ShareThis Page
Health

Beagles, often killed in lab testing, could be spared by new technology

| Tuesday, April 4, 2017, 7:57 a.m.
A former research beagle hesitates before stepping out of his cage to walk on grass.
AFP/Getty Images
A former research beagle hesitates before stepping out of his cage to walk on grass.
Three of five beagles are lined up in separate cages before opening the doors to release them to walk on grass for the first time, at a residential home in Los Angeles, California, June 24, 2016 shortly after the dogs were released from a testing laboratory where they had been used for research studies.
The beagles, who up until now had only known a life in cages, were given their first chance to walk and play on grass before  being adopted by pre-screened families who will give them a new life as a family pet.  The release was negotiated by the Beagle Freedom Project (BFP), an non-profit organization which obtained the release of the dogs from the testing facilities where they were scheduled to be euthanized because they were not longer useful to researchers. / AFP / ROBYN BECK        (Photo credit should read ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images)
AFP/Getty Images
Three of five beagles are lined up in separate cages before opening the doors to release them to walk on grass for the first time, at a residential home in Los Angeles, California, June 24, 2016 shortly after the dogs were released from a testing laboratory where they had been used for research studies. The beagles, who up until now had only known a life in cages, were given their first chance to walk and play on grass before being adopted by pre-screened families who will give them a new life as a family pet. The release was negotiated by the Beagle Freedom Project (BFP), an non-profit organization which obtained the release of the dogs from the testing facilities where they were scheduled to be euthanized because they were not longer useful to researchers. / AFP / ROBYN BECK (Photo credit should read ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images)
A former laboratory research beagle plays on grass with a chew toy, at a residential home in Los Angeles, California, June 24, 2016 shorlty after the dog's release. 
The beagles, who up until now had only known a life in cages, were given their first chance to walk and play on grass before  being adopted by pre-screened families who will give them a new life as a family pet.  The release was negotiated by the Beagle Freedom Project (BFP), an non-profit organization which obtained the release of the dogs from the testing facilities where they were scheduled to be euthanized because they were not longer useful to researchers. / AFP / ROBYN BECK        (Photo credit should read ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images)
AFP/Getty Images
A former laboratory research beagle plays on grass with a chew toy, at a residential home in Los Angeles, California, June 24, 2016 shorlty after the dog's release. The beagles, who up until now had only known a life in cages, were given their first chance to walk and play on grass before being adopted by pre-screened families who will give them a new life as a family pet. The release was negotiated by the Beagle Freedom Project (BFP), an non-profit organization which obtained the release of the dogs from the testing facilities where they were scheduled to be euthanized because they were not longer useful to researchers. / AFP / ROBYN BECK (Photo credit should read ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images)
Dr. Lawrence Vernetti, research associate professor at the University of Pittsburgh poses for a portrait inside of the Biomedical Science Tower on March 27, 2017.
Nate Smallwood | Tribune-Review
Dr. Lawrence Vernetti, research associate professor at the University of Pittsburgh poses for a portrait inside of the Biomedical Science Tower on March 27, 2017.
A drug study with multiple livers under treatment is shown inside one of the lab of Dr. Lawrence Vernetti, research associate professor at the University of Pittsburgh at the Biomedical Science Tower on March 27, 2017.
Nate Smallwood | Tribune-Review
A drug study with multiple livers under treatment is shown inside one of the lab of Dr. Lawrence Vernetti, research associate professor at the University of Pittsburgh at the Biomedical Science Tower on March 27, 2017.

Lawrence Vernetti tested drugs on animals in a Chicago lab for four years before a friendly female beagle, scheduled to die in the tests, reset the course of his career.

“I connected with it,” Vernetti said of the unnamed dog. “ … Here I was, the person that was literally scheduling to the day and to the hour when she would go into necropsy.”

He started researching alternatives to animal testing.

Two decades later, Vernetti, the director of early drug safety at the University of Pittsburgh's Drug Discovery Institute, says “organ-on-a-chip” technologies could soon reduce animal deaths and predict more accurately how drugs will affect humans.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has required animal testing since the 1960s to help prove drugs are safe and effective before they are tested in humans, but most drugs that prove safe and effective in animals fail in humans. An FDA analysis showed 92 percent of drugs that make it through preliminary testing, including those in animals, fail by the final phase of human testing.

“Animal models are becoming an outdated and kind of archaic model for predicting toxicity,” said Jeremy Beckham, a research specialist at the California-based nonprofit Beagle Freedom Project. The group advocates for reducing and eventually eliminating animal testing, and is paying for some of Vernetti's research.

About 768,000 animals were used in testing and research in the United States in fiscal year 2015, according to the most recent Department of Agriculture figures, with about 25,000 in Pennsylvania.

About 61,000 were dogs, and, due to a quirk of history, most were probably beagles, Beckham said.

The breed's small size and docile nature made beagles good candidates for Cold War-area researchers to test the toxicity of radioactive elements, he said, and an industry grew around raising the dogs and selling them to researchers.

“Now it's just sort of become the breed that's on hand,” he said.

Researchers in 2015 also used about 20,000 cats, 62,000 nonhuman primates, and thousands of pigs, guinea pigs, hamsters, rabbits and sheep. The number doesn't include rats, mice or birds, the species Beckham said are used in 95 percent of animal research.

The agency doesn't release numbers on how many of the animals are killed, but many are used for toxicity testing, which requires tissue analysis normally done after an animal is killed, Beckham said. Researchers often don't use the anesthetics a veterinarian would because the pain-relieving drugs would skew results, he added.

Vernetti said that while animal testing is useful in developing treatments for some diseases, it is ill-suited to test complex human diseases such as cancer. Organ-on-a-chip models use human cells and incorporate some of the characteristics of a cell functioning in the human body, he said.

His research focuses on the liver. He puts 225,000 liver cells — about a third of one-millionth the number in the human organ — into a device about half the size of a dime.

Unlike petri-dish tests that use human cells, the device maintains a three-dimensional structure made from multiple cell types, he said. The device pumps a blood surrogate through the cells, mimicking fluid flow through living cells.

Those two abilities, combined with advances in computing and in testing functions in living cells, are helping researchers replicate with the chips some common drug-human interactions.

Once researchers can reliably replicate known drug-human interactions, they can start testing how new drugs will affect people, he said. He thinks that could start to happen in three to five years, reducing testing in animals.

He estimates that if he can accurately replicate around 60 to 100 drug-human interactions he will be able to move into testing new drugs, although he acknowledged the threshold for proof varies widely among researchers. His lab so far has accurately replicated 20 to 25 interactions, he said.

Other researchers around the country are using similar devices to test tissue from other organs, he said. The National Institutes of Health and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency are both funding research. DARPA seeks a platform that can test 10 or more physiological systems at once, according to the agency's website.

“Human safety and drug performance is not always effectively predicted through animal testing,” DARPA Biological Technologies Office Deputy Director Brad Ringeisen wrote on the site. “And the Department of Defense needs to rapidly develop and field safe and effective medical countermeasures against biological threats to warfighters.”

The Beagle Freedom Project funded Vernetti's research and three other projects. It is funding a Johns Hopkins University study to correlate data from dog testing with human data to improve understanding of how effective animal testing is, Beckham said.

Another project at Miami University in Ohio aims to develop an artificial nose to test inhalation toxicity testing.

The fourth project, based in the United Kingdom, aims to reduce use of animals in the production of immune cells known as monoclonal antibodies.

The group also promotes research organizations giving dogs up for adoption at the end of the research when possible, including pushing for state laws that require adoptions. Laws require adoptions in Minnesota, California, New York, Connecticut and Nevada, he said. No measures have been introduced in Pennsylvania, he said.

“We know we're not going to end animal testing tomorrow, but until we get to that point, we at least owe a minimum of humane treatment for these animals, and that includes more normal life after the laboratory,” he said.

Wes Venteicher is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at 412-380-5676 or wventeicher@tribweb.com.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me