计算n -亚硝基化合物可接受摄入量的BMD和TD50方法的关键比较。

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 TOXICOLOGY
Robert Thomas, David J Ponting, Andrew Thresher, Joerg Schlingemann, John W Wills, George E Johnson
{"title":"计算n -亚硝基化合物可接受摄入量的BMD和TD50方法的关键比较。","authors":"Robert Thomas, David J Ponting, Andrew Thresher, Joerg Schlingemann, John W Wills, George E Johnson","doi":"10.1007/s00204-024-03951-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The tumorigenic dose 50 (TD<sub>50</sub>) is a widely used measure of carcinogenic potency which has historically been used to determine acceptable intake limits for carcinogenic compounds. Although broadly used, the TD<sub>50</sub> model was not designed to account for important biological factors such as DNA repair and cell compensatory mechanisms, changes in absorption, etc., leading to the development of benchmark dose (BMD) approaches, which use more flexible dose-response models that are better able to account for these processes. Using a nitrosamine dataset as a case study, we compare the impact of moving to a BMD-based limit as opposed to a TD<sub>50</sub>-based limit. Although there are differences in individual potency estimates between the two approaches for some compounds, we show that the key metrics such as the 5<sup>th</sup> percentile of the respective potency distributions, used when calculating class-specific default acceptable intakes, are not greatly affected. Furthermore, potency estimates for nitrosamine compounds relevant to read-across do not vary by more than a factor of 3, which is little in the context of the inherent variability in a biological response, in an overall landscape wherein potencies can vary by four orders of magnitude. This suggests a move to BMD-based limits is achievable without significant disruption to existing limits while utilising a more robust methodology.</p>","PeriodicalId":8329,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Toxicology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Critical comparison of BMD and TD<sub>50</sub> methods for the calculation of acceptable intakes for N-nitroso compounds.\",\"authors\":\"Robert Thomas, David J Ponting, Andrew Thresher, Joerg Schlingemann, John W Wills, George E Johnson\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00204-024-03951-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The tumorigenic dose 50 (TD<sub>50</sub>) is a widely used measure of carcinogenic potency which has historically been used to determine acceptable intake limits for carcinogenic compounds. Although broadly used, the TD<sub>50</sub> model was not designed to account for important biological factors such as DNA repair and cell compensatory mechanisms, changes in absorption, etc., leading to the development of benchmark dose (BMD) approaches, which use more flexible dose-response models that are better able to account for these processes. Using a nitrosamine dataset as a case study, we compare the impact of moving to a BMD-based limit as opposed to a TD<sub>50</sub>-based limit. Although there are differences in individual potency estimates between the two approaches for some compounds, we show that the key metrics such as the 5<sup>th</sup> percentile of the respective potency distributions, used when calculating class-specific default acceptable intakes, are not greatly affected. Furthermore, potency estimates for nitrosamine compounds relevant to read-across do not vary by more than a factor of 3, which is little in the context of the inherent variability in a biological response, in an overall landscape wherein potencies can vary by four orders of magnitude. This suggests a move to BMD-based limits is achievable without significant disruption to existing limits while utilising a more robust methodology.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8329,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Toxicology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Toxicology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-024-03951-8\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"TOXICOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-024-03951-8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"TOXICOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

致瘤剂量50 (TD50)是一种广泛使用的致癌效力测量方法,历来用于确定致癌化合物的可接受摄入量限制。尽管TD50模型被广泛使用,但其设计并未考虑DNA修复和细胞补偿机制、吸收变化等重要生物学因素,这导致了基准剂量(BMD)方法的发展,这些方法使用更灵活的剂量-反应模型,能够更好地解释这些过程。我们使用亚硝胺数据集作为案例研究,比较了达到基于bmd的限值与基于td50的限值的影响。尽管对于某些化合物,两种方法之间的个体效价估计存在差异,但我们表明,在计算特定类别默认可接受摄入量时使用的关键指标,如各自效价分布的第5百分位数,并没有受到太大影响。此外,与解读相关的亚硝胺化合物的效力估计值变化不超过3倍,这在生物反应的固有变异性背景下是很小的,在整体景观中,效力可以变化4个数量级。这表明,在不显著破坏现有限制的情况下,采用更稳健的方法,可以实现基于bmd的限制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Critical comparison of BMD and TD50 methods for the calculation of acceptable intakes for N-nitroso compounds.

The tumorigenic dose 50 (TD50) is a widely used measure of carcinogenic potency which has historically been used to determine acceptable intake limits for carcinogenic compounds. Although broadly used, the TD50 model was not designed to account for important biological factors such as DNA repair and cell compensatory mechanisms, changes in absorption, etc., leading to the development of benchmark dose (BMD) approaches, which use more flexible dose-response models that are better able to account for these processes. Using a nitrosamine dataset as a case study, we compare the impact of moving to a BMD-based limit as opposed to a TD50-based limit. Although there are differences in individual potency estimates between the two approaches for some compounds, we show that the key metrics such as the 5th percentile of the respective potency distributions, used when calculating class-specific default acceptable intakes, are not greatly affected. Furthermore, potency estimates for nitrosamine compounds relevant to read-across do not vary by more than a factor of 3, which is little in the context of the inherent variability in a biological response, in an overall landscape wherein potencies can vary by four orders of magnitude. This suggests a move to BMD-based limits is achievable without significant disruption to existing limits while utilising a more robust methodology.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Archives of Toxicology
Archives of Toxicology 医学-毒理学
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
4.90%
发文量
218
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: Archives of Toxicology provides up-to-date information on the latest advances in toxicology. The journal places particular emphasis on studies relating to defined effects of chemicals and mechanisms of toxicity, including toxic activities at the molecular level, in humans and experimental animals. Coverage includes new insights into analysis and toxicokinetics and into forensic toxicology. Review articles of general interest to toxicologists are an additional important feature of the journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信