Literature DB >> 11695556

Alternative models for carcinogenicity testing: weight of evidence evaluations across models.

S M Cohen1.   

Abstract

Twenty-one chemicals were evaluated by standardized protocols in 6 mouse models that have been sugggested as alternatives to the 2-year mouse bioassay. Included were genotoxic and nongenotoxic chemicals, carcinogens and noncarcinogens, immunosuppressive and estrogenic agents, peroxisome proliferators, and chemicals producing cancer in rodents by other mechanisms. Mice were sacrificed at the end of 6 to 12 months, depending on the model. Standardized histopathology, biostatistical analyses, and criteria for overall evaluation of the results were employed. The TgAC transgenic (dermal and oral administration), the Tg-rasH2 transgenic, the heterozygous p53 gene knockout, the homozygous XPA and homozygous XPA-heterozygous p53 gene knockout, and the neonatal mouse models were evaluated. The chemicals were also evaluated in the in vitro SHE assay. Comparison of the results between the various in vivo models suggest that they might have usefulness as screening bioassays for hazard identification for potential human carcinogens. They have the benefits of being quicker, less expensive, and involve fewer animals than the traditional 2-year mouse bioassay. They do not appear to be overly sensitive. However, they do not definitively distinguish between genotoxic and nongenotoxic carcinogens, and they do not have 100% specificity for identifying human carcinogens. Like the 2-year bioassay, the results from these models need to be evaluated in conjunction with other information on a chemical in an overall weight-of-evidence, integrated analytical approach to assess risk for human exposures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11695556     DOI: 10.1080/019262301753178609

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


  6 in total

1.  Improving prediction of carcinogenicity to reduce, refine, and replace the use of experimental animals.

Authors:  Todd Bourcier; Tim McGovern; Lidiya Stavitskaya; Naomi Kruhlak; David Jacobson-Kram
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 1.232

2.  Cell transformation assays for prediction of carcinogenic potential: state of the science and future research needs.

Authors:  Stuart Creton; Marilyn J Aardema; Paul L Carmichael; James S Harvey; Francis L Martin; Robert F Newbold; Michael R O'Donovan; Kamala Pant; Albrecht Poth; Ayako Sakai; Kiyoshi Sasaki; Andrew D Scott; Leonard M Schechtman; Rhine R Shen; Noriho Tanaka; Hemad Yasaei
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2011-08-17       Impact factor: 3.000

3.  Science, politics, and health in the brave new world of pharmaceutical carcinogenic risk assessment: technical progress or cycle of regulatory capture?

Authors:  John Abraham; Rachel Ballinger
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2012-06-28       Impact factor: 4.634

4.  Cloning of the 5' upstream region of the rat p16 gene and its role in silencing.

Authors:  Masanobu Abe; Eriko Okochi; Takashi Kuramoto; Atsushi Kaneda; Tsuyoshi Takato; Takashi Sugimura; Toshikazu Ushijima
Journal:  Jpn J Cancer Res       Date:  2002-10

5.  No evidence for carcinogenicity of titanium dioxide nanoparticles in 26-week inhalation study in rasH2 mouse model.

Authors:  Shotaro Yamano; Tomoki Takeda; Yuko Goto; Shigeyuki Hirai; Yusuke Furukawa; Yoshinori Kikuchi; Tatsuya Kasai; Kyohei Misumi; Masaaki Suzuki; Kenji Takanobu; Hideki Senoh; Misae Saito; Hitomi Kondo; Yumi Umeda
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-09-02       Impact factor: 4.996

6.  Kinetic Modeling Reveals the Roles of Reactive Oxygen Species Scavenging and DNA Repair Processes in Shaping the Dose-Response Curve of KBrO₃-Induced DNA Damage.

Authors:  Maria A Spassova; David J Miller; Alexander S Nikolov
Journal:  Oxid Med Cell Longev       Date:  2015-09-10       Impact factor: 6.543

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.