Literature DB >> 9599694

Evaluation and validation issues in the development of transgenic mouse carcinogenicity bioassays.

R W Tennant1.   

Abstract

Transgenic mouse models have emerged as plausible alternatives to long-term bioassays for carcinogenicity. Three transgenic lines evaluated to date have shown a clear capability to discriminate between carcinogens and noncarcinogens, using long-term bioassay results as the standard. The data also suggest that the transgenic lines will not fully duplicate long-term bioassay results. It is proposed that these models do not respond to chemicals that have induced highly restricted species or strain-specific tumor responses in mice or rats. Rather, the value of the transgenic models is predicated on a preferential response to transspecies carcinogens (i.e., those positive in both rats and mice, often including tumors in the same tissues). Thus, although results in transgenic models may not be completely concordant with long-term bioassays, the data can be used effectively in chemical and drug safety assessments. Further, it is proposed that validation of the models is readily achievable via ongoing studies. Validation of any alternative model is best achieved by sufficient mechanistic understanding of the model to reasonably predict the outcome of bioassays conducted in the models and use all available information on the drug or chemical. This goal can now be met with the transgenic mouse lines.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9599694      PMCID: PMC1533393          DOI: 10.1289/ehp.98106473

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


  19 in total

Review 1.  SOME BIOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF SKIN CARCINOGENISIS.

Authors:  R K BOUTWELL
Journal:  Prog Exp Tumor Res       Date:  1964

Review 2.  Genetic control of carcinogenesis in experimental animals.

Authors:  N R Drinkwater; L M Bennett
Journal:  Prog Exp Tumor Res       Date:  1991

Review 3.  Stratification of rodent carcinogenicity bioassay results to reflect relative human hazard.

Authors:  R W Tennant
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1993-03       Impact factor: 2.433

4.  Prediction of chemical carcinogenicity in rodents from in vitro genetic toxicity assays.

Authors:  R W Tennant; B H Margolin; M D Shelby; E Zeiger; J K Haseman; J Spalding; W Caspary; M Resnick; S Stasiewicz; B Anderson
Journal:  Science       Date:  1987-05-22       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  Mice deficient for p53 are developmentally normal but susceptible to spontaneous tumours.

Authors:  L A Donehower; M Harvey; B L Slagle; M J McArthur; C A Montgomery; J S Butel; A Bradley
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1992-03-19       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  v-Ha-ras transgene abrogates the initiation step in mouse skin tumorigenesis: effects of phorbol esters and retinoic acid.

Authors:  A Leder; A Kuo; R D Cardiff; E Sinn; P Leder
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1990-12       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Molecular aspects of chemical mutagenesis in L5178Y/tk +/- mouse lymphoma cells.

Authors:  D Clive; P Glover; M Applegate; J Hozier
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 3.000

8.  Spontaneous and carcinogen-induced tumorigenesis in p53-deficient mice.

Authors:  M Harvey; M J McArthur; C A Montgomery; J S Butel; A Bradley; L A Donehower
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  1993-11       Impact factor: 38.330

9.  Chemically induced skin carcinogenesis in a transgenic mouse line (TG.AC) carrying a v-Ha-ras gene.

Authors:  J W Spalding; J Momma; M R Elwell; R W Tennant
Journal:  Carcinogenesis       Date:  1993-07       Impact factor: 4.944

Review 10.  Genetic toxicology: current status of methods of carcinogen identification.

Authors:  R W Tennant; E Zeiger
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 9.031

View more
  4 in total

1.  13th meeting of the Scientific Group on Methodologies for the Safety Evaluation of Chemicals (SGOMSEC): alternative testing methodologies and conceptual issues.

Authors:  B J Blaauboer; M Balls; M Barratt; S Casati; S Coecke; M K Mohamed; J Moore; D Rall; K R Smith; R Tennant; B A Schwetz; W S Stokes; M Younes
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 9.031

Review 2.  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 3.  Assessing the potential carcinogenic activity of magnetic fields using animal models.

Authors:  J McCann; R Kavet; C N Rafferty
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 9.031

Review 4.  Priorities for development of research methods in occupational cancer.

Authors:  Elizabeth M Ward; Paul A Schulte; Steve Bayard; Aaron Blair; Paul Brandt-Rauf; Mary Ann Butler; David Dankovic; Ann F Hubbs; Carol Jones; Myra Karstadt; Gregory L Kedderis; Ronald Melnick; Carrie A Redlich; Nathaniel Rothman; Russell E Savage; Michael Sprinker; Mark Toraason; Ainsley Weston; Andrew F Olshan; Patricia Stewart; Sheila Hoar Zahm
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 9.031

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.