Biomedical subjects

Karol L Thompson

Publications and source records attributed to Karol L Thompson.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2003

Evaluation of the Tg.AC assay: specificity testing with three noncarcinogenic pharmaceuticals that induce selected stress gene promoters in vitro and the inhibitory effects of solvent components.

Understanding the strengths and limitations of alternative models, such as the Tg.AC assay, for evaluation of the potential carcinogenicity of pharmaceuticals requires assessment of assay specificity through studies that specifically target biologically active compounds that are known to not be carcinogens in rodents. To identify drugs that might provoke a false positive response in the Tg.AC assay, we screened pharmaceuticals for in vitro induction of the gadd153 promoter and the zeta-globin promoter. We have previously found a high correlation between induction of the gadd153 promoter in HepG2 cells and activity in the Tg.AC assay. The three drugs selected through screening 99 noncarcinogenic pharmaceuticals were amiloride, dipyridamole, and pyrimethamine. A 26-week skin paint study was conducted in hemizygous Tg.AC mice with the three drugs at two doses selected by a 4-week dose range finding study. Evidence of systemic toxicity was observed in animals dosed chronically with pyrimethamine or amiloride, but no skin papillomas were observed in mice treated with amiloride, dipyridamole, or pyrimethamine for 26 weeks. All male mice and 80% of female mice treated with 12-O-tetradecanoylphorbol-13-acetate (TPA) in acetone developed a maximal tumor burden. However, mice treated with TPA in a vehicle containing 2.4% DMSO had greatly reduced incidences of papillomas. In summary, the correct negative response was shown in the Tg.AC assay for three noncarcinogenic pharmaceuticals, which adds further favorable evidence of appropriate specificity of this model system. However, vehicle composition must be carefully selected because the outcome of this assay can be confounded by certain commonly used solvents.

Acetone↗

PubMed2003

Selection of drugs to test the specificity of the Tg.AC assay by screening for induction of the gadd153 promoter in vitro.

Short-term assays for carcinogenicity testing of chemicals that use transgenic mice designed to have altered expression of genes mechanistically relevant to carcinogenesis are attractive alternatives to two-year dosing studies in rodents. The models that have been the received the greatest level of performance evaluation include p53(+/-), rasH2, Xpa/p53(+/-), and Tg.AC mice. For use of these models in a regulatory setting to evaluate the carcinogenic potential of pharmaceuticals, it is important to establish an assurance of assay specificity and positive predictivity based on studies using drugs with a wide spectrum of pharmacologic activity. For this purpose, 99 noncarcinogenic drugs were prioritized based on their activity in an in vitro induction assay correlative with a positive response in the Tg.AC assay (induction of the gadd153 promoter in HepG2 cells). Activities in two assays less predictive of Tg.AC activity (induction of c-fos and zeta-globin gene promoters) were also measured. Nine percent of the screened drugs induced the gadd153 promoter by at least fourfold. Several criteria were used to select candidates for subsequent in vivo testing in the Tg.AC assay: (1) sufficient drug solubility in appropriate skin paint vehicles to elicit systemic toxicity, (2) the level of induction of the gadd153 promoter by the drug, (3) the in vitro potency of the drug, and (4) the cost of the drug required for a 6-month study. Based on these criteria, amiloride, dipyridamole, and pyrimethamine were selected from 99 rodent noncarcinogens in a drug database for testing the specificity of the Tg.AC assay.

Animals↗

PubMed2003

Normalization methods for analysis of microarray gene-expression data.

This paper investigates subset normalization to adjust for location biases (e.g., splotches) combined with global normalization for intensity biases (e.g., saturation). A data set from a toxicogenomic experiment using the same control and the same treated sample hybridized to six different microarrays is used to contrast the different normalization methods. Simple t-tests were used to compare two samples for dye effects and for treatment effects. The numbers of genes that reproducibly showed significant p-values for the unnormalized data and normalized data from different methods were evaluated for assessment of different normalization methods. The one-sample t-statistic of the ratio of red to green samples was used to test for dye effects using only control data. For treatment effects, in addition to the one-sample t-test of the ratio of the treated to control samples, the two-sample t-test for testing the difference between treated and control samples was also used to compare the two approaches. The method that combines a subset approach (median or lowess fit) for location adjustment with a global lowess fit for intensity adjustment appears to perform well.

Bias↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Evaluation of the Tg.AC transgenic mouse assay for testing the human carcinogenic potential of pharmaceuticals--practical pointers, mechanistic clues, and new questions.

Transgenic mouse strains with genetic alterations known to play a role in the multistage process of carcinogenesis are being used increasingly as models for evaluating the human carcinogenic potential of chemicals and pharmaceuticals. The Tg.AC transgenic mouse is one of the strains currently being used in such alternative short-term carcinogenicity testing protocols. This review is focused on recent data from studies designed to evaluate this model's ability to discriminate carcinogens from noncarcinogens. Details relating to protocol design that can significantly impact study outcome are described. Data relating to mechanisms of chemical tumor induction in the Tg.AC model are reviewed, and questions have been formulated to encourage research to further guide appropriate future applications of this model.

Animal Testing Alternatives↗