Literature DB >> 3285184

Short-term testing--are we looking at wrong endpoints?

C Ramel1.   

Abstract

Short-term testing has been performed and interpreted on the basis of correlation between these tests and animal carcinogenicity. This empirical approach has been the only feasible one, due to a lack of knowledge of the actual genetic endpoints of relevance in carcinogenicity. However, the rapidly growing information on genetic alterations actually involved in carcinogenicity and in particular activation of oncogenes, provides facts of basic importance for the strategy of short-term testing. The presently used sets of short-term tests focus on standard genetic endpoints, mainly point mutations and chromosomal aberrations. Little attention has been paid in that connection to other endpoints, which have been shown or suspected to play an important role in carcinogenicity. These endpoints include gene amplification, transpositions, hypomethylation, polygene mutations and recombinogenic effects. Furthermore, indirect effects, for instance via radical generation and an imbalance of the nucleotide pool, may be of great significance for the carcinogenic and cocarcinogenic effects of many chemicals. Modern genetic and molecular technology has opened entirely new prospects for identifying genetic alterations in tumours and in its turn these prospects should be taken advantage of in order to build up more sophisticated batteries of assays, adapted to the genetic endpoints actually demonstrated to be involved in cancer induction. Development of new assay systems in accordance with the elucidation of genetic alterations in carcinogenicity will probably constitute one of the most important areas in genetic toxicology in the future. From a regulatory point of view the prerequisite for a development in this direction will be a flexibility of the handling of questions concerning short-term testing also at a bureaucratic level.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3285184     DOI: 10.1016/0165-1218(88)90004-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mutat Res        ISSN: 0027-5107            Impact factor:   2.433


  7 in total

Review 1.  Dietary carcinogens, environmental pollution, and cancer: some misconceptions.

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

Review 2.  Utility of short-term tests for genetic toxicity.

Authors:  D M DeMarini; J Lewtas; H E Brockman
Journal:  Cell Biol Toxicol       Date:  1989-06       Impact factor: 6.691

3.  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

4.  Chemically induced changes in the spectrum of amplifications of the human minisatellite MS1 integrated in chromosome III of a haploid yeast strain.

Authors:  E Agurell; H Cederberg; M Hedenskog; U Rannug
Journal:  Mol Gen Genet       Date:  1994-01

Review 5.  DNA lesions, inducible DNA repair, and cell division: three key factors in mutagenesis and carcinogenesis.

Authors:  B N Ames; M K Shigenaga; L S Gold
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 9.031

6.  Quantitative predictability of carcinogenicity of the covalent binding index of chemicals to DNA: comparison of the in vivo and in vitro assays.

Authors:  M Taningher; G Saccomanno; L Santi; S Grilli; S Parodi
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 9.031

Review 7.  Predicting the carcinogenicity of chemicals in humans from rodent bioassay data.

Authors:  G Goodman; R Wilson
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1991-08       Impact factor: 9.031

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.