Dose-response approaches for nuclear receptor-mediated modes of action for liver carcinogenicity: Results of a workshop

Critical Reviews in Toxicology

Volumn 44, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 50-63

  Andersen, Melvin E ^a   Preston, R Julian ^b   Maier, Andrew ^c   Willis, Alison M ^c   Patterson, Jacqueline ^c  

^a HAMNER INSTITUTES FOR HEALTH SCIENCES   (United States)

^b U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

^c Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment   (United States)

Author keywords

Aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AHR); Constitutive androstane receptor (CAR); Dose response; Liver carcinogenicity; Mode of action; Nuclear receptor; Peroxisome proliferator activated receptor alpha (PPAR ); Risk assessment

Indexed keywords

CELL NUCLEUS RECEPTOR;

CANCER GROWTH; CARCINOGENICITY; DOSE RESPONSE; HUMAN; LIVER CANCER; LUNG TOXICITY; NONHUMAN; REVIEW;

ANIMALS; CARCINOGENS; CONGRESSES AS TOPIC; DISEASE MODELS, ANIMAL; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES; HUMANS; LIVER; LIVER NEOPLASMS; NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES (U.S.); RECEPTORS, CYTOPLASMIC AND NUCLEAR; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84891545331     PISSN: 10408444     EISSN: 15476898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/10408444.2013.835785     Document Type: Review

References (51)

1. Alon U. (2007). Network motifs: theory and experimental approaches. Nat Rev Gen, 8, 450-61.
2. Bhattacharya S, Zhang Q, Carmichael P, et al. (2011). Toxicity testing in the 21st century: defining new risk assessment approaches based on perturbation of intracellular toxicity pathways. PLoS One, 6, 1-11.
3. Boekelheide K, Andersen ME. (2010). A mechanistic redefinition of adverse effects-A key step in the toxicity testing paradigm shift. Altex, 27, 243-52.
4. Boobis AR, Cohen SM, Dellarco V, et al. (2006). IPCS framework for analyzing the relevance of a cancer mode of action for humans. Crit Rev Toxicol, 36, 781-92.
5. Boobis AR, Datson GP, Preston RJ, Olin SS. (2009). Application of key events analysis to chemical carcinogens and noncarcinogens. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr, 49, 690-707.
6. Boobis AR, Doe JE, Heinrich-Hirsch B, et al. (2008). IPCS framework for analyzing the relevance of a noncancer mode of action for humans. Crit Rev Toxicol, 38, 87-96.
7. Budinsky RA, Schrenk D, Simon T, et al. (in press). Mode of action and dose-response framework analysis for receptor-mediated toxicity: the aryl hydrocarbon receptor as a case study. Crit Rev Toxicol.
8. Carmichael N, Bausen M, Boobis AR, et al. (2011). Using mode of action information to improve regulatory decision-making: an ECETOC/ILSI RF/HESI workshop overview. Crit Rev Toxicol, 41, 175-86.
9. Cohen SM. (2010). Evaluation of possible carcinogenic risk to humans based on liver tumors in rodent assays: the two-year bioassay is no longer necessary. Toxicol Pathol, 38, 487-501.
10. Conolly RB, Kimbell JS, Janszen D, et al. (2004). Human respiratory tract cancer risks of inhaled formaldehyde: dose-response predictions derived from biologically motivated computational modeling of a combined rodent and human dataset. Toxicol Sci, 82, 279-96.
11. Corton JC, Cunningham ML, Hummer BT, et al. (in press). Mode of action framework analysis for receptor-mediated toxicity: the Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPARa) as a case study. Crit Rev Toxicol.
12. Crump KS, Chen C, Chiu WA, et al. (2010). What role for biologically based dose-response models in estimating low-dose risk? Environ Health Perspect, 118, 585-8.
13. Dellarco VL, Baetcke K. (2005). A risk assessment perspective: application of mode of action and human relevance frameworks to the analysis of rodent tumor data. Toxicol Sci, 86, 1-3.
14. Eaton DL, Gilbert SG. (2008). Principles of Toxicology. In: Klaassen CD, ed. Casarett and Doull's toxicology-the basic science of poisons. 7th ed. New York, London: McGraw Hill Companies Inc., 23.
15. Elcombe CR, Peffer RC, Wolf DC, et al. (in press). Mode of action and human relevance analysis for nuclear receptor-mediated liver toxicity: a case study with phenobarbital as a model constitutive androstane receptor (CAR) activator. Crit Rev Toxicol.
16. Gallo MA, Scheuplein RJ, van der Heijden KA, eds. (1991). Biological basis for risk assessment of dioxins and related compounds. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Banbury Report 35, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.
17. Groopman JD, Johnson D, Kensler TW. (2005). Aflatoxin and hepatitis B virus biomarkers: a paradigm for complex environmental exposures and cancer risk. Cancer Biomarkers, 1, 5-14.
18. Hack CE, Haber LT, Maier A, et al. (2010). A Bayesian network model for biomarker-based dose-response. Risk Anal, 30, 1037-51.
19. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. (2011). Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell, 144, 646-74.
20. Hattis D. (1996). Human interindividual variability in susceptibility to toxic effects: from annoying detail to a central determinant of risk. Toxicology, 111, 5-14.
21. Hill AB. (1965). The environment and disease: association or causation? P Roy Soc Med, 58, 295-300.
22. Holsapple MP, Pitot HC, Cohen SM, et al. (2006). Mode of action in relevance of rodent liver tumors to human cancer risk. Toxicol Sci, 89, 51-6.
23. ILSI/HESI (International Life Sciences Institute/Health and Environmental Sciences Institute). (2011). Risk Assessment for the 21st Century (RISK21): A Vision and a Plan. Available from: http://www.hesiglobal.org/files/public/ Committees/Risk21/Jan-2011-Work shop/PastoorPrez.pdf [last accessed 1 Oct 2012].
24. IPCS (International Programme on Chemical Safety). (2001). IPCS conceptual framework for evaluating mode of action for chemical carcinogenesis. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 34, 146-52.
25. IPCS (International Programme on Chemical Safety). (2007). Mode of action framework. Harmonization project document No. 4. Geneva: World Health Organization.
26. Julien E, Boobis AR, Olin SS, ILSI Research Foundation Threshold Working Group. (2010). The key events dose-response framework: a cross-disciplinary mode-of-action based approach to examining dose-response and thresholds. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr, 49, 682-9.
27. Klaassen CD. (2008). Casarett and Doull's toxicology-the basic science of poisons. 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
28. Klaunig J. (2010). Nuclear receptor key events for liver tumorigens. Presented at "Dose-Response Approaches for Nuclear Receptor-Mediated Modes of Action" Workshop. Available from: http://www.tera.org/peer/ nuclearreceptor/Nuclear%20Receptor%20 Key%20Events%20for%20Liver%20Tumorigens%20James%20 Klaunig.pdf.
29. Laszlo M, Creech JL, Whelan JG, Johnson MN. (1974). Liver damage and angiosarcoma in vinyl chloride workers: a systematic detection program. JAMA, 230, 64-8.
30. Limbird LE, Taylor P. (1998). Endocrine disruptors signal the need for receptor models and mechanisms to inform policy. Cell, 93, 157-63.
31. Lipshutz GS, Brennan TV, Warren RS. (2002). Thorotrast-induced liver neoplasia: a collective review. J Am Coll Surg, 195, 713-8.
32. Lutz WK, Lutz RW. (2009). Statistical model to estimate a threshold dose and its confidence limits for the analysis of sublinear doseresponse relationships, exemplified for mutagenicity data. Mutat Res, 678, 118-22.
33. McDonnell DP. (2010). Recent developments in molecular pharmacology of nuclear receptors. Presented at "Dose-Response Approaches for Nuclear Receptor-Mediated Modes of Action" Workshop. Available from: http://www.tera.org/peer/nuclearreceptor/Recent%20 Developments%20in%20Molecular%20Pharmacology%20of%20 Nuclear%20Receptors%20Donald%20McDonnell.pdf [last accessed 27 Aug 2013].
34. Meek ME, Bucher JR, Cohen SM, et al. (2003). A framework for human relevance analysis of information of carcinogenic modes of action. Crit Rev Toxicol, 33, 591-653.
35. NAS (National Academies of Science). (2009). Science and decisions: advancing risk assessment. Committee on Improving Risk Analysis Approaches Used by the U.S. EPA, National Research Council. National Academies Press, ISBN: 0-309-12047-0. Available from: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record-id=12209.
36. Newberne PM, Rogers AE. (1973). Animal model of human disease: primary hepatocellular carcinoma. Am J Pathol, 72, 137-40.
37. Pan H, Fu X, Huang W. (2011). Molecular mechanisms of liver cancer. Anticancer Agents Med Chem, 11, 493-9.
38. Peters JM, Cheung C, Gonzalez FJ. (2005). Peroxisome proliferatoractivated receptor-a and liver cancer: where do we stand? J Mol Med, 83, 774-85.
39. Rhomberg LR, Goodman JE, Haber LT, et al. (2011). Linear low-dose extrapolation for noncancer heath effects is the exception, not the rule. Crit Rev Toxicol, 41, 1-19.
40. Rusyn I, Corton JC. (2012). Mechanistic considerations for human relevance of cancer hazard of di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate. Mutat Res, 750, 141-58.
41. Seed J, Carney EW, Corley RA, et al. (2005). Overview: using a mode of action and life stage information to evaluate the human relevance to animal data. Crit Rev Toxicol, 35, 664-72.
42. Schwarz M, Appel KE. (2005). Carcinogenic risks of dioxin: mechanistic considerations. Reg Toxicol Pharmacol, 43, 19-34.
43. Simon T. (2010). Biomathematical considerations for dose-response assessment. Presented at "Dose-Response Approaches for Nuclear Receptor-Mediated Modes of Action" Workshop. Available from: http://www.tera.org/peer/nuclearreceptor/AHR%20Case%20Study% 20Materials%20Document.pdf.
44. Sonich-Mullin C, Fielder R, Baetcke K, et al. (2001). IPCS conceptual framework for evaluating a mode of action for chemical carciongenesis. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 34, 146-52.
45. Thomas RS, Clewell HJ, Allen BC, et al. (2012). Integrating pathway-based transcriptomic data into quantitative chemical risk assessment: a five chemical case study. Mutat Res, 746, 135-43.
46. U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). (2002). A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference Concentration Processes. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC, EPA/630/P-02/002F.
47. U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). (2012). EPA's Reanalysis of Key Issues Related to Dioxin Toxicity and Response to NAS Comments, Volume 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-10/038F.
48. U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). (2010). EPA's Reanalysis of Key Issues Related to Dioxin Toxicity and Response to NAS Comments Under the IRIS process (External Review Draft). EPA/600/R-10/038F.
49. White RH, Cote I, Zeise L, et al. (2009). State-of-the-Science Workshop Report: issues and approaches in low-dose: response extrapolation for environmental health risk assessment. Environ Health Perspect, 117, 283-7.
50. Williams GM. (2011). Concordant and discordant findings for liver carcinogens in animal models and humans [abstract].Toxicol Lett, 205S, S1.
51. Toxicol Lett, 205S, S1. Zhang Q, Bhattacharya S, Andersen ME, Conolly RB. (2010). Computational systems biology and dose response modeling in relation to new directions in toxicity testing. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev, 13, 253-76.