Good cell culture practices & in vitro toxicology
Abstract
Good Cell Culture Practices (GCCP) is of high relevance to in vitro toxicology. The European Society of Toxicology In Vitro (ESTIV), the Center for Alternatives for Animal Testing (CAAT) and the In Vitro Toxicology Industrial Platform (IVTIP) joined forces to address by means of an ESTIV 2016 pre-congress session the different aspects and applications of GCCP. The covered aspects comprised the current status of the OECD guidance document on Good In Vitro Method Practices, the importance of quality assurance for new technological advances in in vitro toxicology including stem cells, and the optimized implementation of Good Manufacturing Practices and Good Laboratory Practices for regulatory testing purposes. General discussions raised the duality related to the difficulties in implementing GCCP in an academic innovative research framework on one hand, and on the other hand, the need for such GCCP principles in order to ensure reproducibility and robustness of in vitro test methods for toxicity testing. Indeed, if good cell culture principles are critical to take into consideration for all uses of in vitro test methods for toxicity testing, the level of application of such principles may depend on the stage of development of the test method as well as on the applications of the test methods, i.e., academic innovative research vs. regulatory standardized test method.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
A number of initiatives are converging toward the development of Good In Vitro Reporting Standards (GIVReSt): Good Cell Culture Practices (GCCP), TOP, GIVIMP, and evidence-based toxicology.
“A number of initiatives are converging toward the development of Good In Vitro Reporting Standards (GIVReSt): Good Cell Culture Practices (GCCP) (Coecke et al., 2005)”
From Toward good in vitro reporting standards (2019) · cites this paper as Eskes et al., 2017
OECD guidance document for Good In Vitro Method Practices (GIVIMP) defined standards for regulatory testing under Good Laboratory Practice rules.
“Other initiatives, such as the OECD guidance document for Good In Vitro Method Practices (GIVIMP) (Eskes et al., 2017), defined standards for regulatory testing under Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) rules.”
From In Vitro research Reproducibility: Keeping up High Standards (2019) · cites this paper as Eskes et al., 2017
Protocol optimization has successfully reduced or eliminated fetal bovine serum (FBS) in line with GCCP recommendations.
“Protocol optimization has successfully reduced or eliminated fetal bovine serum (FBS) in line with Good Cell Culture Practice (GCCP) recommendations (Coecke et al., 2005; Eskes et al., 2017; Pamies et al., 2017; Pamies et al., 2018; Tigges et al., 2021; Pamies et al., 2022)”
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 Eskes et al., 2017
Stemcell Technologies' product sheet recommends pairing mTESR1 with Matrigel.
“GCCP for stem cell culture endorses the xeno-free mTESR1 stem cell medium, yet Stemcell Technologies’ product sheet still recommends pairing it with Matrigel (Eskes et al., 2017).”
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 Eskes et al., 2017
GCCP for stem cell culture endorses the xeno-free mTESR1 stem cell medium.
“GCCP for stem cell culture endorses the xeno-free mTESR1 stem cell medium, yet Stemcell Technologies’ product sheet still recommends pairing it with Matrigel (Eskes et al., 2017).”
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 Eskes et al., 2017
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 17 · Cited by 52
- Authors
- Eskes, C., Boström, A.-C., Bowe, G., Coecke, S., Hartung, T., Hendriks, G., Pamies, D., Piton, A., & Rovida, C.
- Affiliations
- Joint Research Centre (IT)
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- ALP (France) (FR)
- University of Konstanz (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Eskes, Chantra
- Venue
- Toxicology in Vitro
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-12
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- Pt 3
- Pages
- 272-277
- ISSN
- 0887-2333 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2609564974
- Cited by
- 52
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 7.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Toxicology in Vitro (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Joint Research Centre (European Commission) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Biomedical Ethics and Regulation
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immunotoxicology and immune responses
- Keywords
- in vitro toxicology, quality assurance, stem cells, good manufacturing practices, good laboratory practice, reproducibility, robustness, in vitro methods, regulatory testing, alternatives to animal testing
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Animal Testing Alternatives, Humans, Stem Cells, Toxicology, Reproducibility of Results, Cell Culture Techniques
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.
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
