4.3 In-vitro genotoxicity tests to detect carcinogenicity: A systematic review

Human and Experimental Toxicology

Volumn 28, Issue 2-3, 2009, Pages 131-133

  Muller L ^a  

^a Non Clinical Safety   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ASSAY; CARCINOGENICITY; CONFERENCE PAPER; GENOTOXICITY; HUMAN; IN VITRO STUDY; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TOXICITY TESTING;

ANIMALS; CARCINOGENICITY TESTS; CARCINOGENS; CELL LINE; DRUG TOXICITY; HUMANS; MICE; MICRONUCLEUS TESTS; MUTAGENICITY TESTS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RATS;

EID: 69949110644     PISSN: 09603271     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0960327109105770     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (12)

1. Tennant RW, Margolin BH, Shelby MD, Zeiger E, Haseman JK, Spalding J. Prediction of chemical carcinogenicity in rodents from in vitro genetic toxicity assays. Science 1987 ; 236: 933-941.
2. Haseman JK, Zeiger E, Shelby M, Margolin B, Tennant R. Predicting rodent carcinogenicity from four in vitro genetic toxicity assays: an evaluation of 114 chemicals studied by the National Toxicology Program. J Am Stat Assoc 1990 ; 85: 964-971.
3. Kirkland DJ, Müller L. Interpretation of the biological relevance of genotoxicity test results: the importance of thresholds. Mutat Res 2000 ; 464: 137-147.
4. Kirkland D, Pfuhler S, Tweats D, Aardema M, Corvi R, Daroudi F. How to reduce false positive results with in vitro genotoxicity testing and avoid unnecessary follow-up animal tests: report of an ECVAM workshop. Mutat Res 2007 ; 628: 31-55.
5. Müller L, Kasper P. Human biological relevance and the use of threshold-arguments in regulatory genotoxicity assessment: experience with pharmaceuticals. Mutat Res 2000 ; 464: 19-34.
6. Zeiger E. Identification of rodent carcinogens and noncarcinogens using genetic toxicity tests: premises, promises and performance. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 1998 ; 28: 85-95.
7. Zeiger E, Haseman JK, Shelby MD, Margolin BH, Tennant RW. Evaluation of four in vitro genetic toxicity tests for predicting rodent carcinogenicity: confirmation of earlier results with 41 additional chemicals. Environ Mol Mutagen 1990 ; 16 (Suppl. 18): 1-14.
8. Kirkland D, Aardema M, Henderson L, Müller L. Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens. I. Sensitivity, specificity and relative predictivity. Mutat Res 2005 ; 584: 1-256.
9. Matthews EJ, Kruhlak NL, Cimino MC, Benz RD, Contrera JF. An analysis of genetic toxicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity and caricnogenicity data, II. Identification of genotoxicants, reprotoxicants and carcinogens using in silico methods. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2006 ; 44: 97-110.
10. Kirkland D, Aardema M, Müller L, Hayashi M. Evaluation of the ability of a battery of 3 in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens. II. Further analysis of mammalian cell results, relative predictivity and tumour profiles. Mutat Res 2006 ; 608: 29-42.
11. http://www.emea.europa.eu/
12. JG Hardman, LE Limbird, AG Gilman. Goodman & Gilman's the pharmacological basis of therapeutics. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional.