The Quality and Relevance of Data from Studies in Laboratory Rodents

  • F. J. C. Roe
Conference paper
Part of the ILSI Monographs book series (ILSI MONOGRAPHS)

Abstract

The rationale for conducting toxicity and carcinogenicity tests of chemicals in laboratory animals assumes that the information obtained will be useful in the prediction of how humans will respond to exposure to the same chemicals. This assumption is reasonably well based in terms of response to short-term high-dose exposure to chemicals, but much less so in terms of later responses to lower doses. As animals grow older, it becomes more and more difficult to distinguish between toxic effects and changes attributable to ageing. Indeed, in many longterm experiments in rodents, most of the differences between exposed and control groups are simply in the incidence and severity of ageing-related diseases. Since the spectra of the most common ageing-related diseases which afflict humans and laboratory rodents are quite different, it is only to be expected that the actual manifestations of chronic toxicity in rodents are quite different from those to be expected in humans.

Keywords

Obesity Toxicity Dust Cage Nicotine 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Butterworth BE, Slaga TJ (eds) (1987) Nongenotoxic mechanisms in carcinogenesis. In: Banbury report, vol 25. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor.Google Scholar
  2. Conybeare G (1988) Modulating factors: challenges to experimental design. In: Grice HC, Ciminera JL (eds) Carcinogenicity. The design, analysis and interpretation of longterm animal studies. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 149–172.Google Scholar
  3. Davis BR, Whitehead JK, Gill ME, Lee PN, Butterworth AD, Roe FJC (1975) Response of rat lung to inhaled tobacco smoke with or without prior exposure to 3,4-benzpyrene (BP) given by intratracheal instillation. Br J Cancer 31:469–484.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Grasso P, Golberg L (1966) Subcutaneous sarcoma as an index of carcinogenic potency. Food Cosmet Toxicol 4:297–320.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Roe FJC (1988a) Let us forget tumour promotion and start thinking about mechanisms of non-genotoxic carcinogenicity. Acta Pathol Microbiol Immunol Scand 96 [Suppl 2]:91–99.Google Scholar
  6. Roe FJC (1988b) Toxicity testing: some principles and some pitfalls in histopathological evaluation. Hum Toxicol 7:405–410.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. J. C. Roe
    • 1
  1. 1.Wimbledon Common, LondonUK

Personalised recommendations