This Article Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Cohen, S. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Cohen, S. M. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Alternative Models for Carcinogenicity Testing: Weight of Evidence Evaluations Across Models

Department of Pathology and Microbiology and the Eppley Institute for Research on Cancer, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska 68198-3135

Twenty-one chemicals were evaluated by standardized protocols in 6 mouse models that have been sugggested as alternatives to the 2-year mouse bioassay. Included were genotoxic and nongenotoxic chemicals, carcinogens and noncarcinogens, immunosuppressive and estrogenic agents, peroxisome proliferators, and chemicals producing cancer in rodents by other mechanisms. Mice were sacrificed at the end of 6 to 12 months, depending on the model. Standardized histopathology, biostatistical analyses, and criteria for overall evaluation of the results were employed. The TgAC transgenic (dermal and oral administration), the Tg-rasH2 transgenic, the heterozygous p53 gene knockout, the homozygous XPA and homozygous XPA—heterozygous p53 gene knockout, and the neonatal mouse models were evaluated. The chemicals were also evaluated in the in vitro SHE assay. Comparison of the results between the various in vivo models suggest that they might have usefulness as screening bioassays for hazard identification for potential human carcinogens. They have the benefits of being quicker, less expensive, and involve fewer animals than the traditional 2-year mouse bioassay. They do not appear to be overly sensitive. However, they do not definitively distinguish between genotoxic and nongenotoxic carcinogens, and they do not have 100% specifi city for identifying human carcinogens. Like the 2-year bioassay, the results from these models need to be evaluated in conjunction with other information on a chemical in an overall weight-of-evidence, integrated analytical approach to assess risk for human exposures.

Key Words: Chronic mouse bioassay • chronic rat bioassay • genotoxicity • risk assessment • transgenic mouse models.

Toxicologic Pathology, Vol. 29, No. 1 suppl, 183-190 (2001)
DOI: 10.1080/019262301753178609


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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. M. Cohen Risk Assessment in the Genomic Era Toxicol Pathol, January 1, 2004; 32(1_suppl): 3 - 8. [Abstract] [PDF]

				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]