Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Toxicologic Pathology
This Article
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Maronpot, R.R.
Right arrow Articles by Boorman, G.A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Maronpot, R.R.
Right arrow Articles by Boorman, G.A.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Journal Article

The Contribution of the Mouse in Hazard Identification Studies

R.R. Maronpot

Laboratory of Experimental Pathology, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program, P.O. Box 12233, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709

G.A. Boorman

Laboratory of Experimental Pathology, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program, P.O. Box 12233, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709

Because there is usually more extensive toxicity, metabolism, and pharmacokinetic information for pharmaceuticals as opposed to environmental agents, including pesticides, the argument has been made that carcinogenicity testing in two rodent species may not have been necessary for carcinogenicity testing of pharmaceuticals. On the basis of numerical data only, it may be argued that carcinogenicity testing of pharmaceuticals in one species, typically the rat, is sufficient to identify potential human carcinogens. The argument that testing in a second species, typically the mouse, is redundant overlooks the value added by the second species carcinogenicity study. Bioassay data from the second species allows balance and perspective in evaluating the observed effects, and this is especially critical when there is a marginal, questionable, or inconclusive response in one species. Utilization of two species for carcinogen identification is the principal means for identifying trans-species carcinogens—those mostly likely to be carcinogenic in humans. Given that neither rat nor mouse are ideal surrogates for humans, concordant data from both species strengthens the ability to extrapolate findings to humans. We believe that testing in two species should continue to be the default approach used for carcinogen hazard identification whenever scientifically indicated until such time that acceptable and suitable alternatives are available. To utilize only one species for this important means of protecting human health is premature at this time.

Key Words: National Toxicology Program • cancer bioassays • mouse liver tumors • animal models • species-specific responses • mechanisms of carcinogenicity • chronic toxicity • pharmaceuticals

Toxicologic Pathology, Vol. 24, No. 6, 726-731 (1996)
DOI: 10.1177/019262339602400611


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Toxicol SciHome page
W. Bursch, M. Chabicovsky, U. Wastl, B. Grasl-Kraupp, K. Bukowska, H. Taper, and R. Schulte-Hermann
Apoptosis in Stages of Mouse Hepatocarcinogenesis: Failure to Counterbalance Cell Proliferation and to Account for Strain Differences in Tumor Susceptibility
Toxicol. Sci., May 1, 2005; 85(1): 515 - 529.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Toxicol PatholHome page
S. R. Payne and C. J. Kemp
p27 Kip1 (Cdkn1b)-Deficient Mice Are Susceptible to Chemical Carcinogenesis and May Be a Useful Model for Carcinogen Screening
Toxicol Pathol, June 1, 2003; 31(4): 355 - 363.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Toxicol PatholHome page
K. Takahashi, G. E. Dinse, J. F. Foley, J. F. Hardisty, and R. R. Maronpot
Comparative Prevalence, Multiplicity, and Progression of Spontaneous and Vinyl Carbamate-Induced Liver Lesions in Five Strains of Male Mice
Toxicol Pathol, August 1, 2002; 30(5): 599 - 605.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Toxicol PatholHome page
S. M. Cohen
Alternative Models for Carcinogenicity Testing: Weight of Evidence Evaluations Across Models
Toxicol Pathol, January 1, 2001; 29(1_suppl): 183 - 190.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Toxicol PatholHome page
D. Gulezian, D. Jacobson-Kram, C. B. Mccullough, H. Olson, L. Recio, D. Robinson, R. Storer, R. Tennant, J. M. Ward, and D. A. Neumann
Review Article: Use of Transgenic Animals for Carcinogenicity Testing: Considerations and Implications for Risk Assessment
Toxicol Pathol, May 1, 2000; 28(3): 482 - 499.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Toxicol PatholHome page
J. K. Haseman, G. A. Boorman, and J. Huff
Value of Historical Control Data and Other Issues Related to the Evaluation of Long-Term Rodent Carcinogenicity Studies
Toxicol Pathol, September 1, 1997; 25(5): 524 - 527.
[PDF]


Home page
Toxicol PatholHome page
J. M. Ward
Rat or Mouse Cancer Bioassay--or None of the Above?
Toxicol Pathol, November 1, 1996; 24(6): 734 - 735.
[PDF]