4.4 Article

Comparison of physiologic and pharmacologic parameters in Asian and mauritius cynomolgus macaques

Journal

REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 73, Issue 1, Pages 27-42

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.06.008

Keywords

Cynomolgus macaque; Background parameters; Physiologic comparison; Pharmacologic comparison; Asian macaque; Mauritius macaque

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This comparative study was conducted to assess background physiologic and pharmacologic parameters of cynomolgus macaques (Macaca fascicularis) from Cambodia, from a mixed Asian source (Cambodia, Vietnam and Indonesia), and from Mauritius. This evaluation provides a comprehensive assessment of several of these parameters in a single study. Ten male and 10 female captive-bred, age-matched macaques from each source were evaluated. Criteria for evaluation included weight gain, assessment of drug metabolizing enzyme activity, metabolomic analysis, immunologic assessments (lymphocyte subsets, TDAR, and serum Ig isotyping), clinical pathology evaluations, physical (respiratory, neurologic, cardiovascular, and ophthalmologic) examinations, pathogen screening, organ weights, and gross and microscopic pathology analyses. The results of this evaluation indicate that, compared to macaques of Asian origin, macaques from Mauritius had the lowest incidence and/or severity of spontaneous pathologic findings in several organs and tissues (lymphoid organs, stomach, kidney, urothelium, heart, arteries and lung) and better testicular maturity at a given age with minimal variability in organ weights. Although slight differences were observed in other parameters, none were considered detrimental to the use of macaques of Asian or Mauritius origin in pharmaceutical candidate safety studies with the use of a consistent source, concomitant controls, and appropriate background knowledge and screening. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available