Literature DB >> 19449824

Nonlinear cancer response at ultralow dose: a 40800-animal ED(001) tumor and biomarker study.

George S Bailey1, Ashok P Reddy, Clifford B Pereira, Ulrich Harttig, William Baird, Jan M Spitsbergen, Jerry D Hendricks, Gayle A Orner, David E Williams, James A Swenberg.   

Abstract

Assessment of human cancer risk from animal carcinogen studies is severely limited by inadequate experimental data at environmentally relevant exposures and by procedures requiring modeled extrapolations many orders of magnitude below observable data. We used rainbow trout, an animal model well-suited to ultralow-dose carcinogenesis research, to explore dose-response down to a targeted 10 excess liver tumors per 10000 animals (ED(001)). A total of 40800 trout were fed 0-225 ppm dibenzo[a,l]pyrene (DBP) for 4 weeks, sampled for biomarker analyses, and returned to control diet for 9 months prior to gross and histologic examination. Suspect tumors were confirmed by pathology, and resulting incidences were modeled and compared to the default EPA LED(10) linear extrapolation method. The study provided observed incidence data down to two above-background liver tumors per 10000 animals at the lowest dose (that is, an unmodeled ED(0002) measurement). Among nine statistical models explored, three were determined to fit the liver data well-linear probit, quadratic logit, and Ryzin-Rai. None of these fitted models is compatible with the LED(10) default assumption, and all fell increasingly below the default extrapolation with decreasing DBP dose. Low-dose tumor response was also not predictable from hepatic DBP-DNA adduct biomarkers, which accumulated as a power function of dose (adducts = 100 x DBP(1.31)). Two-order extrapolations below the modeled tumor data predicted DBP doses producing one excess cancer per million individuals (ED(10)(-6)) that were 500-1500-fold higher than that predicted by the five-order LED(10) extrapolation. These results are considered specific to the animal model, carcinogen, and protocol used. They provide the first experimental estimation in any model of the degree of conservatism that may exist for the EPA default linear assumption for a genotoxic carcinogen.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19449824      PMCID: PMC2783240          DOI: 10.1021/tx9000754

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Chem Res Toxicol        ISSN: 0893-228X            Impact factor:   3.739


  32 in total

1.  Thresholds of carcinogenicity in the ED01 study.

Authors:  William J Waddell
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 4.849

2.  Indoor air sampling and mutagenicity studies of emissions from unvented coal combustion.

Authors:  J L Mumford; D B Harris; K Williams; J C Chuang; M Cooke
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  1987-03-01       Impact factor: 9.028

3.  Mechanistic and statistical insight into the large carcinogenesis bioassays on N-nitrosodiethylamine and N-nitrosodimethylamine.

Authors:  J A Swenberg; D G Hoel; P N Magee
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  1991-12-01       Impact factor: 12.701

4.  Enhancement of carcinogenesis by the natural anticarcinogen indole-3-carbinol.

Authors:  G S Bailey; J D Hendricks; D W Shelton; J E Nixon; N E Pawlowski
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1987-05       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Histological progression of hepatic neoplasia in rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri).

Authors:  J D Hendricks; T R Meyers; D W Shelton
Journal:  Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  1984-05

6.  Chemoprotection by natural chlorophylls in vivo: inhibition of dibenzo[a,l]pyrene-DNA adducts in rainbow trout liver.

Authors:  U Harttig; G S Bailey
Journal:  Carcinogenesis       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 4.944

7.  Carcinogenicity, metabolism and Ki-ras proto-oncogene activation by 7,12-dimethylbenz[a]anthracene in rainbow trout embryos.

Authors:  A T Fong; R H Dashwood; R Cheng; C Mathews; B Ford; J D Hendricks; G S Bailey
Journal:  Carcinogenesis       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 4.944

8.  Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and ultra-low dose cancer studies.

Authors:  David E Williams; Gayle Orner; Kristin D Willard; Susan Tilton; Jerry D Hendricks; Clifford Pereira; Abby D Benninghoff; George S Bailey
Journal:  Comp Biochem Physiol C Toxicol Pharmacol       Date:  2008-12-13       Impact factor: 3.228

9.  Dose-response relationships in chemical carcinogenesis: renal mesenchymal tumours induced in the rat by single dose dimethylnitrosamine.

Authors:  H E Driver; I N White; W H Butler
Journal:  Br J Exp Pathol       Date:  1987-04

10.  Quantitative inter-relationships between aflatoxin B1 carcinogen dose, indole-3-carbinol anti-carcinogen dose, target organ DNA adduction and final tumor response.

Authors:  R H Dashwood; D N Arbogast; A T Fong; C Pereira; J D Hendricks; G S Bailey
Journal:  Carcinogenesis       Date:  1989-01       Impact factor: 4.944

View more
  9 in total

1.  Cancer chemoprevention by dietary chlorophylls: a 12,000-animal dose-dose matrix biomarker and tumor study.

Authors:  Tammie J McQuistan; Michael T Simonich; M Margaret Pratt; Cliff B Pereira; Jerry D Hendricks; Roderick H Dashwood; David E Williams; George S Bailey
Journal:  Food Chem Toxicol       Date:  2011-11-03       Impact factor: 6.023

2.  Multigenerational effects of benzo[a]pyrene exposure on survival and developmental deformities in zebrafish larvae.

Authors:  Jone Corrales; Cammi Thornton; Mallory White; Kristine L Willett
Journal:  Aquat Toxicol       Date:  2014-01-03       Impact factor: 4.964

Review 3.  The rainbow trout liver cancer model: response to environmental chemicals and studies on promotion and chemoprevention.

Authors:  David E Williams
Journal:  Comp Biochem Physiol C Toxicol Pharmacol       Date:  2011-06-16       Impact factor: 3.228

Review 4.  Mode of action-based risk assessment of genotoxic carcinogens.

Authors:  Andrea Hartwig; Michael Arand; Bernd Epe; Sabine Guth; Gunnar Jahnke; Alfonso Lampen; Hans-Jörg Martus; Bernhard Monien; Ivonne M C M Rietjens; Simone Schmitz-Spanke; Gerlinde Schriever-Schwemmer; Pablo Steinberg; Gerhard Eisenbrand
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2020-06-15       Impact factor: 5.153

5.  An empirical comparison of low-dose extrapolation from points of departure (PoD) compared to extrapolations based upon methods that account for model uncertainty.

Authors:  Matthew W Wheeler; A John Bailer
Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol       Date:  2013-07-04       Impact factor: 3.271

6.  Neoplasia and neoplasm-associated lesions in laboratory colonies of zebrafish emphasizing key influences of diet and aquaculture system design.

Authors:  Jan M Spitsbergen; Donald R Buhler; Tracy S Peterson
Journal:  ILAR J       Date:  2012

7.  Mechanistic Models Fit to ED001 Data on >40,000 Trout Exposed to Dibenzo[A,L]pyrene Indicate Mutations Do Not Drive Increased Tumor Risk.

Authors:  Kenneth T Bogen
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2014-01-10       Impact factor: 2.658

8.  The vanishing zero revisited: thresholds in the age of genomics.

Authors:  Helmut Zarbl; Michael A Gallo; James Glick; Ka Yee Yeung; Paul Vouros
Journal:  Chem Biol Interact       Date:  2010-01-28       Impact factor: 5.192

Review 9.  What is the meaning of 'A compound is carcinogenic'?

Authors:  Dieter Schrenk
Journal:  Toxicol Rep       Date:  2018-04-07
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.