Literature DB >> 2759059

Interspecies extrapolation in carcinogenesis: prediction between rats and mice.

L S Gold1, L Bernstein, R Magaw, T H Slone.   

Abstract

Interspecies extrapolation in carcinogenesis is studied by evaluating prediction from rats to mice and from mice to rats. The Carcinogenic Potency Database, which includes 3500 cancer tests conducted in rats or mice on 955 compounds, is used for the analysis. About half of the chemicals tested for carcinogenicity are positive in at least one test, and this proportion is similar when rats and mice are considered separately. For 392 chemicals tested in both species, 76% of the rat carcinogens are positive in the mouse, and 70% of mouse carcinogens are positive in the rat. When compounds composed solely of chlorine, carbon, hydrogen, and, optionally, oxygen are excluded from the analysis, 75% of mouse carcinogens are positive in the rat. Overall concordance (the percentage positive in both species plus the percentage negative in both) is 76%. Three factors that affect prediction between rats and mice are discussed: chemical class, mutagenicity in the Salmonella assay, and the dose level at which a chemical is toxic. Prediction is more accurate for mutagens than non-mutagens and for substances that are toxic at low (versus only at high) doses. Species differences are not the result of failure in the bioassay to attain the maximum tolerated dose in the negative species or of more frequent testing in the positive species. An analysis of the predictive value of positivity for the 10 most common target sites indicates that most sites are good predictors of carcinogenicity at some site in the other species; the poorest predictors among these common sites are the rat urinary bladder and the mouse liver.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2759059      PMCID: PMC1567549          DOI: 10.1289/ehp.8981211

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Health Perspect        ISSN: 0091-6765            Impact factor:   9.031


  17 in total

1.  Species correlation in long-term carcinogenicity studies.

Authors:  J K Haseman; J E Huff
Journal:  Cancer Lett       Date:  1987-10-30       Impact factor: 8.679

2.  Bioassay of pesticides and industrial chemicals for tumorigenicity in mice: a preliminary note.

Authors:  J R Innes; B M Ulland; M G Valerio; L Petrucelli; L Fishbein; E R Hart; A J Pallotta; R R Bates; H L Falk; J J Gart; M Klein; I Mitchell; J Peters
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1969-06       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Reproducibility of results in "near-replicate" carcinogenesis bioassays.

Authors:  L S Gold; C Wright; L Bernstein; M deVeciana
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1987-06       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Carcinogenicity of mutagens: predictive capability of the Salmonella mutagenesis assay for rodent carcinogenicity.

Authors:  E Zeiger
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  1987-03-01       Impact factor: 12.701

5.  Ranking possible carcinogenic hazards.

Authors:  B N Ames; R Magaw; L S Gold
Journal:  Science       Date:  1987-04-17       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  Some tautologous aspects of the comparison of carcinogenic potency in rats and mice.

Authors:  L Bernstein; L S Gold; B N Ames; M C Pike; D G Hoel
Journal:  Fundam Appl Toxicol       Date:  1985-02

7.  Comparative results of 327 chemical carcinogenicity studies.

Authors:  J K Haseman; J E Huff; E Zeiger; E E McConnell
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1987-10       Impact factor: 9.031

8.  Second chronological supplement to the Carcinogenic Potency Database: standardized results of animal bioassays published through December 1984 and by the National Toxicology Program through May 1986.

Authors:  L S Gold; T H Slone; G M Backman; R Magaw; M Da Costa; P Lopipero; M Blumenthal; B N Ames
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1987-10       Impact factor: 9.031

Review 9.  Chronological supplement to the Carcinogenic Potency Database: standardized results of animal bioassays published through December 1982.

Authors:  L S Gold; M de Veciana; G M Backman; R Magaw; P Lopipero; M Smith; M Blumenthal; R Levinson; L Bernstein; B N Ames
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1986-08       Impact factor: 9.031

10.  A carcinogenic potency database of the standardized results of animal bioassays.

Authors:  L S Gold; C B Sawyer; R Magaw; G M Backman; M de Veciana; R Levinson; N K Hooper; W R Havender; L Bernstein; R Peto
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1984-12       Impact factor: 9.031

View more
  25 in total

1.  Nature's chemicals and synthetic chemicals: comparative toxicology.

Authors:  B N Ames; M Profet; L S Gold
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1990-10       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Dietary pesticides (99.99% all natural).

Authors:  B N Ames; M Profet; L S Gold
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1990-10       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 3.  Dietary carcinogens, environmental pollution, and cancer: some misconceptions.

Authors:  B N Ames; L S Gold
Journal:  Med Oncol Tumor Pharmacother       Date:  1990

Review 4.  Evaluation of the carcinogenic potential of pharmaceuticals. Opportunities arising from the International Conference on Harmonisation.

Authors:  A M Monro; J S MacDonald
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 5.  The causes and prevention of cancer.

Authors:  B N Ames; L S Gold; W C Willett
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1995-06-06       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 6.  Drug toxicokinetics: scope and limitations that arise from species differences in pharmacodynamic and carcinogenic responses.

Authors:  A Monro
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1994-02

7.  Chemical carcinogenesis: too many rodent carcinogens.

Authors:  B N Ames; L S Gold
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1990-10       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Ratcheting up cancer potency estimates.

Authors:  Edmund A C Crouch; Gilbert S Omenn
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2012-02-08       Impact factor: 9.028

Review 9.  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

Review 10.  The causes and prevention of cancer: gaining perspective.

Authors:  B N Ames; L S Gold
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 9.031

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.