Literature DB >> 23985072

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

David A Eastmond1, Suryanarayana V Vulimiri, John E French, Babasaheb Sonawane.   

Abstract

The use of genetically modified (GM) mice to assess carcinogenicity is playing an increasingly important role in the safety evaluation of chemicals. While progress has been made in developing and evaluating mouse models such as the Trp53⁺/⁻, Tg.AC and the rasH2, the suitability of these models as replacements for the conventional rodent cancer bioassay and for assessing human health risks remains uncertain. The objective of this research was to evaluate the use of accelerated cancer bioassays with GM mice for assessing the potential health risks associated with exposure to carcinogenic agents. We compared the published results from the GM bioassays to those obtained in the National Toxicology Program's conventional chronic mouse bioassay for their potential use in risk assessment. Our analysis indicates that the GM models are less efficient in detecting carcinogenic agents but more consistent in identifying non-carcinogenic agents. We identified several issues of concern related to the design of the accelerated bioassays (e.g., sample size, study duration, genetic stability and reproducibility) as well as pathway-dependency of effects, and different carcinogenic mechanisms operable in GM and non-GM mice. The use of the GM models for dose-response assessment is particularly problematic as these models are, at times, much more or less sensitive than the conventional rodent cancer bioassays. Thus, the existing GM mouse models may be useful for hazard identification, but will be of limited use for dose-response assessment. Hence, caution should be exercised when using GM mouse models to assess the carcinogenic risks of chemicals.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23985072      PMCID: PMC4457504          DOI: 10.3109/10408444.2013.822844

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


  126 in total

Review 1.  A continuum model for tumour suppression.

Authors:  Alice H Berger; Alfred G Knudson; Pier Paolo Pandolfi
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2011-08-10       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Knock-in mice with a chimeric human/murine p53 gene develop normally and show wild-type p53 responses to DNA damaging agents: a new biomedical research tool.

Authors:  J L Luo; Q Yang; W M Tong; M Hergenhahn; Z Q Wang; M Hollstein
Journal:  Oncogene       Date:  2001-01-18       Impact factor: 9.867

3.  Susceptibilities of p53 knockout and rasH2 transgenic mice to urethane-induced lung carcinogenesis are inherited from their original strains.

Authors:  Masakazu Ozaki; Keisuke Ozaki; Tomoyuki Watanabe; Satoshi Uwagawa; Yasuyoshi Okuno; Tomoyuki Shirai
Journal:  Toxicol Pathol       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 1.902

4.  Interlaboratory comparison of the CB6F1-Tg rasH2 rapid carcinogenicity testing model.

Authors:  R R Maronpot; K Mitsumori; P Mann; M Takaoka; S Yamamoto; T Usui; H Okamiya; S Nishikawa; T Nomura
Journal:  Toxicology       Date:  2000-05-05       Impact factor: 4.221

5.  Spontaneous tumor incidence in rasH2 mice: review of internal data and published literature.

Authors:  Prashant R Nambiar; Susan E Turnquist; Daniel Morton
Journal:  Toxicol Pathol       Date:  2012-02-09       Impact factor: 1.902

6.  An evaluation of the hemizygous transgenic Tg.AC mouse for carcinogenicity testing of pharmaceuticals. I. Evidence for a confounding nonresponder phenotype.

Authors:  J L Weaver; J F Contrera; B A Rosenzweig; K L Thompson; P J Faustino; J M Strong; C D Ellison; L W Anderson; H R Prasanna; P E Long-Bradley; K K Lin; J Zhang; F D Sistare
Journal:  Toxicol Pathol       Date:  1998 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.902

7.  Retention of wild-type p53 in tumors from p53 heterozygous mice: reduction of p53 dosage can promote cancer formation.

Authors:  S Venkatachalam; Y P Shi; S N Jones; H Vogel; A Bradley; D Pinkel; L A Donehower
Journal:  EMBO J       Date:  1998-08-17       Impact factor: 11.598

8.  Infrequent p53 mutations in 7,12-dimethylbenz[a]anthracene-induced mammary tumors in BALB/c and p53 hemizygous mice.

Authors:  D J Jerry; J S Butel; L A Donehower; E J Paulson; C Cochran; R W Wiseman; D Medina
Journal:  Mol Carcinog       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 4.784

9.  Bioassay of p-cresidine for possible carcinogenicity.

Authors: 
Journal:  Natl Cancer Inst Carcinog Tech Rep Ser       Date:  1979

Review 10.  The role of transgenic mouse models in carcinogen identification.

Authors:  John B Pritchard; John E French; Barbara J Davis; Joseph K Haseman
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 9.031

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Toxicogenetics: in search of host susceptibility to environmental toxicants.

Authors:  Gelareh Alam; Byron C Jones
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2014-09-22       Impact factor: 4.599

2.  Commentary on New Formaldehyde Studies in Trp53 Haploinsufficient Mice: Further Support for Nonlinear Risks From Inhaled Formaldehyde.

Authors:  Chad M Thompson
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2018-05-27       Impact factor: 2.658

Review 3.  Plasma-Conditioned Liquids as Anticancer Therapies In Vivo: Current State and Future Directions.

Authors:  Xavi Solé-Martí; Albert Espona-Noguera; Maria-Pau Ginebra; Cristina Canal
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-01-25       Impact factor: 6.639

4.  Reproducibility and Characterization of Head Kinematics During a Large Animal Acceleration Model of Traumatic Brain Injury.

Authors:  Andrew R Mayer; Josef M Ling; Andrew B Dodd; Julie G Rannou-Latella; David D Stephenson; Rebecca J Dodd; Carissa J Mehos; Declan A Patton; D Kacy Cullen; Victoria E Johnson; Sharvani Pabbathi Reddy; Cidney R Robertson-Benta; Andrew P Gigliotti; Timothy B Meier; Meghan S Vermillion; Douglas H Smith; Rachel Kinsler
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2021-06-09       Impact factor: 4.003

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.