Quantitative analysis of the lobular distribution of S-phase in rat liver following dietary administration of di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

The PPARα-dependent rodent liver tumor response is not relevant to humans: addressing misconceptions

A number of industrial chemicals and therapeutic agents cause liver tumors in rats and mice by activating the nuclear receptor peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α (PPARα). The molecular and cellular events by which PPARα activators induce rodent hepatocarcinogenesis have been extensively studied elucidating a number of consistent mechanistic changes linked to the increased incidence of liver neoplasms. The weight of evidence relevant to the hypothesized mode of action (MOA) for PPARα activator-induced rodent hepatocarcinogenesis is summarized here. Chemical-specific and mechanistic data support concordance of temporal and dose-response relationships for the key events associated with many PPARα activators. The key events (KE) identified in the MOA are PPARα activation (KE1), alteration in cell growth pathways (KE2), perturbation of hepatocyte growth and survival (KE3), and selective clonal expansion of preneoplastic foci cells (KE4), which leads to the apical event-increases in hepatocellular adenomas and carcinomas (KE5). In addition, a number of concurrent molecular and cellular events have been classified as modulating factors, because they potentially alter the ability of PPARα activators to increase rodent liver cancer while not being key events themselves. These modulating factors include increases in oxidative stress and activation of NF-kB. PPARα activators are unlikely to induce liver tumors in humans due to biological differences in the response of KEs downstream of PPARα activation. This conclusion is based on minimal or no effects observed on cell growth pathways and hepatocellular proliferation in human primary hepatocytes and absence of alteration in growth pathways, hepatocyte proliferation, and tumors in the livers of species (hamsters, guinea pigs and cynomolgus monkeys) that are more appropriate human surrogates than mice and rats at overlapping dose levels. Despite this overwhelming body of evidence and almost universal acceptance of the PPARα MOA and lack of human relevance, several reviews have selectively focused on specific studies that, as discussed, contradict the consensus opinion and suggest uncertainty. In the present review, we systematically address these most germane suggested weaknesses of the PPARα MOA.

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

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.