| Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools. |
Neonatal Mouse Model: Review of Methods and ResultsNational Center for Toxicological Research, Food and Drug Administration, Sanofi-Synthelabo Research, Schering-Plough Research Institute, DuPont Pharmaceuticals Company, Monsanto Life Sciences, michaelmcclain{at}msn.com
National Center for Toxicological Research, Food and Drug Administration, Sanofi-Synthelabo Research, Schering-Plough Research Institute, DuPont Pharmaceuticals Company, Monsanto Life Sciences
National Center for Toxicological Research, Food and Drug Administration, Sanofi-Synthelabo Research, Schering-Plough Research Institute, DuPont Pharmaceuticals Company, Monsanto Life Sciences
National Center for Toxicological Research, Food and Drug Administration, Sanofi-Synthelabo Research, Schering-Plough Research Institute, DuPont Pharmaceuticals Company, Monsanto Life Sciences
National Center for Toxicological Research, Food and Drug Administration, Sanofi-Synthelabo Research, Schering-Plough Research Institute, DuPont Pharmaceuticals Company, Monsanto Life Sciences
National Center for Toxicological Research, Food and Drug Administration, Sanofi-Synthelabo Research, Schering-Plough Research Institute, DuPont Pharmaceuticals Company, Monsanto Life Sciences
National Center for Toxicological Research, Food and Drug Administration, Sanofi-Synthelabo Research, Schering-Plough Research Institute, DuPont Pharmaceuticals Company, Monsanto Life Sciences The neonatal mouse model, in various forms, has been used experimentally since 1959 and a large number of chemicals have been tested. The neonatal model is known to be very sensitive for the detection of carcinogens that operate via a genotoxic mode of action. In contrast, it is known not to respond to chemicals that act via epigenetic mechanisms, commonly observed in the two-year carcinogenicity studies. As such, the model has a high sensitivity and specifi city in its response. Dose selection for the neonatal model is based on the maximum tolerated or feasible dose. Traditionally, compounds have been tested via the IP route of administration in this model. In some cases, this has limited the amount of material that can be administered because of the low dosing volumes (10 to 20 µL) that can be administered IP. For the ILSI project, the neonatal model was adapted for oral administration, which has the advantages of being the same route for which most pharmaceuticals are administered. In addition, a 10-fold increase in the volume of administration (100 to 200 µL) and the ability to dose drugs in suspension, permits much higher doses to be used as compared to the IP route of administration. The spontaneous tumors in the neonatal model occurred mainly in the liver of male mice and lung of male and female mice with a few tumors observed in the Harderian gland. The positive control, DEN produced a robust, uniform, and reproducible tumor response with the target organs essentially limited to liver and lung. A total of 13 compounds out of the 21 ILSI ACT compounds were evaluated in the neonatal model involving 18 studies with duplicate studies for some compounds. The genotoxic carcinogens including those used as positive controls were clearly positive (cyclophosphamide, diethylnitrosamine, 6-nitrochrysene). The non-genotoxicrodent carcinogens were clearly negative (chlorpromazine, sulfi soxazole, sulfamethoxazole, clofi brate, DEHP, haloperidol, metaproteranol, and phenobarbital). The non-genotoxic human carcinogen (cyclosporin) was clearly negative. The two other human carcinogens phenacetin and DES were negative and interestingly estradiol was negative in one of the two oral studies, but was clearly positive in the other. Considering the mode of action for three of the human carcinogens (DES, cyclosporin and phenacetin), which were negative in this model, the mode of action in humans is likely to be epigenetic. Overall, for the 3 clearly genotoxic chemicals, all were positive. For the 9 clearly non-genotoxic chemicals, all 9 were negative. The two human carcinogens for which genotoxicity may or may not play a role (DES and phenacetin) were negative and estradiol was positive in 1 of the two oral studies. Overall, the extensive database for compounds tested in the neonatal mouse model would support its use as an alternative model for the assessment of the carcinogenic potential of a chemical. The model responds to chemicals that act via a genotoxic mode of action that represent a greater concern for human cancer risk.
Key Words: Neonatal mouse • bioassay • short-term • 52-weeks • alternatives • carcinogenicity • testing.
Toxicologic Pathology, Vol. 29, No. 1 suppl,
128-137 (2001) This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
 |
|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
