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

References

• Alon U. (2007). Network motifs: theory and experimental approaches. Nat Rev Gen, 8, 450–61
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• Boekelheide K, Andersen ME. (2010). A mechanistic redefinition of adverse effects – A key step in the toxicity testing paradigm shift. Altex, 27, 243–52
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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 (PPARα) as a case study. Crit Rev Toxicol
   Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hack CE, Haber LT, Maier A, et al. (2010). A Bayesian network model for biomarker-based dose-response. Risk Anal, 30, 1037–51
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. (2011). Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell, 144, 646–74
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hattis D. (1996). Human interindividual variability in susceptibility to toxic effects: from annoying detail to a central determinant of risk. Toxicology, 111, 5–14
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill AB. (1965). The environment and disease: association or causation? P Roy Soc Med, 58, 295–300
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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_Workshop/PastoorPrez.pdf [last accessed 1 Oct 2012]
   Google Scholar
• IPCS (International Programme on Chemical Safety). (2001). IPCS conceptual framework for evaluating mode of action for chemical carcinogenesis. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 34, 146–52
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• IPCS (International Programme on Chemical Safety). (2007). Mode of action framework. Harmonization project document No. 4. Geneva: World Health Organization
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• Klaassen CD. (2008). Casarett and Doull’s toxicology – the basic science of poisons. 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill
   Google Scholar
• 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%20Key%20Events%20for%20Liver%20Tumorigens%20James%20Klaunig.pdf
   Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Limbird LE, Taylor P. (1998). Endocrine disruptors signal the need for receptor models and mechanisms to inform policy. Cell, 93, 157–63
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipshutz GS, Brennan TV, Warren RS. (2002). Thorotrast-induced liver neoplasia: a collective review. J Am Coll Surg, 195, 713–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lutz WK, Lutz RW. (2009). Statistical model to estimate a threshold dose and its confidence limits for the analysis of sublinear dose-response relationships, exemplified for mutagenicity data. Mutat Res, 678, 118–22
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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%20Developments%20in%20Molecular%20Pharmacology%20of%20Nuclear%20Receptors%20Donald%20McDonnell.pdf [last accessed 27 Aug 2013]
   Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NAS (National Academies of Science). (2007). Toxicity testing in the 21st century: a vision and a strategy. The National Academies Press, National Research Council, ISBN-10: 0-309-15173-2. Available from: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11970
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• Newberne PM, Rogers AE. (1973). Animal model of human disease: primary hepatocellular carcinoma. Am J Pathol, 72, 137–40
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pan H, Fu X, Huang W. (2011). Molecular mechanisms of liver cancer. Anticancer Agents Med Chem, 11, 493–9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Peters JM, Cheung C, Gonzalez FJ. (2005). Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-α and liver cancer: where do we stand? J Mol Med, 83, 774–85
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rusyn I, Corton JC. (2012). Mechanistic considerations for human relevance of cancer hazard of di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate. Mutat Res, 750, 141–58
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarz M, Appel KE. (2005). Carcinogenic risks of dioxin: mechanistic considerations. Reg Toxicol Pharmacol, 43, 19–34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams GM. (2011). Concordant and discordant findings for liver carcinogens in animal models and humans [abstract]. Toxicol Lett, 205S, S1
   Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar