Sidhu SS, Chandrasekera PC, Hendriksen CFM, Borrebaeck CA. Animal‐friendly affinity reagents: replacing the needless in the haystack. Trends Biotechnol. 2016; 34: 960‐ 969. 10.1016/j.tibtech.2016.05.017 27450382 source

      Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    All animal-derived materials and reagents are obtained from different animal groups and result in batch-to-batch variation, which may lead to reliability and integrity concerns for generated in vitro data.

    “Notably, all animal‐derived materials and reagents are obtained from different animal groups and result in batch‐to‐batch variation, which may lead to reliability and integrity concerns for generated in vitro data [18, 19].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [18] OECD. Guidance Document on Good In Vitro Method Practices (GIVIMP); 2018. 10.1787/9789264304796-en source
    • cites [19] van der Valk J, Bieback K, Buta C, et al. Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS): past ‐ present ‐ future. ALTEX. 2018; 35: 99‐ 118. 10.14573/altex.1705101 28800376 source

      Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Reagents derived from arthropods and methods involving the use of whole animals were not part of this survey.

    “For example, reagents derived from arthropods (which are not covered by the Directive) are not part of this survey, neither are methods involving the use of whole animals.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Serum is a complex mixture of different factors, which introduces undefined constituents within the culture medium; many of these components have not yet been identified, and in several cases, their effects on cell/tissue cultures are still unknown.

    “In addition, serum is a complex mixture of different factors, which introduces undefined constituents within the culture medium. Many of these components have not yet been identified, and in several cases, their effects on cell/tissue cultures are still unknown [18, 20].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [18] OECD. Guidance Document on Good In Vitro Method Practices (GIVIMP); 2018. 10.1787/9789264304796-en source
    • cites [20] Karnieli O, Friedner OM, Allickson JG, et al. A consensus introduction to serum replacements and serum‐free media for cellular therapies. Cytotherapy. 2017, 19, 155‐ 169. 10.1016/j.jcyt.2016.11.011 28017599 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The European Pharmacopoeia included a synthetic substitute (recombinant Factor C, rFC) in 2016 and a method containing reagents deriving from human blood (Monocyte-Activation Test, MAT) in 2010.

    “However, the European Pharmacopoeia included a synthetic substitute (recombinant Factor C, rFC) in 2016 [57] and a method containing reagents deriving from human blood (Monocyte‐Activation Test, MAT) in 2010 [60].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [57] Gorman R. Atlantic horseshoe crabs and endotoxin testing: perspectives on alternatives, sustainable methods, and the 3Rs (replacement, reduction, and refinement). Front Mar Sci. 2020; 7: 830. 10.3389/fmars.2020.582132 PMC7612741 35591980 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [60] Brown J, Clippinger AJ, Fritz Briglia C, et al. Using the monocyte activation test as a stand‐alone release test for medical devices. ALTEX. 2021; 38: 151‐ 156. 10.14573/altex.2012021 33452530 source

      Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.

20 of 20

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The use of cell and tissue-based methods in basic, applied and regulatory science has been increasing exponentially.

    “The use of cell and tissue‐based methods in basic, applied and regulatory science has been increasing exponentially.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Animal-derived components including serum, coating materials, growth factors and antibodies are routinely used in cell/tissue cultures and in general laboratory practices.

    “Animal‐derived components, including serum, coating materials, growth factors and antibodies are routinely used in cell/tissue cultures and in general laboratory practices.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Non-animal materials and reagents, such as human cells, alternatives to animal sera or non-animal recombinant antibodies, are becoming increasingly available.

    “On the other hand, non‐animal materials and reagents, such as human cells, alternatives to animal sera or non‐animal recombinant antibodies, are becoming increasingly available”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The survey respondents are representative of scientists working on in vivo, in vitro, in silico methods in academia as well as pharmaceutical or cosmetic companies worldwide.

    “a global online survey addressed to scientists working on in vivo, in vitro, in silico methods, in academia as well as pharmaceutical or cosmetic companies, was conducted”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Survey responses accurately reflect respondents' actual practices and knowledge.

    “Survey results were organized, analyzed, and plotted using Microsoft Office Excel, GraphPad Prism 8.4.3., and RStudio.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The survey questions were understood consistently by respondents.

    “The survey comprised 19 multiple‐choice questions divided into the following four main sections: a) personal information (4 questions); b) methodological approaches, materials and reagents (5 questions); c) awareness (6 questions); d) knowledge and information sources (4 questions)”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Some animal-free alternatives, especially recombinant proteins, can be several-fold more expensive than proteins purified from tissues (e.g., albumin or trypsin).

    “Indeed, some of the animal‐free alternatives, especially recombinant proteins, can be several‐fold more expensive than proteins purified from tissues (e.g., albumin or trypsin).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Recombinant antibodies are in a similar price range as monoclonal antibodies made by hybridoma technology and, being completely sequence defined, offer significant advantage over monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies.

    “Recombinant antibodies are in a similar price range as monoclonal antibodies made by hybridoma technology and by being completely sequence defined, they offer significant advantage over monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The price of chemically defined media is usually higher than standard basal media but becomes similar when considering the additional cost of FBS supplementation, which comprises the majority of the total price.

    “The price of chemically defined media is usually higher than of standard basal media but the numbers become similar when one considers the additional cost of FBS supplementation, comprising the majority of the total price.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    When chemically-defined media or other animal-free alternatives exist on the market, they are not always supported by independent validation published by the end users.

    “When such chemically‐defined media, or other animal‐free alternatives exist on the market, they are not always supported by independent validation published by the end users.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Commercial suppliers do not always disclose the need for all necessary supplements or the most suitable adaptation protocols.

    “Furthermore, commercial suppliers do not always disclose the need for all necessary supplements or the most suitable adaptation protocols.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    If methods have been developed and optimized based on historical data or protocols using animal-derived ingredients, additional investment will be required to validate the method involving animal-free alternatives.

    “Nevertheless, if any methods have been developed and optimized based on the historical data or protocols using animal‐derived ingredients, additional investment will be required to validate the method involving animal‐free alternatives.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The awareness of the risk of unintentional introduction of contaminants via raw materials from animal sources has led to a move toward animal-free medium components and adaptation of cell lines grown in animal-free media for the production of biologics and vaccines.

    “The awareness of the risk of unintentional introduction of contaminants via raw materials from animal sources has led to a move toward animal‐free medium components and adaptation of cell lines grown in animal‐free media for the production of biologics and vaccines.”
13 of 13

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The undefined or incompletely characterized composition and batch-to-batch variability of animal-derived reagents and human blood-derived products can compromise reproducibility and limit translational relevance.

    “These animal-derived reagents, and also human blood-derived products, are frequently associated with undefined or incompletely characterized composition and batch-to-batch variability, which can compromise reproducibility and limit translational relevance (Aisenbrey and Murphy, 2020; Cassotta et al., 2022; Nezvedova et al., 2025; Wolff and Hendrix, 2025; Akuta et al., 2026).”

    From Challenges and solutions in transitioning to animal-free standards: a comprehensive analysis of components in human cell-based developmental neurotoxicity assays (2026) · cites this paper as Cassotta et al., 2022

    The Introduction says animal-derived reagents vary between batches and that serum contains unidentified components; the Practical Application section links biologically undefined animal-derived materials to reproducibility problems. It mentions human serum and human platelet lysate as alternatives and recommends chemically defined media for more reproducible cultures, but does not establish the claimed batch variability or limited translational relevance of human blood-derived products. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Animal-derived reagents and human blood-derived products are frequently associated with undefined or incompletely characterized composition and batch-to-batch variability.

    “These animal-derived reagents, and also human blood-derived products, are frequently associated with undefined or incompletely characterized composition and batch-to-batch variability, which can compromise reproducibility and limit translational relevance (Aisenbrey and Murphy, 2020; Cassotta et al., 2022; Nezvedova et al., 2025; Wolff and Hendrix, 2025; Akuta et al., 2026).”

    From Challenges and solutions in transitioning to animal-free standards: a comprehensive analysis of components in human cell-based developmental neurotoxicity assays (2026) · cites this paper as Cassotta et al., 2022

    The Introduction says animal-derived reagents have batch-to-batch variation and that serum introduces unidentified constituents; the Abstract links these concerns to compromised reproducibility. The paper mentions human serum and platelet lysate as alternatives, but does not establish that human blood-derived products share the claimed composition and batch-variability problems. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The increasing availability of recombinant and chemically defined reagents provides opportunities to reduce reliance on animal-derived materials and to improve the definition of cell culture systems used in toxicological testing.

    “The increasing availability of recombinant and chemically defined reagents provides opportunities to reduce reliance on animal-derived materials and to improve the definition of cell culture systems used in toxicological testing (Nesterenko et al., 2020; Cassotta et al., 2022; Fraser et al., 2025).”

    From Challenges and solutions in transitioning to animal-free standards: a comprehensive analysis of components in human cell-based developmental neurotoxicity assays (2026) · cites this paper as Cassotta et al., 2022

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Table 1 and results give different animal-suffering percentages

    Major

    Table 1 reports 48% for serum and 44% for antibodies, while the results report 53% and 49%, respectively, for the same high or very high suffering assessment.

  • Animal-free alternatives are assigned to the wrong table

    Minor

    The text directs readers to Table 1 for examples of animal-free alternatives, but Table 1 contains survey outcomes; the examples appear in Table 2.

  • Industry share conflicts with the reported company counts

    Minor

    The listed biotechnology, pharmaceutical and cosmetics responses total 53 of 551, or about 9.6%, rather than about 6%.

3 of 3

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Bartnicka J, 2021, Towards animal‐free in vitro methods in the Thyroid Validation Study, JRC125904

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Cassotta, M., Bartnicka, J. J., Pistollato, F., Parvatam, S., Weber, T., D'Alessandro, V., Bastos, L. F., & Coecke, S.
Affiliations
  • Oltre la Sperimentazione Animale (OSA) Segrate Milan Italy
  • Joint Research Centre (IT)
  • Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (IN)
  • Akademie für Tierschutz des Deutschen Tierschutzbundes e.V. (DE)
  • Eurogroup for Animals Brussels Belgium
Corresponding author
Coecke, Sandra
ORCID
Venue
Engineering in Life Sciences
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-07-18
Volume
22
Issue
9
Pages
564-583
ISSN
  • 1618-0240 (ISSN-L)
  • 1618-2863
DOI
10.1002/elsc.202100167
PMC
PMC9444711
OpenAlex
W4285802720
Cited by
33
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 2
FWCI
7.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Engineering in Life Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Viral Infectious Diseases and Gene Expression in Insects
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Biomedical Ethics and Regulation
Keywords
animal-derived materials, non-animal alternatives, animal serum, recombinant antibodies, batch-to-batch variation, experimental reproducibility, alternatives to animal testing, in vitro evaluation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-11-06.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-11-06.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review