Literature DB >> 8781387

Human exposures to mutagens--an analysis using the genetic activity profile database.

R R Tice1, H F Stack, M D Waters.   

Abstract

The Genetic Activity Profile (GAP) database was used to identify and compare agents showing genotoxic activity in humans. The database revealed several substances for which both human and rodent cytogenetic data existed. Based on the ratio of the lowest effective doses (LEDs) in rodents versus human studies, humans appear to be at least 10 times more sensitive than rodents to the majority of the genotoxic substances examined. Several caveats are discussed which may be responsible, in part, for the apparent differences in sensitivity. Some of these differences could be due to variations in the test protocols or they may, in fact, reflect real differences between human and rodent cells. However, in contrast to the in vivo comparison, the LEDs for human data from in vitro studies were not uniformly lower than for comparable studies in rodents. The in vitro comparison suggests that the apparent differences in human versus rodent cell sensitivity seen in vivo must be viewed with a degree of caution. Nevertheless, the overall GAPs for these agents, and particularly the human in vivo data, underscore the concern for adequate protection of humans exposed to these environmental mutagens.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8781387      PMCID: PMC1469649          DOI: 10.1289/ehp.96104s3585

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


  7 in total

1.  International Commission for Protection Against Environmental Mutagens and Carcinogens. A method for comparing and combining short-term genotoxicity test data: the basic system.

Authors:  P H Lohman; M L Mendelsohn; D H Moore; M D Waters; D J Brusick; J Ashby; W J Lohman
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 2.433

Review 2.  Strategies for the use of computational SAR methods in assessing genotoxicity.

Authors:  A M Richard; J R Rabinowitz; M D Waters
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1989-11       Impact factor: 2.433

Review 3.  Genetic activity profiles in the testing and evaluation of chemical mixtures.

Authors:  M D Waters; L D Claxton; H F Stack; A L Brady; T E Graedel
Journal:  Teratog Carcinog Mutagen       Date:  1990

4.  Use of computerized data listings and activity profiles of genetic and related effects in the review of 195 compounds.

Authors:  M D Waters; H F Stack; A L Brady; P H Lohman; L Haroun; H Vainio
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1988 May-Aug       Impact factor: 2.433

5.  Genetic activity profiles and pattern recognition in test battery selection.

Authors:  M D Waters; H F Stack; J R Rabinowitz; N E Garrett
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1988 May-Aug       Impact factor: 2.433

6.  The Genetic Activity Profile database.

Authors:  M D Waters; H F Stack; N E Garrett; M A Jackson
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1991-12       Impact factor: 9.031

7.  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

  7 in total
  1 in total

1.  Successful drug development despite adverse preclinical findings part 2: examples.

Authors:  Robert A Ettlin; Junji Kuroda; Stephanie Plassmann; Makoto Hayashi; David E Prentice
Journal:  J Toxicol Pathol       Date:  2010-12-16       Impact factor: 1.628

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.