Literature DB >> 14668111

Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling of arsenic in the mouse.

P Robinan Gentry1, Tammie R Covington, Sabine Mann, Annette M Shipp, Janice W Yager, Harvey J Clewell.   

Abstract

A remarkable feature of the carcinogenicity of inorganic arsenic is that while human exposures to high concentrations of inorganic arsenic in drinking water are associated with increases in skin, lung, and bladder cancer, inorganic arsenic has not typically caused tumors in standard laboratory animal test protocols. Inorganic arsenic administered for periods of up to 2 yr to various strains of laboratory mice, including the Swiss CD-1, Swiss CR:NIH(S), C57Bl/6p53(+/-), and C57Bl/6p53(+/+), has not resulted in significant increases in tumor incidence. However, Ng et al. (1999) have reported a 40% tumor incidence in C57Bl/6J mice exposed to arsenic in their drinking water throughout their lifetime, with no tumors reported in controls. In order to investigate the potential role of tissue dosimetry in differential susceptibility to arsenic carcinogenicity, a physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model for inorganic arsenic in the rat, hamster, monkey, and human (Mann et al., 1996a, 1996b) was extended to describe the kinetics in the mouse. The PBPK model was parameterized in the mouse using published data from acute exposures of B6C3F1 mice to arsenate, arsenite, monomethylarsonic acid (MMA), and dimethylarsinic acid (DMA) and validated using data from acute exposures of C57Black mice. Predictions of the acute model were then compared with data from chronic exposures. There was no evidence of changes in the apparent volume of distribution or in the tissue-plasma concentration ratios between acute and chronic exposure that might support the possibility of inducible arsenite efflux. The PBPK model was also used to project tissue dosimetry in the C57Bl/6J study, in comparison with tissue levels in studies having shorter duration but higher arsenic treatment concentrations. The model evaluation indicates that pharmacokinetic factors do not provide an explanation for the difference in outcomes across the various mouse bioassays. Other possible explanations may relate to strain-specific differences, or to the different durations of dosing in each of the mouse studies, given the evidence that inorganic arsenic is likely to be active in the later stages of the carcinogenic process.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14668111     DOI: 10.1080/15287390490253660

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Toxicol Environ Health A        ISSN: 0098-4108


  12 in total

1.  Arsenic exposure and toxicology: a historical perspective.

Authors:  Michael F Hughes; Barbara D Beck; Yu Chen; Ari S Lewis; David J Thomas
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2011-07-12       Impact factor: 4.849

2.  A HIERARCHICAL FUNCTIONAL DATA ANALYTIC APPROACH FOR ANALYZING PHYSIOLOGICALLY BASED PHARMACOKINETIC MODELS.

Authors:  Siddhartha Mandal; Pranab K Sen; Shyamal D Peddada
Journal:  Environmetrics       Date:  2013-05-01       Impact factor: 1.900

3.  Development of a human physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model for inorganic arsenic and its mono- and di-methylated metabolites.

Authors:  Hisham A El-Masri; Elaina M Kenyon
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2007-10-18       Impact factor: 2.745

4.  Interaction effects of lead on bioavailability and pharmacokinetics of arsenic in the rat.

Authors:  Violet Diacomanolis; Barry N Noller; Jack C Ng
Journal:  Environ Geochem Health       Date:  2013-06-01       Impact factor: 4.609

5.  Immunotoxicity and biodistribution analysis of arsenic trioxide in C57Bl/6 mice following a 2-week inhalation exposure.

Authors:  Scott W Burchiel; Leah A Mitchell; Fredine T Lauer; Xi Sun; Jacob D McDonald; Laurie G Hudson; Ke Jian Liu
Journal:  Toxicol Appl Pharmacol       Date:  2009-10-02       Impact factor: 4.219

6.  Relative bioavailability and bioaccessibility and speciation of arsenic in contaminated soils.

Authors:  Karen D Bradham; Kirk G Scheckel; Clay M Nelson; Paul E Seales; Grace E Lee; Michael F Hughes; Bradley W Miller; Aaron Yeow; Thomas Gilmore; Sophia M Serda; Sharon Harper; David J Thomas
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2011-07-13       Impact factor: 9.031

7.  Mathematical model insights into arsenic detoxification.

Authors:  Sean D Lawley; Molly Cinderella; Megan N Hall; Mary V Gamble; H Frederik Nijhout; Michael C Reed
Journal:  Theor Biol Med Model       Date:  2011-08-26       Impact factor: 2.432

8.  Relative pesticide and exposure route contribution to aggregate and cumulative dose in young farmworker children.

Authors:  Paloma I Beamer; Robert A Canales; Alesia C Ferguson; James O Leckie; Asa Bradman
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2012-01-03       Impact factor: 3.390

Review 9.  Arsenic toxicokinetic modeling and risk analysis: Progress, needs and applications.

Authors:  Elaina M Kenyon
Journal:  Toxicology       Date:  2021-05-07       Impact factor: 4.571

10.  Mechanism of selenium-induced inhibition of arsenic-enhanced UVR carcinogenesis in mice.

Authors:  Fredric J Burns; Toby Rossman; Katherine Vega; Ahmed Uddin; Stefan Vogt; Barry Lai; Richard J Reeder
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 9.031

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.