Literature DB >> 21091657

How accurate is in vitro prediction of carcinogenicity?

Richard Maurice Walmsley1, Nicholas Billinton.   

Abstract

Positive genetic toxicity data suggest carcinogenic hazard, and this can stop a candidate pharmaceutical reaching the clinic. However, during the last decade, it has become clear that many non-carcinogens produce misleading positive results in one or other of the regulatory genotoxicity assays. These doubtful conclusions cost a lot of time and money, as they trigger additional testing of apparently genotoxic candidates, both in vitro and in animals, to discover whether the suggested hazard is genuine. This in turn means that clinical trials can be put on hold. This review describes the current approaches to the 'misleading positive' problem as well as efforts to reduce the use of animals in genotoxicity assessment. The following issues are then addressed: the application of genotoxicity testing screens earlier in development; the search for new or improved in vitro genotoxicity tests; proposed changes to the International Committee on Harmonisation guidance on genotoxicity testing [S2(R1)]. Together, developments in all these areas offer good prospects of a more rapid and cost-effective way to understand genetic toxicity concerns.
© 2011 The Authors. British Journal of Pharmacology © 2011 The British Pharmacological Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21091657      PMCID: PMC3058158          DOI: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.2010.01131.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Pharmacol        ISSN: 0007-1188            Impact factor:   8.739


  52 in total

Review 1.  A review of the genotoxicity of marketed pharmaceuticals.

Authors:  R D Snyder; J W Green
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 2.433

2.  Recommendations for conducting the in vivo alkaline Comet assay. 4th International Comet Assay Workshop.

Authors:  A Hartmann; E Agurell; C Beevers; S Brendler-Schwaab; B Burlinson; P Clay; A Collins; A Smith; G Speit; V Thybaud; R R Tice
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 3.000

3.  International Conference on Harmonisation; guidance on S2(R1) Genotoxicity Testing and Data Interpretation for Pharmaceuticals intended for Human Use; availability. Notice.

Authors: 
Journal:  Fed Regist       Date:  2012-06-07

4.  Cancer. p53, guardian of the genome.

Authors:  D P Lane
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1992-07-02       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  DNA intercalative potential of marketed drugs testing positive in in vitro cytogenetics assays.

Authors:  Ronald D Snyder; Douglas Ewing; Lawrence B Hendry
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2006-07-20       Impact factor: 2.433

6.  Comparison of the Ames II and traditional Ames test responses with respect to mutagenicity, strain specificities, need for metabolism and correlation with rodent carcinogenicity.

Authors:  Markus Kamber; Sini Flückiger-Isler; Günter Engelhardt; Rudolf Jaeckh; Errol Zeiger
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2009-05-15       Impact factor: 3.000

Review 7.  Validation of the SOS/umu test using test results of 486 chemicals and comparison with the Ames test and carcinogenicity data.

Authors:  G Reifferscheid; J Heil
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1996-08-12       Impact factor: 2.433

8.  Simple and reliable enumeration of micronucleated reticulocytes with a single-laser flow cytometer.

Authors:  S D Dertinger; D K Torous; K R Tometsko
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1996-12-20       Impact factor: 2.433

Review 9.  New and emerging technologies for genetic toxicity testing.

Authors:  Anthony M Lynch; Jennifer C Sasaki; Rosalie Elespuru; David Jacobson-Kram; Véronique Thybaud; Marlies De Boeck; Marilyn J Aardema; Jiri Aubrecht; R Daniel Benz; Stephen D Dertinger; George R Douglas; Paul A White; Patricia A Escobar; Albert Fornace; Masamitsu Honma; Russell T Naven; James F Rusling; Robert H Schiestl; Richard M Walmsley; Eiji Yamamura; Jan van Benthem; James H Kim
Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen       Date:  2010-08-25       Impact factor: 3.216

10.  Intralaboratory and interlaboratory evaluation of the EpiDerm 3D human reconstructed skin micronucleus (RSMN) assay.

Authors:  Ting Hu; Yulia Kaluzhny; Greg C Mun; Brenda Barnett; Viktor Karetsky; Nathan Wilt; Mitchell Klausner; Rodger D Curren; Marilyn J Aardema
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2009-01-09       Impact factor: 2.433

View more
  10 in total

1.  A graph neural network approach for molecule carcinogenicity prediction.

Authors:  Philip Fradkin; Adamo Young; Lazar Atanackovic; Brendan Frey; Leo J Lee; Bo Wang
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2022-06-24       Impact factor: 6.931

2.  High-throughput screening platform for engineered nanoparticle-mediated genotoxicity using CometChip technology.

Authors:  Christa Watson; Jing Ge; Joel Cohen; Georgios Pyrgiotakis; Bevin P Engelward; Philip Demokritou
Journal:  ACS Nano       Date:  2014-03-11       Impact factor: 15.881

3.  Remote control of glucose homeostasis in vivo using photopharmacology.

Authors:  Zenobia B Mehta; Natalie R Johnston; Marie-Sophie Nguyen-Tu; Johannes Broichhagen; Peter Schultz; Dean P Larner; Isabelle Leclerc; Dirk Trauner; Guy A Rutter; David J Hodson
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-03-22       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Development of a Microfluidic Array to Study Drug Response in Breast Cancer.

Authors:  María Virumbrales-Muñoz; Megan K Livingston; Mehtab Farooqui; Melissa C Skala; David J Beebe; Jose M Ayuso
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2019-11-30       Impact factor: 4.411

5.  Genotoxicity of Water Extract from Bark-Removed Rhus verniciflua Stokes.

Authors:  Sung-Bae Lee; Jin-Seok Lee; Jing-Hua Wang; Min-Young Kim; Yung-Hyun Choi; Hwa-Dong Lee; Chang-Gue Son
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2021-02-08       Impact factor: 4.411

6.  Towards an advanced testing strategy for genotoxicity using image-based 2D and 3D HepG2 DNA damage response fluorescent protein reporters.

Authors:  Bas Ter Braak; Marije Niemeijer; Liesanne Wolters; Sylvia Le Dévédec; Peter Bouwman; Bob van de Water
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2022-05-04       Impact factor: 3.000

7.  Mammary fibroblasts reduce apoptosis and speed estrogen-induced hyperplasia in an organotypic MCF7-derived duct model.

Authors:  Molly M Morgan; Megan K Livingston; Jay W Warrick; Eli M Stanek; Elaine T Alarid; David J Beebe; Brian P Johnson
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-05-08       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Anti-angiogenic and anti-proliferative effects of Benja-ummarit extract in rats with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Nattpawit Kaewnoonual; Arunporn Itharat; Suriya Pongsawat; Cheng Nilbu-Nga; Vichununt Kerdput; Wisuit Pradidarcheep
Journal:  Biomed Rep       Date:  2020-01-16

9.  Commentary: Novel strategies and new tools to curtail the health effects of pesticides.

Authors:  Charles Benbrook; Melissa J Perry; Fiorella Belpoggi; Philip J Landrigan; Michelle Perro; Daniele Mandrioli; Michael N Antoniou; Paul Winchester; Robin Mesnage
Journal:  Environ Health       Date:  2021-08-03       Impact factor: 5.984

10.  Druggability of Coronary Artery Disease Risk Loci.

Authors:  Vinicius Tragante; Daiane Hemerich; Mohammad Alshabeeb; Ingrid Brænne; Harri Lempiäinen; Riyaz S Patel; Hester M den Ruijter; Michael R Barnes; Jason H Moore; Heribert Schunkert; Jeanette Erdmann; Folkert W Asselbergs
Journal:  Circ Genom Precis Med       Date:  2018-08
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.