Skip to main content

Improving Toxicity Screening and Drug Development by Using Genetically Defined Strains

  • Protocol
  • First Online:
Mouse Models for Drug Discovery

Part of the book series: Methods in Molecular Biology ((MIMB,volume 602))

Abstract

According to the US Food and Drugs Administration (Food and Drug Administration (2004) Challenge and opportunity on the critical path to new medical products.) “The inability to better assess and predict product safety leads to failures during clinical development and, occasionally, after marketing”. This increases the cost of new drugs as clinical trials are even more expensive than pre-clinical testing.

One relatively easy way of improving toxicity testing is to improve the design of animal experiments. A fundamental principle when designing an experiment is to control all variables except the one of interest: the treatment. Toxicologist and pharmacologists have widely ignored this principle by using genetically heterogeneous “outbred” rats and mice, increasing the chance of false-negative results. By using isogenic (inbred or F1 hybrid, see Note 1) rats and mice instead of outbred stocks the signal/noise ratio and the power of the experiments can be increased at little extra cost whilst using no more animals. Moreover, the power of the experiment can be further increased by using more than one strain, as this reduces the chance of selecting one which is resistant to the test chemical. This can also be done without increasing the total number of animals by using a factorial experimental design, e.g. if the ten outbred animals per treatment group in a 28-day toxicity test were replaced by two animals of each of five strains (still ten animals per treatment group) selected to be as genetically diverse as possible, this would increase the signal/noise ratio and power of the experiment. This would allow safety to be assessed using the most sensitive strain.

Toxicologists should also consider making more use of the mouse instead of the rat. They are less costly to maintain, use less test substance, there are many inbred and genetically modified strains, and it is easier to identify gene loci controlling variation in response to xenobiotics in this species.

We demonstrate here the advantage of using several inbred strains in two parallel studies of the haematological response to chloramphenicol at six dose levels with CD-1 outbred, or using four inbred strains of mice. Toxicity to the white blood cell lineage was easily detected using the inbred strains but not using the outbred stock, clearly showing the advantage of using the multi-inbred strain approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Protocol
USD 49.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Russell, W. M. S. and Burch, R. L. (1959) The principles of humane experimental technique, Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW), Potters Bar, Herts.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Food and Drug Administration (2004) Challenge and opportunity on the critical path to new medical products. http://www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/criticalpath/whitepaper.html.

  3. Caldwell, G. W., Ritchie, D. M., Masucci, J. A., Hageman, W. and Yan, Z. (2001) The new pre-preclinical paradigm: compound optimization in early and late phase drug discovery. Curr Top Med Chem 1, 353–366.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Food and Drug Administration (2008) The FDA Critical Path Initiative. http://www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/criticalpath/

  5. The Innovative Medicines Initiative (2008) Innovative Medicines Initiativw. http://imi.europa.eu/docs/imi-gb-006v2-15022008-research-agenda_en.pdf

  6. Brown, S. D., Chambon, P. and de Angelis, M. H. (2005) EMPReSS: standardized phenotype screens for functional annotation of the mouse genome. Nat Genet 37, 1155.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Franc, B. L., Acton, P. D., Mari, C. and Hasegawa, B. H. (2008) Small-animal SPECT and SPECT/CT: important tools for preclinical investigation. J Nucl Med 49, 1651–1663.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Petit-Zeman, S. (2004) Rat genome sequence reignites preclinical model debate. Nat Rev Drug Discov 3, 287–288.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Chia, R., Achilli, F., Festing, M. F. and Fisher, E. M. (2005) The origins and uses of mouse outbred stocks. Nat Genet 37, 1181–1186.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Festing, M. F. W. (2003) Laboratory animal genetics and genetic quality control, in Handbook of laboratory animal science: essential principles and practices (Hau, J. and Van Hoosier, G. L., Jr., eds.), 2nd ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, London, New York, pp. 173–204.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Stevens, J. C., Banks, G. T., Festing, M. F. and Fisher, E. M. (2007) Quiet mutations in inbred strains of mice. Trends Mol Med 13, 512–519.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Taft, R. A., Davisson, M. and Wiles, M. V. (2006) Know thy mouse. Trends Genet 22, 649–653.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Papaioannou, V. E. and Festing, M. F. (1980) Genetic drift in a stock of laboratory mice. Lab Anim 14, 11–13.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Festing, M. F. W. (1999) Warning: the use of genetically heterogeneous mice may seriously damage your research. Neurobiol Aging 20, 237–244.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Festing, M. F. (1987) Genetic factors in toxicology: implications for toxicological screening. Crit Rev Toxicol 18, 1–26.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Committee on Toxicity and Food Standards Agency (2007) Variability and Uncertainty in Toxicology of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment. cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/cotstatementworkshop200703.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  17. Arcos, J. C., Argus, M. F. and Wolf, G. (1968) Chemical induction of cancer. Academic Press, Inc., New York.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kacew, S., Ruben, Z., McConnell, R. F. and MacPhail, R. C. (1995) Strain as a determinant factor in the differential responsiveness of rats to chemicals. Toxicol Pathol 23, 701–715.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Felton, R. P. and Gaylor, D. W. (1989) Multistrain experiments for screening toxic substances. J Toxicol Environ Health 26, 399–411.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Floyd, E., Mann, P., Long, G. and Ochoa, R. (2002) The Trp53 hemizygous mouse in pharmaceutical development: points to consider for pathologists. Toxicol Pathol 30, 147–156.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Montgomery, D. C. (2004) Design and analysis of experiments, 6th ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Petkov, P. M., Ding, Y., Cassell, M. A., Zhang, W., Wagner, G., Sargent, E. E., et al. (2004) An efficient SNP system for mouse genome scanning and elucidating strain relationships. Genome Res 14, 1806–1811.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Simonian, S. J., Gill, T. J., 3rd and Gershoff, S. N. (1968) Studies on synthetic polypeptide antigens. XX. Genetic control of the antibody response in the rat to structurally different synthetic polypeptide antigens. J Immunol 101, 730–742.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Churchill, G. A., Airey, D. C., Allayee, H., Angel, J. M., Attie, A. D., Beatty, J., et al. (2004) The Collaborative Cross, a community resource for the genetic analysis of complex traits. Nat Genet 36, 1133–1137.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Festing, M. F., Diamanti, P. and Turton, J. A. (2001) Strain differences in haematological response to chloramphenicol succinate in mice: implications for toxicological research. Food Chem Toxicol 39, 375–383.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. (1980) Statistical methods, 7th ed. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Peters, L. L., Zhang, W., Lambert, A. J., Brugnara, C., Churchill, G. A. and Platt, O. S. (2005) Quantitative trait loci for baseline white blood cell count, platelet count, and mean platelet volume. Mamm Genome 16, 749–763.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Nalls, M. A., Wilson, J. G., Patterson, N. J., Tandon, A., Zmuda, J. M., Huntsman, S., et al. (2008) Admixture mapping of white cell count: genetic locus responsible for lower white blood cell count in the Health ABC and Jackson Heart studies. Am J Hum Genet 82, 81–87.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Feder, H. M., Jr., Osier, C. and Maderazo, E. G. (1981) Chloramphenicol: a review of its use in clinical practice. Rev Infect Dis 3, 479–491.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Fisher, R. A. (1960) The design of experiments, 7th ed. Hafner Publishing Company, New York.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Humana Press, a part of Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this protocol

Cite this protocol

Festing, M.F. (2010). Improving Toxicity Screening and Drug Development by Using Genetically Defined Strains. In: Proetzel, G., Wiles, M. (eds) Mouse Models for Drug Discovery. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 602. Humana Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60761-058-8_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60761-058-8_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-60761-057-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-60761-058-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Protocols

Publish with us

Policies and ethics