Article

NTP workshop: Animal models for the NTP rodent cancer bioassay: Stocks and strains - Should we switch?

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709, USA.
Toxicologic Pathology (Impact Factor: 1.92). 02/2006; 34(6):802-5. DOI: 10.1080/01926230600935938
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The National Toxicology Program (NTP) hosted a workshop, "Animal Models for the NTP Rodent Cancer Bioassay: Strains and Stocks--Should We Switch?" on June 16-17, 2005, at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. The workshop's objectives were to determine (1) whether the currently used models, the F344/N rat and B6C3F1/N mouse, continue to be appropriate to identify substances that may pose a carcinogenic hazard for humans and (2) whether the NTP should consider conducting cancer bioassays using multiple strains of rats and/or mice to better capture the range of genetic variability. Workshop participants advised the NTP to discontinue using the current F344/N strain due to the recent issues with fertility, seizure activity, and chylothorax and provided several options on how the program should approach identifying and selecting a new rat model. Participants believed that the B6C3F1/N mouse is still appropriate for use by the NTP, but suggested the NTP take steps to better understand and address increases in background rates of liver tumors in this strain. Finally, the participants supported the NTP exploring the use of the multiple strain approach, although they raised many questions concerning data interpretation and feasibility. This article also outlines the NTP's next steps in pursuing the workshop recommendations.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
66 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To study spontaneous intraocular hemorrhage in rats during postnatal ocular development and to elucidate the underlying mechanism, postnatal ocular development in the albino Wistar Hannover (WH) and Sprague-Dawley (SpD) and pigmented Long-Evans (LE) strains was analyzed. Pups (n = 2 to 5) from each strain were euthanized daily on postnatal days (PND) 0 through 21 and their eyes examined macroscopically and histologically; similar analyses were performed in 26 to 39 additional WH pups daily from PND 7 to 14. At necropsy, ring-shaped red regions and red spots were present in the eyes of WH and SpD rats. These lesions were attributed histologically to hemorrhage of the tunica vasculosa lentis or of the retina, choroid, and hyaloid artery, respectively. Similar intraocular hemorrhages occurred in LE rats, although the macroscopic alterations found in WH and SpD rats were not present in this strain. Among the 3 strains evaluated, the incidence of the intraocular hemorrhage was highest in WH rats. We here showed that intraocular hemorrhage occurs spontaneously during normal ocular development in rats regardless of the strain; however, the region, degree, and incidence of intraocular hemorrhage differ among strains. Hemorrhage in the tunica vasculosa lentis and hyaloid artery may result from the leakage of erythrocytes from the temporary vasculature of these tissues during regression. The mechanisms underlying hemorrhage in the retina and choroid remain unclear. To our knowledge, this report is the first to describe the spontaneous intraocular hemorrhage that occurs during postnatal ocular development in rats.
    Comparative medicine 01/2014; 64(1):34-43. · 0.76 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Inbred strains of mice such as C57BL and BALB/c are more widely used in published work than outbred stocks of mice such as ICR and CD-1. In contrast, outbred stocks of rats such as Wistar and Sprague-Dawley are more widely used than inbred strains such as F344 and LEW. The properties of inbred and outbred mice and rats are briefly reviewed, and it is concluded that, with some exceptions, there is a strong case for using inbred strains in most controlled experiments. This is because they are usually more uniform, so that fewer animals are usually needed to detect a specified response and they are more repeatable, because they are genetically defined (i.e., the strain can be identified using genetic markers) and less liable to genetic change. Yet many scientists continue to use outbred animals. In Daniel Kahneman's book "Thinking Fast and Slow" he explains that we can answer questions in 2 ways: "fast" by intuition or "slow" by analytical reasoning. The former method is instantaneous, requires no thought but is not evidence based. Analytical reasoning is evidence based but requires hard work, which we all avoid. He has found that "… when faced with a difficult question, we often answer an easier one instead, usually without noticing the substitution." The target question of whether to choose outbred or inbred strains in controlled experiments is a difficult one requiring knowledge of the characteristics of these strains and the principles of experimental design. A substitute question, "are humans and outbred stocks both genetically heterogeneous," is easily answered in the affirmative. It is likely that many scientists are intuitively answering the substitute question and are assuming that they have answered the target question. If so they may be using the wrong animals in their research. Nor is the fact that humans and outbred stocks are alike in being genetically heterogeneous a reason for using them. The whole concept of a "model" is that it is similar to the target in some respects but different in others. Rats and mice differ from humans in that we can control their genotype. This is a positive attribute that enormously increases their value in research. Funding organizations should support research in comparing the 2 types in real experiments. © The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
    ILAR journal / National Research Council, Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources 12/2014; 55(3):399-404. DOI:10.1093/ilar/ilu036 · 1.05 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article addresses a number of concepts related to the selection and modelling of carcinogenicity data for the calculation of a Margin of Exposure. It follows up on the recommendations put forward by the International Life Sciences Institute - European branch in 2010 on the application of the margin of exposure (MoE) approach to substances in food that are genotoxic and carcinogenic. The aims are to provide practical guidance on the relevance of animal tumour data for human carcinogenic hazard assessment, appropriate selection of tumour data for benchmark dose modelling, and approaches for dealing with the uncertainty associated with the selection of data for modelling and, consequently, the derived point of departure (PoD) used to calculate the MoE. Although the concepts outlined in this article are interrelated, the background expertise needed to address each topic varies. For instance, the expertise needed to make a judgement on biological relevance of a specific tumour type is clearly different to that needed to determine the statistical uncertainty around the data used for modelling a benchmark dose. As such, each topic is dealt with separately to allow those with specialised knowledge to target key areas of guidance and provide a more in-depth discussion on each subject for those new to the concept of the margin of exposure approach.
    Food and chemical toxicology: an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association 10/2013; DOI:10.1016/j.fct.2013.10.030 · 2.99 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
12 Downloads
Available from
Jul 5, 2014