Literature DB >> 11695548

Neonatal mouse model: review of methods and results.

R M McClain1, D Keller, D Casciano, P Fu, J MacDonald, J Popp, J Sagartz.   

Abstract

The neonatal mouse model, in various forms, has been used experimentally since 1959 and a large number of chemicals have been tested. The neonatal model is known to be very sensitive for the detection of carcinogens that operate via a genotoxic mode of action. In contrast, it is known not to respond to chemicals that act via epigenetic mechanisms, commonly observed in the two-year carcinogenicity studies. As such, the model has a high sensitivity and specificity in its response. Dose selection for the neonatal model is based on the maximum tolerated or feasible dose. Traditionally, compounds have been tested via the IP route of administration in this model. In some cases, this has limited the amount of material that can be administered because of the low dosing volumes (10 to 20 microL) that can be administered IP. For the ILSI project, the neonatal model was adapted for oral administration, which has the advantages of being the same route for which most pharmaceuticals are administered. In addition, a 10-fold increase in the volume of administration (100 to 200 microL) and the ability to dose drugs in suspension, permits much higher doses to be used as compared to the IP route of administration. The spontaneous tumors in the neonatal model occurred mainly in the liver of male mice and lung of male and female mice with a few tumors observed in the Harderian gland. The positive control, DEN produced a robust, uniform, and reproducible tumor response with the target organs essentially limited to liver and lung. A total of 13 compounds out of the 21 ILSI ACT compounds were evaluated in the neonatal model involving 18 studies with duplicate studies for some compounds. The genotoxic carcinogens including those used as positive controls were clearly positive (cyclophosphamide, diethylnitrosamine, 6-nitrochrysene). The non-genotoxic rodent carcinogens were clearly negative (chlorpromazine, sulfisoxazole, sulfamethoxazole, clofibrate, DEHP, haloperidol, metaproteranol, and phenobarbital). The non-genotoxic human carcinogen (cyclosporin) was clearly negative. The two other human carcinogens phenacetin and DES were negative and interestingly estradiol was negative in one of the two oral studies, but was clearly positive in the other. Considering the mode of action for three of the human carcinogens (DES, cyclosporin and phenacetin), which were negative in this model, the mode of action in humans is likely to be epigenetic. Overall, for the 3 clearly genotoxic chemicals, all were positive. For the 9 clearly non-genotoxic chemicals, all 9 were negative. The two human carcinogens for which genotoxicity may or may not play a role (DES and phenacetin) were negative and estradiol was positive in I of the two oral studies. Overall, the extensive database for compounds tested in the neonatal mouse model would support its use as an alternative model for the assessment of the carcinogenic potential of a chemical. The model responds to chemicals that act via a genotoxic mode of action that represent a greater concern for human cancer risk.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11695548     DOI: 10.1080/019262301753178537

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Toxicol Pathol        ISSN: 0192-6233            Impact factor:   1.902


  9 in total

1.  Age-dependent sensitivity of Big Blue transgenic mice to the mutagenicity of N-ethyl-N-nitrosourea (ENU) in liver.

Authors:  Nan Mei; Robert H Heflich; Martha M Moore; Tao Chen
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2005-05-02       Impact factor: 2.433

2.  Tumorigenicity of acrylamide and its metabolite glycidamide in the neonatal mouse bioassay.

Authors:  Linda S Von Tungeln; Daniel R Doerge; Gonçalo Gamboa da Costa; M Matilde Marques; William M Witt; Igor Koturbash; Igor P Pogribny; Frederick A Beland
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2012-03-28       Impact factor: 7.396

3.  N-hydroxylation of 4-aminobiphenyl by CYP2E1 produces oxidative stress in a mouse model of chemically induced liver cancer.

Authors:  Shuang Wang; Kim S Sugamori; Aveline Tung; J Peter McPherson; Denis M Grant
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2015-01-19       Impact factor: 4.849

4.  Biological Basis of Differential Susceptibility to Hepatocarcinogenesis among Mouse Strains.

Authors:  Robert R Maronpot
Journal:  J Toxicol Pathol       Date:  2009-04-06       Impact factor: 1.628

Review 5.  Assessing susceptibility from early-life exposure to carcinogens.

Authors:  Hugh A Barton; V James Cogliano; Lynn Flowers; Larry Valcovic; R Woodrow Setzer; Tracey J Woodruff
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 9.031

6.  Diethylstilbestrol (DES)-stimulated hormonal toxicity is mediated by ERα alteration of target gene methylation patterns and epigenetic modifiers (DNMT3A, MBD2, and HDAC2) in the mouse seminal vesicle.

Authors:  Yin Li; Katherine J Hamilton; Anne Y Lai; Katherine A Burns; Leping Li; Paul A Wade; Kenneth S Korach
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2013-12-06       Impact factor: 9.031

7.  Sensitive Tumorigenic Potential Evaluation of Adult Human Multipotent Neural Cells Immortalized by hTERT Gene Transduction.

Authors:  Kee Hang Lee; Hyun Nam; Da Eun Jeong; Sung Soo Kim; Hye Jin Song; Hee Jang Pyeon; Kyeongjin Kang; Seung-Cheol Hong; Do-Hyun Nam; Kyeung Min Joo
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-07-08       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Evaluation of Tanshinone IIA Developmental Toxicity in Zebrafish Embryos.

Authors:  Tao Wang; Chengxi Wang; Qiong Wu; Kangdi Zheng; Jiaojiao Chen; Yutao Lan; Yao Qin; Wenjie Mei; Baoguo Wang
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2017-04-21       Impact factor: 4.411

9.  Use of Humanized Mouse Models for Studying HIV-1 Infection, Pathogenesis and Persistence.

Authors:  Matthew Weichseldorfer; Alonso Heredia; Marvin Reitz; Joseph L Bryant; Olga S Latinovic
Journal:  J AIDS HIV Treat       Date:  2020
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.