Janer Gemma, Slob Wout, Hakkert Betty C, Vermeire Theo, Piersma Aldert H
National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2008 Mar;50(2):206-17. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2007.11.007. Epub 2007 Nov 28.
In contrast to most toxicological tests, developmental studies are usually required in both a rodent and a non-rodent species. This study retrospectively assessed the added value of the rabbit developmental test when a rat developmental test is available. In contrast with previous reviews, we looked at developmental toxicity instead of teratogenicity, and took into account maternal toxicity in the evaluation of developmental toxicity. We analyzed data for 54 substances classified for developmental toxicity and 73 substances considered to be teratogenic in the rabbit and not in the rat in two previous reviews. On average, the rat and the rabbit developmental toxicity studies were similarly sensitive: the average ratio of the NOAELs between the two species was about one, and for most compounds there were no differences between rat and rabbit studies in terms of classification for developmental toxicity. For certain substances the developmental study in either one of the two species appeared to be more sensitive than in the other species. However, these differences are partly due to differences between studies other than the test species used. Overall, our analysis does not clearly indicate that the evaluation of developmental toxicity, as opposed to other types of toxicity, would specifically require the rabbit as an additional test species. The discrimination between direct and indirect (i.e., as a consequence of maternal toxicity) developmental effects was often doubtful, and is one of the factors that could explain the apparent differences between the two species. A more accurate assessment of maternal toxicity might improve the reliability of the results from a single developmental toxicity study. More knowledge about the interaction between maternal and developmental effects is required before decisions on omitting the requirement for the developmental toxicity testing in a second species can be considered.
与大多数毒理学试验不同,发育研究通常需要在啮齿类动物和非啮齿类动物中进行。本研究回顾性评估了在已有大鼠发育试验的情况下,家兔发育试验的附加价值。与以往的综述不同,我们关注的是发育毒性而非致畸性,并在评估发育毒性时考虑了母体毒性。我们分析了之前两篇综述中54种被分类为具有发育毒性的物质以及73种在家兔中被认为具有致畸性而在大鼠中不具有致畸性的物质的数据。平均而言,大鼠和家兔的发育毒性研究敏感性相似:两种物种之间无观察到有害作用水平(NOAELs)的平均比值约为1,并且对于大多数化合物,大鼠和家兔研究在发育毒性分类方面没有差异。对于某些物质,两种物种之一的发育研究似乎比另一种物种更敏感。然而,这些差异部分归因于所使用的试验物种以外的研究之间的差异。总体而言,我们的分析并未明确表明,与其他类型的毒性相比,发育毒性的评估特别需要家兔作为额外的试验物种。直接和间接(即由于母体毒性导致的)发育效应之间的区分往往存在疑问,这是可以解释两种物种之间明显差异的因素之一。对母体毒性进行更准确的评估可能会提高单个发育毒性研究结果的可靠性。在考虑是否可以省略第二种物种的发育毒性试验要求之前,需要更多关于母体效应与发育效应之间相互作用的知识。