4.2 Article

Mechanistic data and cancer risk assessment: The need for quantitative molecular endpoints

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL AND MOLECULAR MUTAGENESIS
Volume 45, Issue 2-3, Pages 214-221

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/em.20093

Keywords

risk assessment; cancer; biomarkers; genomics; proteomics; real-time PCR; comparative genomic hybridization; fluorescence in situ hybridization

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The cancer risk assessment process as currently proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency allows for the use of mechanistic data to inform the low-dose tumor response in humans and in laboratory animals. The aim is to reduce the reliance on defaults that introduce a relatively high level of uncertainty to the risk estimates. The types of data required for this purpose are those that help identify key events in tumor formation following exposure to environmental chemicals. Informative biomarkers of tumor responses could then be developed for describing the shape of a dose-response curve at low doses (i.e., a qualitative assessment) and for predicting tumor frequency at these low doses (i.e., a quantitative assessment). A number of recently developed molecular approaches could aid in the development of qualitatively and quantitatively informative biomarkers. An overview of these with examples of their use is presented. These methods include quantitative gene expression array techniques, quantitative proteomic assays, and the assessment of DNA alterations at the single gene level and at the genome level of detection. It is most likely that a combination of approaches at different levels of cellular organization (i.e., DNA, RNA, and protein) will be the most productive for biomarker development. The rapid progress that is being made will make this tool kit even more applicable for the cancer risk assessment process. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 45:214-221, 2005. Published 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available