In recent years, stem cells have generated much interest as a potential tool for pharmacological and toxicology screening (CIRM 2008; ABPI 2008), due to various shortcomings of currently utilized assay models based on established cell lines, primary explanted somatic cells and laboratory animals (Cao et al. 2008; Vinoth et al. 2008). In vitro toxicology screening most commonly utilize established cell lines of cancerous/tumorigenic origin, that are highly adapted to in vitro culture conditions after countless passages, and which contain chromosomal and genetic aberrations that render them immortal (Phelps et al. 1996). Such inherent deWciencies make them non-representative of how a normal cell behaves physiologically in vivo. Indeed, it is common knowledge that immortalized transformed cell lines are more robust, proliferates faster, and have much less fastidious nutritional requirements compared to primary somatic cells explanted from living tissues (Phelps et al. 1996). Hence it may be preferable to utilize primary explanted cultures of somatic cells for toxicology screening, but these often are heterogeneous cultures that display a high degree of inter-batch variability, making it challenging to obtain consistent and reproducible results in toxicology screening (Cao et al. 2008; Vinoth et al. 2008). Additionally, primary cell cultures of human origin often suVer from inconsistent availability, depending on the will of patients to donate. It is often the case that primary cultures are established from discarded human tissues of pathological origin, which would skew their response to toxic challenge. Moreover, one of the main logistical improvements realized in cellbased screening in recent years has been the introduction of batch-based cryopreserved cell preparations in high throughput screening, which have greatly improved reproducibility in assay performance (Zaman et al. 2007). However, due to a high degree of heterogeneity and interbatch variability in primary explanted somatic cells, these often display much inconsistency in their post freeze–thaw viability and metabolic activity unlike established cell lines (Zaman et al. 2007), which could further confound the reproducibility and accuracy of screening assays based on primary explanted somatic cells. The logistical challenges of high throughput cell based assays cannot be underestimated and the introduction of any new screening paradigms needs to be accompanied by robust and practical working practices, conditions that are diYcult to be met with primary explanted somatic cells. Live animal models could provide yet another alternative for toxicology screening, but have a number of inherent Xaws. First, an animal model may not compare well with human physiology. Second, the use of live animals in routine toxicology screening of biomedical and cosmetic products may be ethically contentious, and can possibly aVect consumer conWdence. Last, live animals are expensive to purchase and maintain compared to in vitro cultured cells. B. C. Heng (&) Abbott Vascular Inc., 3200 Lakeside Drive, Santa Clara, CA 95054, USA e-mail: boonchinheng@gmail.com