Mode of action framework analysis for receptor-mediated toxicity: The peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPARα) as a case study

J. Christopher Corton, Michael L. Cunningham, B. Timothy Hummer, Christopher Lau, Bette Meek, Jeffrey M. Peters, James A. Popp, Lorenz Rhomberg, Jennifer Seed, James E. Klaunig

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

104 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Several therapeutic agents and industrial chemicals induce liver tumors in rodents through the activation of the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPARα). The cellular and molecular events by which PPARα activators induce rodent hepatocarcinogenesis has been extensively studied and elucidated. This review summarizes the weight of evidence relevant to the hypothesized mode of action (MOA) for PPARα activator-induced rodent hepatocarcinogenesis and identifies gaps in our knowledge of this MOA. Chemical-specific and mechanistic data support concordance of temporal and dose-response relationships for the key events associated with many PPARα activators including a phthalate ester plasticizer di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) and the drug gemfibrozil. While biologically plausible in humans, the hypothesized key events in the rodent MOA, for PPARα activators, are unlikely to induce liver tumors in humans because of toxicodynamic and biological differences in responses. This conclusion is based on minimal or no effects observed on growth pathways, hepatocellular proliferation and liver tumors in humans and/or species (including hamsters, guinea pigs and cynomolgous monkeys) that are more appropriate human surrogates than mice and rats at overlapping dose levels. Overall, the panel concluded that significant quantitative differences in PPARα activator-induced effects related to liver cancer formation exist between rodents and humans. On the basis of these quantitative differences, most of the workgroup felt that the rodent MOA is "not relevant to humans" with the remaining members concluding that the MOA is "unlikely to be relevant to humans". The two groups differed in their level of confidence based on perceived limitations of the quantitative and mechanistic knowledge of the species differences, which for some panel members strongly supports but cannot preclude the absence of effects under unlikely exposure scenarios.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-49
Number of pages49
JournalCritical Reviews in Toxicology
Volume44
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2014

Fingerprint

PPAR alpha
Toxicity
Rodentia
Liver
Tumors
Gemfibrozil
Industrial chemicals
Plasticizers
Neoplasms
Liver Neoplasms
Rats
Esters
Cricetinae
Haplorhini
Chemical activation
Guinea Pigs
Weights and Measures
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Growth

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Toxicology

Cite this

Corton, J. Christopher ; Cunningham, Michael L. ; Hummer, B. Timothy ; Lau, Christopher ; Meek, Bette ; Peters, Jeffrey M. ; Popp, James A. ; Rhomberg, Lorenz ; Seed, Jennifer ; Klaunig, James E. / Mode of action framework analysis for receptor-mediated toxicity : The peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPARα) as a case study. In: Critical Reviews in Toxicology. 2014 ; Vol. 44, No. 1. pp. 1-49.
@article{e39aecff2c224a0a8f31ac162129eb0c,
title = "Mode of action framework analysis for receptor-mediated toxicity: The peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPARα) as a case study",
abstract = "Several therapeutic agents and industrial chemicals induce liver tumors in rodents through the activation of the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPARα). The cellular and molecular events by which PPARα activators induce rodent hepatocarcinogenesis has been extensively studied and elucidated. This review summarizes the weight of evidence relevant to the hypothesized mode of action (MOA) for PPARα activator-induced rodent hepatocarcinogenesis and identifies gaps in our knowledge of this MOA. Chemical-specific and mechanistic data support concordance of temporal and dose-response relationships for the key events associated with many PPARα activators including a phthalate ester plasticizer di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) and the drug gemfibrozil. While biologically plausible in humans, the hypothesized key events in the rodent MOA, for PPARα activators, are unlikely to induce liver tumors in humans because of toxicodynamic and biological differences in responses. This conclusion is based on minimal or no effects observed on growth pathways, hepatocellular proliferation and liver tumors in humans and/or species (including hamsters, guinea pigs and cynomolgous monkeys) that are more appropriate human surrogates than mice and rats at overlapping dose levels. Overall, the panel concluded that significant quantitative differences in PPARα activator-induced effects related to liver cancer formation exist between rodents and humans. On the basis of these quantitative differences, most of the workgroup felt that the rodent MOA is {"}not relevant to humans{"} with the remaining members concluding that the MOA is {"}unlikely to be relevant to humans{"}. The two groups differed in their level of confidence based on perceived limitations of the quantitative and mechanistic knowledge of the species differences, which for some panel members strongly supports but cannot preclude the absence of effects under unlikely exposure scenarios.",
author = "Corton, {J. Christopher} and Cunningham, {Michael L.} and Hummer, {B. Timothy} and Christopher Lau and Bette Meek and Peters, {Jeffrey M.} and Popp, {James A.} and Lorenz Rhomberg and Jennifer Seed and Klaunig, {James E.}",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
doi = "10.3109/10408444.2013.835784",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "44",
pages = "1--49",
journal = "Critical Reviews in Toxicology",
issn = "1040-8444",
publisher = "Informa Healthcare",
number = "1",

}

Mode of action framework analysis for receptor-mediated toxicity : The peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPARα) as a case study. / Corton, J. Christopher; Cunningham, Michael L.; Hummer, B. Timothy; Lau, Christopher; Meek, Bette; Peters, Jeffrey M.; Popp, James A.; Rhomberg, Lorenz; Seed, Jennifer; Klaunig, James E.

In: Critical Reviews in Toxicology, Vol. 44, No. 1, 01.2014, p. 1-49.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Mode of action framework analysis for receptor-mediated toxicity

T2 - The peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPARα) as a case study

AU - Corton, J. Christopher

AU - Cunningham, Michael L.

AU - Hummer, B. Timothy

AU - Lau, Christopher

AU - Meek, Bette

AU - Peters, Jeffrey M.

AU - Popp, James A.

AU - Rhomberg, Lorenz

AU - Seed, Jennifer

AU - Klaunig, James E.

PY - 2014/1

Y1 - 2014/1

N2 - Several therapeutic agents and industrial chemicals induce liver tumors in rodents through the activation of the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPARα). The cellular and molecular events by which PPARα activators induce rodent hepatocarcinogenesis has been extensively studied and elucidated. This review summarizes the weight of evidence relevant to the hypothesized mode of action (MOA) for PPARα activator-induced rodent hepatocarcinogenesis and identifies gaps in our knowledge of this MOA. Chemical-specific and mechanistic data support concordance of temporal and dose-response relationships for the key events associated with many PPARα activators including a phthalate ester plasticizer di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) and the drug gemfibrozil. While biologically plausible in humans, the hypothesized key events in the rodent MOA, for PPARα activators, are unlikely to induce liver tumors in humans because of toxicodynamic and biological differences in responses. This conclusion is based on minimal or no effects observed on growth pathways, hepatocellular proliferation and liver tumors in humans and/or species (including hamsters, guinea pigs and cynomolgous monkeys) that are more appropriate human surrogates than mice and rats at overlapping dose levels. Overall, the panel concluded that significant quantitative differences in PPARα activator-induced effects related to liver cancer formation exist between rodents and humans. On the basis of these quantitative differences, most of the workgroup felt that the rodent MOA is "not relevant to humans" with the remaining members concluding that the MOA is "unlikely to be relevant to humans". The two groups differed in their level of confidence based on perceived limitations of the quantitative and mechanistic knowledge of the species differences, which for some panel members strongly supports but cannot preclude the absence of effects under unlikely exposure scenarios.

AB - Several therapeutic agents and industrial chemicals induce liver tumors in rodents through the activation of the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPARα). The cellular and molecular events by which PPARα activators induce rodent hepatocarcinogenesis has been extensively studied and elucidated. This review summarizes the weight of evidence relevant to the hypothesized mode of action (MOA) for PPARα activator-induced rodent hepatocarcinogenesis and identifies gaps in our knowledge of this MOA. Chemical-specific and mechanistic data support concordance of temporal and dose-response relationships for the key events associated with many PPARα activators including a phthalate ester plasticizer di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) and the drug gemfibrozil. While biologically plausible in humans, the hypothesized key events in the rodent MOA, for PPARα activators, are unlikely to induce liver tumors in humans because of toxicodynamic and biological differences in responses. This conclusion is based on minimal or no effects observed on growth pathways, hepatocellular proliferation and liver tumors in humans and/or species (including hamsters, guinea pigs and cynomolgous monkeys) that are more appropriate human surrogates than mice and rats at overlapping dose levels. Overall, the panel concluded that significant quantitative differences in PPARα activator-induced effects related to liver cancer formation exist between rodents and humans. On the basis of these quantitative differences, most of the workgroup felt that the rodent MOA is "not relevant to humans" with the remaining members concluding that the MOA is "unlikely to be relevant to humans". The two groups differed in their level of confidence based on perceived limitations of the quantitative and mechanistic knowledge of the species differences, which for some panel members strongly supports but cannot preclude the absence of effects under unlikely exposure scenarios.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84891552596&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84891552596&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3109/10408444.2013.835784

DO - 10.3109/10408444.2013.835784

M3 - Review article

C2 - 24180432

AN - SCOPUS:84891552596

VL - 44

SP - 1

EP - 49

JO - Critical Reviews in Toxicology

JF - Critical Reviews in Toxicology

SN - 1040-8444

IS - 1

ER -