Literature DB >> 15209403

Use of transgenic mice in carcinogenicity hazard assessment.

David Jacobson-Kram1, Frank D Sistare, Abigail C Jacobs.   

Abstract

Determining the carcinogenic potential of materials to which humans have significant exposure is an important, complex and imperfect exercise. Not only are the methods for such determinations protracted, expensive and utilize large numbers of animals, extrapolation of data from such studies to human risk is imprecise. Toxicologists have long recognized these shortcomings but the 2-year chronic rodent study has remained the gold standard. Recent developments in the field of molecular oncology and development of methods to insert or inactivate specific genes in animals have provided the tools with which to develop the next generation of carcinogenicity assays. With improved understanding of oncogene activation and tumor suppressor gene inactivation a number of animal models have been developed to dramatically reduce latency for chemically induced cancers. This has led to the development of shorter carcinogenicity assays. Also, because the spontaneous tumor frequencies in these animals are low during the in-life portion of the study, and studies are terminated well before the health complications of advanced aging are observed, it has been possible to reduce the group sizes and reduce animal usage. FDA's adoption of ICH S1B in 1997, (ICH, 1997) "Testing for the Carcinogenicity of Pharmaceuticals," opened the door for the use of such transgenic models in regulatory toxicology. This presentation reviews the current state of the science and its application to regulatory issues.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15209403     DOI: 10.1080/01926230490424761

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


  9 in total

1.  p16INK4a reporter mice reveal age-promoting effects of environmental toxicants.

Authors:  Jessica A Sorrentino; Janakiraman Krishnamurthy; Stephen Tilley; James G Alb; Christin E Burd; Norman E Sharpless
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2013-12-16       Impact factor: 14.808

Review 2.  From Classical Toxicology to Tox21: Some Critical Conceptual and Technological Advances in the Molecular Understanding of the Toxic Response Beginning From the Last Quarter of the 20th Century.

Authors:  Supratim Choudhuri; Geoffrey W Patton; Ronald F Chanderbhan; Antonia Mattia; Curtis D Klaassen
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2018-01-01       Impact factor: 4.849

Review 3.  Estimating the carcinogenic potency of chemicals from the in vivo micronucleus test.

Authors:  Lya G Soeteman-Hernández; George E Johnson; Wout Slob
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2015-07-10       Impact factor: 3.000

Review 4.  The use of genetically modified mice in cancer risk assessment: challenges and limitations.

Authors:  David A Eastmond; Suryanarayana V Vulimiri; John E French; Babasaheb Sonawane
Journal:  Crit Rev Toxicol       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 5.635

5.  Successful drug development despite adverse preclinical findings part 2: examples.

Authors:  Robert A Ettlin; Junji Kuroda; Stephanie Plassmann; Makoto Hayashi; David E Prentice
Journal:  J Toxicol Pathol       Date:  2010-12-16       Impact factor: 1.628

6.  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

Review 7.  Prediction of the Carcinogenic Potential of Human Pharmaceuticals Using Repeated Dose Toxicity Data and Their Pharmacological Properties.

Authors:  Jan Willem van der Laan; Wenny H W Buitenhuis; Laura Wagenaar; Ans E M F Soffers; Eugene P van Someren; Cyrille A M Krul; Ruud A Woutersen
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2016-10-14

8.  Assessment of the Carcinogenic Potential of Pretomanid in Transgenic Tg.rasH2 Mice.

Authors:  Jeffrey L Ambroso; John Dillberger; Rebecca Bruning-Barry; Tian Yang
Journal:  Int J Toxicol       Date:  2022-07-18       Impact factor: 2.380

9.  Correlation of In Vivo Versus In Vitro Benchmark Doses (BMDs) Derived From Micronucleus Test Data: A Proof of Concept Study.

Authors:  Lya G Soeteman-Hernández; Mick D Fellows; George E Johnson; Wout Slob
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2015-10-05       Impact factor: 4.849

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.