National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Survey of Heliobacter Species in Laboratory Mice and Gerbils in Japan
Suggested Citation:"Genetic Evaluation of Outbred Rats." National Research Council. 2000. Microbial Status and Genetic Evaluation of Mice and Rats: Proceedings of the 1999 US/Japan Conference. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9987.
×

Genetic Evaluation of Outbred Rats

Joseph J. DeGeorge

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research

Food and Drug Administration

Rockville, MD

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) comprises a very diverse group in Foods and Biologics and Veterinary Medicine and Drugs. We all have very different views on how animals should be used, in what kinds of studies they should be used, and how we use information from studies in assessing risk. My remarks are from the perspective of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and not from the perspective of any of the other centers within FDA.

REGULATORY PERSPECTIVE AND INFORMATION

Genetic marker information is not required in study protocols. It is not submitted as part of data analyses, even for explanations of deviations in study results. As an example, when I surveyed many of the reviewers within the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research about how often they received genetic profiles of the test animals, none had ever seen such information.

Industry simply does not provide it.

The information we typically receive is required information: strain identification, the source of the animals, and sometimes site-specific control data sets, which we may request in an effort to understand the significance of some finding because we do not have the control data of all sponsors or contractors. We do have complete control data, including line listings, from the animals on the study.

For example, if we have a particular question about vasculitis either in your breeding colony or from your source, we may request the historical response rate so that we can calculate whether there is a significant effect of the pharmaceutical in relation to variable background rates. Another very recent example involves

Suggested Citation:"Genetic Evaluation of Outbred Rats." National Research Council. 2000. Microbial Status and Genetic Evaluation of Mice and Rats: Proceedings of the 1999 US/Japan Conference. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9987.
×

our carcinogenicity assessment committee, which evaluates all carcinogenicity studies that come into the Center for study conduct and results review, including a report received last week from an international company that had an unlicensed product. For their dose range finding study, the available general toxicology studies had been done in Japan, and the carcinogenicity study had been done in the United States. For their animals, they had gone to the same global supplier, which had two different colonies of animals—one in Japan and one in the United States. In the Japanese studies that were submitted, there was a phenotypic response in the animals to the drug that was unmistakable. Females lost about 100 g/kg or up to 20% of their body weight. Males were not affected. Thus, the effect that occurred in the dose range finding studies at 3 months (and later, in a separate study, at 6 months) were persistent and obviously drug related. However, in the carcinogenicity study, with the same dose levels as in the other studies and with animals from the US source, there was no effect on body weight at any time during the study.

The question is whether this difference is one of genetics, the source of animals, or the source of feed. It could be caused by many things. We are still wondering why this happened, and the issue may require 2 or 3 years and $1 to $2 million to resolve.

NEW TECHNOLOGY

Another area from the regulatory view (although we are not really regulating in this area) is that of microarray technology. In the pharmaceutical arena of this technology, we are beginning to look for better ways to interpret study results—possibly to understand mechanisms for responses and to eliminate the conduct of some studies. Using this technology will be a learning experience.

Currently, I participate in an International Life Sciences Institute group, which collects and attempts to compare across market-ready platforms in an effort to characterize platform responses. The purpose of this effort is to gain a similar experience base and even, in fact, build a standard response library to enable an understanding of what kind of toxic insult might reveal a predictable pattern. It will be years before this database is built.

One of my questions is what animals will be used when specialists validate or characterize this microarray platform response data set. During our last meeting, we discussed whether we should use SD or Wistar rats when trying to compare the response with a single chemical at multiple test sites, to compare platforms. That comparison can be carried farther, and there may be data to address this issue. Differences in the source of animals should be considered, even if you get what can be called a particular strain.

Finally, it is important to determine a course of action for studies in a different strain or source of animal that result in a different signal with an unknown chemical. We need to know with certainty that a different response is due to a

Suggested Citation:"Genetic Evaluation of Outbred Rats." National Research Council. 2000. Microbial Status and Genetic Evaluation of Mice and Rats: Proceedings of the 1999 US/Japan Conference. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9987.
×

genotypic difference in the animals. We must learn to understand the genetics and what expression changes are associated with what strains or whether to control for this difference in test systems.

GENETICALLY ENGINEERED MICE

We obtain genotypic and phenotypic expression information—response data for response elements, specifically in the p53 knockout and Tg.AC models. For example, we test to learn whether the transgene has been inserted in the Tg.AC model. In this process, we have discovered that even with a genetic marker, it is possible to be fooled. In the case of the Tg.AC model, there was a long delay in the response characterization because the genotype marker being assessed was not responsible for the phenotype. Because people were not tracking the genotype that was associated with the phenotype of interest, confusion resulted and the model was almost lost. The animals expressing the transgene suddenly were no longer responding to carcinogen treatment. That example clearly reflects a need to have very good characterization of the genotype and phenotype and identification of a genotype that is responsible for the phenotype of interest.

We also now have the p53 knockout model expressed on three different background strains, and we have no information as to whether those accessory genes influence the expression rate in the different p53 animals and whether they all respond with a particular signal. Within FDA, we are looking at the Hras2 mouse model to learn whether it has the same potential liability as the Tg.AC, because it was made with a technique similar to the Tg.AC model. To the best of our knowledge today, it does not appear to carry this potential problem.

SUMMARY

In a regulatory setting, there is very minimal information on the genetics of animals. However, that information can be very important from a regulatory perspective. We understand the importance of genetically engineered animals, but we do not necessarily appreciate that this importance can also apply to our standard toxicology models. Perhaps in the examples cited above, if we had the genetic information from the Japanese source of animals in the dose ranging study and the source for that carcinogenicity study, resulting linkage information may have enabled us to resurrect the validity of that study. Of course, it is necessary to know what genetic markers are important to follow.

I believe there are emerging issues regarding genotype and interpretations of results, particularly in the area of microarray technology that we are all rushing into headlong without resolution. We must be careful about what kind of data we collect. We must consider the meaning of an observed effect that no longer appears as a signature signal —consider the source of animals and any other factors that could have influenced that animal's response.

Suggested Citation:"Genetic Evaluation of Outbred Rats." National Research Council. 2000. Microbial Status and Genetic Evaluation of Mice and Rats: Proceedings of the 1999 US/Japan Conference. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9987.
×

QUESTION AND ANSWER

DR. FESTING: What is the implication of a case in which genetic markers showed that both the Japanese rats and the US study rats were, in fact, genetically different?

DR. DE GEORGE: The implied result is basically the same as the current situation, which is that the study must be repeated. According to that 2-year assay, the doses were not selected properly for that group of animals, which means that we did not learn about the carcinogenic potential of the drug. If the rodent to human dose margin had been huge or the dose had been close to the appropriate dose, we probably would have been able to accept those data. However, in this case, the doses were clearly too divergent. The result is $1 million wasted and 2 years lost, the latter of which is probably more important.

Suggested Citation:"Genetic Evaluation of Outbred Rats." National Research Council. 2000. Microbial Status and Genetic Evaluation of Mice and Rats: Proceedings of the 1999 US/Japan Conference. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9987.
×
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Genetic Evaluation of Outbred Rats." National Research Council. 2000. Microbial Status and Genetic Evaluation of Mice and Rats: Proceedings of the 1999 US/Japan Conference. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9987.
×
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Genetic Evaluation of Outbred Rats." National Research Council. 2000. Microbial Status and Genetic Evaluation of Mice and Rats: Proceedings of the 1999 US/Japan Conference. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9987.
×
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Genetic Evaluation of Outbred Rats." National Research Council. 2000. Microbial Status and Genetic Evaluation of Mice and Rats: Proceedings of the 1999 US/Japan Conference. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9987.
×
Page 50
Next: Genetic Evaluation of Outbred Rats from the Breeder's Perspective »
Microbial Status and Genetic Evaluation of Mice and Rats: Proceedings of the 1999 US/Japan Conference Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $50.00 Buy Ebook | $39.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

US/Japan meetings on laboratory animal science have been held virtually every year since 1980 under the US/Japan Cooperative Program on Science and Technology. Over the years these meetings have resulted in a number of important documents including the Manual of Microbiologic Monitoring of Laboratory Animals published in 1994 and the article Establishment and Preservation of Reference Inbred Strains of Rats for General Purposes. In addition to these publications, the meetings have been instrumental in increasing awareness of the need for microbiologic monitoring of laboratory rodents and the need for genetic definition and monitoring of mice and rats.

In cooperation with the Comparative Medicine section of NCRR/NIH, the ILAR Council and staff are pleased to become the host for this important annual meeting and look forward to participating in future meetings. The support and sponsorship of NCRR (P40 RR 11611) in the United States and the Central Institute for Experimental Animals in Japan are gratefully acknowledged. Bringing together the leading scientists in the field of laboratory animal care has resulted in increased understanding of American and Japanese approaches to laboratory animal science and should continue to strengthen efforts to harmonize approaches aimed at resolving common challenges in the use of animal models for biomedical research and testing. This effort to improve understanding and cooperation between Japan and the United States should also be useful in developing similar interaction with other regions of the world including Europe, Australia, and Southeast Asia.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!