Literature DB >> 22141324

Opportunities for an alternative integrating testing strategy for carcinogen hazard assessment?

Tatyana Y Doktorova1, Marleen Pauwels, Mathieu Vinken, Tamara Vanhaecke, Vera Rogiers.   

Abstract

The 2-year rodent carcinogenicity bioassay evolved more than 40 years ago, and although it is complex, long lasting, expensive, and animal consuming, it is still the only generally accepted test for assessing the carcinogenicity of chemicals. Over time, different alternative approaches have been developed with the final goal to replace the bioassay. Unfortunately, at present, none of these strategies alone provides sufficient assurance of accurate prediction. In this review paper, we discuss the major advantages and pitfalls of the existing alternative methodologies to the carcinogenicity bioassay. Finally, based on the available scientific data in the public domain, we propose what we would like to call a "feasible integrated testing strategy" which incorporates some promising alternatives, providing at the same time information on the mechanism of action and the toxic nature of the compounds tested. It is, however, clear that the adoption of whatever "new" testing scheme should be considered with caution and its effectiveness should be experimentally demonstrated in advance by addressing a reasonable number of chemical carcinogens and non-carcinogens from a variety of structural and functional classes.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22141324     DOI: 10.3109/10408444.2011.623151

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Crit Rev Toxicol        ISSN: 1040-8444            Impact factor:   5.635


  4 in total

Review 1.  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

Review 2.  Glyphosate toxicity and carcinogenicity: a review of the scientific basis of the European Union assessment and its differences with IARC.

Authors:  Jose V Tarazona; Daniele Court-Marques; Manuela Tiramani; Hermine Reich; Rudolf Pfeil; Frederique Istace; Federica Crivellente
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2017-04-03       Impact factor: 5.153

3.  Stem cell proliferation patterns as an alternative for in vivo prediction and discrimination of carcinogenic compounds.

Authors:  An-Sofie Stevens; Maxime Willems; Michelle Plusquin; Jan-Pieter Ploem; Ellen Winckelmans; Tom Artois; Karen Smeets
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-05-03       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Testing chemical carcinogenicity by using a transcriptomics HepaRG-based model?

Authors:  T Y Doktorova; Reha Yildirimman; Liesbeth Ceelen; Mireia Vilardell; Tamara Vanhaecke; Mathieu Vinken; Gamze Ates; Anja Heymans; Hans Gmuender; Roque Bort; Raffaella Corvi; Pascal Phrakonkham; Ruoya Li; Nicolas Mouchet; Christophe Chesne; Joost van Delft; Jos Kleinjans; Jose Castell; Ralf Herwig; Vera Rogiers
Journal:  EXCLI J       Date:  2014-05-28       Impact factor: 4.068

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.