Trust your gut: Establishing confidence in gastrointestinal models – An overview of the state of the science and contexts of use

Debad Susan
Susan Debad, David Allen, Omari Bandele, Colin Bishop, Michaela Blaylock, Paul Brown, Maureen K. Bunger, Julia Y. Co, Lynn Crosby, Amber B. Daniel, Steve S. Ferguson, Kevin Ford, Gonçalo Gamboa da Costa, Kristin H. Gilchrist, Matthew W. Grogg, Maureen Gwinn, Thomas Hartung , Simon P. Hogan, Ye Eun Jeong, George E. N. Kass, Elaina Kenyon, Nicole C. Kleinstreuer, Ville Kujala, Patrik Lundquist, Joanna Matheson, Shaun D. McCullough, Angela Melton-Celsa, Steven Musser, Ilung Oh, Oluwakemi B. Oyetade, Sarita U. Patil, Elijah J. Petersen, Nakissa Sadrieh, Christie M. Sayes, Benjamin S. Scruggs, Yu-Mei Tan, Bill Thelin, M. Tyler Nelson, José V. Tarazona, John F. Wambaugh, Jun-young Yang, Changwoo Yu, Suzanne Fitzpatrick
DOI: 10.14573/altex.2403261


The webinar series and workshop titled Trust Your Gut: Establishing Confidence in Gastrointestinal Models – An Overview of the State of the Science and Contexts of Use was co-organized by NICEATM, NIEHS, FDA, EPA, CPSC, DoD, and the Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) and hosted at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, MD, USA on October 11-12, 2023. New approach methods (NAMs) for assessing issues of gastrointestinal tract (GIT)-related toxicity offer promise in addressing some of the limitations associated with animal-based assessments. GIT NAMs vary in complexity, from two-dimensional monolayer cell line-based systems to sophisticated 3-dimensional organoid systems derived from human primary cells. Despite advances in GIT NAMs, challenges remain in fully replicating the complex interactions and processes occurring within the human GIT. Presentations and discussions addressed regulatory needs, challenges, and innovations in incorporating NAMs into risk assessment frameworks; explored the state of the science in using NAMs for evaluating systemic toxicity, understanding absorption and pharmacokinetics, evaluating GIT toxicity, and assessing potential allergenicity; and discussed strengths, limitations, and data gaps of GIT NAMs as well as steps needed to establish confidence in these models for use in the regulatory setting.