Advertisement

The Science of Toxicology-Scope, Goals and Four Case Studies

  • B. E. Matter
Part of the Environmental Science Research book series (ESRH, volume 31)

Summary

Toxicology is a multidisciplinary science that deals with the study of the harmful actions of chemical substances on biological material. The scope of toxicology is very wide, and contains three principal categories: environmental (pollution, residues, industrial hygiene); economic (medicines, food, food additives, pesticides, dyestuffs, chemicals); and forensic (intoxication, diagnosis, therapy).

The goal of toxicology is to contribute to the general knowledge of the harmful actions of chemical substances, to study their mechanisms of action, and to estimate their possible risks to humans on the basis of experimental work on biological test systems. An overall assessment of the toxicological profile of natural or man-made chemical substances consists of acute, subacute and chronic toxicity studies, mutagenecity, carcinogenecity and teratogenecity studies, and a series of specially designed experiments. In this paper, the relevance of these toxicological studies as well as the place of mutagenecity, carcinogenecity, and teratogenecity studies within the frame of toxicological evaluation are discussed.

As the day-by-day increase in scientific knowledge directly or indirectly linked to toxicology is so great, it is impossible for any signle individual to be an expert in more than a limited area of the entire toxicological field. As this author’s main responsibility is the toxicological evaluation of drugs, he will concetrate on the toxicological profile of four drugs developed by our company, in particular their mutagenic, carcinogenic and teratogenic effects. These are Endralazine, an antihypertensive; ergotamine, a vasoactive drug for the treatment of migraine; bromocriptine, a prolactin inhibitor; and cyclosporin A, an immunosuppressive agent.

Keywords

Chemical Substance Toxicity Study Ergot Alkaloid Harmful Action Toxicological Evaluation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alder, S. , C. Janton, and G. Zbinden (1981)Preclinical Safety Requirements in 1980, Brochure, Institute of Toxicology, Schwerzenbach/Zurich, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berde, B. (1974) Industrial research in the quest for new medicines.Clin. Exp. Pharmacol. Physiol. 1: 183 – 195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berde, B. , and H. P. Schild, Eds. (1978) Ergot Alkaloids and Related Compounds,Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology, Vol. 49, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Flora, S. , P. Zanacci, C. Becmicelli, A. Camoirano, M. Cavaima, L. Sciaba, E. Cagelli, P. Faggin, and G. Brambilla (1982) In vivo and in vitro genotoxicity of three antihypertensive hydrazine derivatives.Environmental Mutagenesis4: 605 – 619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Doull, J. , C. D. Klaassen, and M. O. Amdur (1980), Casarett andDoull’s Toxicology,The Basic Science of Poisons, Macmillan Publishing Company, Inc. , New York.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Galli, C. L. , S. D. Murphy, and R. Paoletti, Eds. (1980)The Principles and Methods in Modern Toxicology, Elsevier/North Holland, Biomedical Press, Amsterdam, New York, Oxford.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gorrod, J. W. , Ed. (1981)Testing for Toxicity, Taylor and Francis, Ltd. , London.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Graham-Smith, D. G. (1982) Preclinical toxicological testing and safeguards in clinical trials.Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 22: 1 – 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Griffith, R. W. , J. Hodel Ch. Grauwiler, K. H. Leist, and B. E. Matter (1978) Toxicological considerations, In ErgotAlkaloids and Related Compounds.Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology, Vol. 49, B. Berde, and H. P. Schild, Eds. , Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp. 805 – 851.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gross, F. (1976) The present dilemma of drug research.Clin. Pharmacol. Therap. 19: 1 - 10.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hollaender, A. , Ed. (1971-1980)Chemical Mutagens,Principles and Methods for Their Detection, Vols. 1-6, Plenum Press, New York, London.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Laurence, D. R. , A. E. M. McLean, and M. Weatherall, Eds.Safety and Testing of New Drugs, Prediction and Performance, Academic Press, London, (in press).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Litchfield, J. T. (1962) Evaluation of the safety of drugs by means of tests in animals.Clin. Pharmacol, and Therap. 3: 665.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Loomis, T. A. , Ed. (1978)Essentials of Toxicology, 3rd edition, Lea & Febiger s Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lowrance, W. W. (1976)Of Acceptable Risk.Science and the Determination of Safety, William Kaufmann, Inc. , Los Altos, California.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Matter, B. E. , P. Donatsch, R. R. Racine, B. Schmid, and W. Suter (1982) Genotoxicity evaluation of cyclosporin A, a new immunosuppressive agent.Mutation Research105: 257 – 264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 16.
    Matter, B. E. , P. Donatsch, R. R. Racine, B. Schmid, and W. Suter (1982) Genotoxicity evaluation of cyclosporin A, a new immunosuppressive agent.Mutation Research105: 257 – 264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McLean, A. E. M. (1979) Hazards from chemicals: Scientific questions and conflicts of interest.Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 205: 179 - 197.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Paracelsus (1493-1541): “All substances are poisons, there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison and a remedy.”Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Richardson, B. P. , I. Turkalj, and E. Fluckiger (1983) Bromocriptine, InSafety Testing of New Drugs, Prediction and Performance, D. R. Laurence, A. E. M. McLean, and M. Weatherall, Eds. , Academic Press, London, (in press).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Roe, F. J. C. (1981) Testing in vivo for general chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity, InTesting for Toxicity, J. W. Gorrod, Ed. , Taylor and Francis Ltd. , London, pp. 29 – 43.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ryffel, B. , P. Donatsch, M. Madorin, B. E. Matter, G. Ruttimann, H. Schon, R. Stoll, J. Wilson (1983) Toxicological evaluation of cyclosporin A.Arch. Toxicol. 53: 107 – 141.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thorner, N. O. , E. Fluckiger, and D. B. Calne, Eds. (1980)Bromocriptine, Raven Press, New York.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Toth, B. (1975) Synthetic and naturally occurring hydrazines as possible cancer causative agents.Cancer Res. 35: 3693 – 3697.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tu, A. T. , Ed. (1980)Survey of ContemporarToxicology, John Wills & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    White, D. J. G. , Ed. (1982)Cyclosporin A, Elsevier Biomedical Press, Amsterdam, New York, Oxford.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    WHO, Environmental Health Criteria 6 (1978)Principles and Methods for Evaluating the Toxicity of Chemicals, World Health Organization, Geneva.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    WHO/IARC (1974)Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of chemicals to man. Vol. 4, pp. 127 – 281.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wood, A. J. (1982) Cyclosporin A as sole immunosuppressive agent in recipients of kidney allografts from cadaver donors.The Lancet8289: 57 – 60.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zbinden, G. (1964) The problem of the toxicological evaluation of drugs in animals and their safety in man. (Editorial),Clinical Pharmacol. and Therap. 5: 537 - 545.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zbinden, G. (1973, 1976 )Progress in Toxicology, Vols. I, II, Springer-Verlag, New York, Heidelberg, Berlin.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zbinden, G. , and M. Flury-Roversi (1981) Significance of the LD -test for the toxicological evaluation of chemical substances.Arch. Toxicol. 47: 77 – 99.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. E. Matter
    • 1
  1. 1.Preclinical Research, ToxicologySANDOZ, LtdBaselSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations