Literature DB >> 9539006

In vivo transgenic bioassays and assessment of the carcinogenic potential of pharmaceuticals.

J F Contrera1, J J DeGeorge.   

Abstract

There is general agreement in the scientific community on the need to improve carcinogenicity testing and the assessment of human carcinogenic risk and to incorporate more information on mechanisms and modes of action into the risk assessment process. Advances in molecular biology have identified a growing number of genes such as protooncogenes and tumor-suppressor genes that are highly conserved across species and are associated with a wide variety of human and animal cancers. In vivo transgenic rodent models incorporating such mechanisms are used to identify mechanisms involved in tumor formation and as selective tests for carcinogens. Transgenic methods can be considered an extension of genetic manipulation by selective breeding, which long has been employed in science and agriculture. The use of two rodent species in carcinogenicity testing is especially important for identifying transspecies carcinogens. The capacity of a substance to induce neoplasia across species suggests that the mechanism(s) involved in the induction of the neoplasia are conserved and therefore may have significance for humans. Based on available information there is sufficient experience with some in vivo transgenic rodent carcinogenicity models to support their application as complementary second species studies in conjunction with a single 2-year rodent carcinogenicity study. The optional substitution of a second 2-year rodent carcinogenicity study with an alternative study such as an in vivo transgenic carcinogenicity study is part of the International Conference on Harmonization guidance S1B: Testing for Carcinogenicity of Pharmaceuticals. This guidance is intended to be flexible enough to accommodate a wide range of possible carcinogenicity assessment models currently under consideration or models that may be developed in the future. The use of an in vivo transgenic mouse model in place of a second 2-year mouse study will improve the assessment of carcinogenic risk by contributing insights into the mechanisms of tumorigenesis and potential human relevance not available from a standard 2-year bioassay. It is envisioned that this will stimulate the further development of more efficient and relevant methods for identifying and assessing potential human carcinogenic risk, which will benefit public health.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9539006      PMCID: PMC1533274          DOI: 10.1289/ehp.98106s171

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


  68 in total

Review 1.  Concordance between rats and mice in bioassays for carcinogenesis.

Authors:  D A Freedman; L S Gold; T H Lin
Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 3.271

2.  Varying degrees of susceptibility of inbred strains of rats to N-2-fluorenyldiacetamide hepatic carcinogenesis.

Authors:  M D Reuber
Journal:  Toxicol Appl Pharmacol       Date:  1976-09       Impact factor: 4.219

3.  Species and rat strain variation in pancreatic nodule induction by azaserine.

Authors:  B D Roebuck; D S Longnecker
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1977-10       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 4.  Evaluation of transgenic mouse bioassays for identifying carcinogens and noncarcinogens.

Authors:  R W Tennant; J Spalding; J E French
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 2.433

5.  Liver tumors induced in rats by oral administration of the antihistaminic methapyrilene hydrochloride.

Authors:  W Lijinsky; M D Reuber; B N Blackwell
Journal:  Science       Date:  1980-08-15       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  An empirical examination of factors influencing prediction of carcinogenic hazard across species.

Authors:  G M Gray; P Li; I Shlyakhter; R Wilson
Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 3.271

Review 7.  Genetics of liver tumor susceptibility in mice.

Authors:  T A Dragani; G Manenti; M Gariboldi; L De Gregorio; M A Pierotti
Journal:  Toxicol Lett       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 4.372

8.  Evaluation of hepatocellular neoplasms in mice.

Authors:  J M Ward; G Vlahakis
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1978-09       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Transforming activity of human tumor DNAs.

Authors:  T G Krontiris; G M Cooper
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1981-02       Impact factor: 11.205

10.  Variability in the rates of some common naturally occurring tumors in Fischer 344 rats and (C57BL/6N x C3H/HeN)F1 (B6C3F1) mice.

Authors:  R E Tarone; K C Chu; J M Ward
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1981-06       Impact factor: 13.506

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Assessing bioactivity.

Authors:  Ambrose Furey
Journal:  Pharmacognosy Res       Date:  2010-07

3.  PET/CT imaging of c-Myc transgenic mice identifies the genotoxic N-nitroso-diethylamine as carcinogen in a short-term cancer bioassay.

Authors:  Katja Hueper; Mahmoud Elalfy; Florian Laenger; Roman Halter; Thomas Rodt; Michael Galanski; Juergen Borlak
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-02-02       Impact factor: 3.240

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.