Mouse Models for Drug Discovery pp 1-21

Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 602)

Improving Toxicity Screening and Drug Development by Using Genetically Defined Strains

  • Michael F.W. Festing


According to the US Food and Drugs Administration (Food and Drug Administration (2004) Challenge and opportunity on the critical path to new medical products.) “The inability to better assess and predict product safety leads to failures during clinical development and, occasionally, after marketing”. This increases the cost of new drugs as clinical trials are even more expensive than pre-clinical testing.

One relatively easy way of improving toxicity testing is to improve the design of animal experiments. A fundamental principle when designing an experiment is to control all variables except the one of interest: the treatment. Toxicologist and pharmacologists have widely ignored this principle by using genetically heterogeneous “outbred” rats and mice, increasing the chance of false-negative results. By using isogenic (inbred or F1 hybrid, seeNote 1) rats and mice instead of outbred stocks the signal/noise ratio and the power of the experiments can be increased at little extra cost whilst using no more animals. Moreover, the power of the experiment can be further increased by using more than one strain, as this reduces the chance of selecting one which is resistant to the test chemical. This can also be done without increasing the total number of animals by using a factorial experimental design, e.g. if the ten outbred animals per treatment group in a 28-day toxicity test were replaced by two animals of each of five strains (still ten animals per treatment group) selected to be as genetically diverse as possible, this would increase the signal/noise ratio and power of the experiment. This would allow safety to be assessed using the most sensitive strain.

Toxicologists should also consider making more use of the mouse instead of the rat. They are less costly to maintain, use less test substance, there are many inbred and genetically modified strains, and it is easier to identify gene loci controlling variation in response to xenobiotics in this species.

We demonstrate here the advantage of using several inbred strains in two parallel studies of the haematological response to chloramphenicol at six dose levels with CD-1 outbred, or using four inbred strains of mice. Toxicity to the white blood cell lineage was easily detected using the inbred strains but not using the outbred stock, clearly showing the advantage of using the multi-inbred strain approach.

Key words

Toxicity testing pre-clinical development inbred strain drug development factorial experimental designs statistics signal/noise ratio 


  1. 1.
    Russell, W. M. S. and Burch, R. L. (1959) The principles of humane experimental technique, Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW), Potters Bar, Herts.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Food and Drug Administration (2004) Challenge and opportunity on the critical path to new medical products.
  3. 3.
    Caldwell, G. W., Ritchie, D. M., Masucci, J. A., Hageman, W. and Yan, Z. (2001) The new pre-preclinical paradigm: compound optimization in early and late phase drug discovery. Curr Top Med Chem 1, 353–366.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Food and Drug Administration (2008) The FDA Critical Path Initiative.
  5. 5.
    The Innovative Medicines Initiative (2008) Innovative Medicines Initiativw.
  6. 6.
    Brown, S. D., Chambon, P. and de Angelis, M. H. (2005) EMPReSS: standardized phenotype screens for functional annotation of the mouse genome. Nat Genet 37, 1155.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Franc, B. L., Acton, P. D., Mari, C. and Hasegawa, B. H. (2008) Small-animal SPECT and SPECT/CT: important tools for preclinical investigation. J Nucl Med 49, 1651–1663.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Petit-Zeman, S. (2004) Rat genome sequence reignites preclinical model debate. Nat Rev Drug Discov 3, 287–288.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chia, R., Achilli, F., Festing, M. F. and Fisher, E. M. (2005) The origins and uses of mouse outbred stocks. Nat Genet 37, 1181–1186.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Festing, M. F. W. (2003) Laboratory animal genetics and genetic quality control, in Handbook of laboratory animal science: essential principles and practices (Hau, J. and Van Hoosier, G. L., Jr., eds.), 2nd ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, London, New York, pp. 173–204.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stevens, J. C., Banks, G. T., Festing, M. F. and Fisher, E. M. (2007) Quiet mutations in inbred strains of mice. Trends Mol Med 13, 512–519.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Taft, R. A., Davisson, M. and Wiles, M. V. (2006) Know thy mouse. Trends Genet 22, 649–653.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Papaioannou, V. E. and Festing, M. F. (1980) Genetic drift in a stock of laboratory mice. Lab Anim 14, 11–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Festing, M. F. W. (1999) Warning: the use of genetically heterogeneous mice may seriously damage your research. Neurobiol Aging 20, 237–244.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Festing, M. F. (1987) Genetic factors in toxicology: implications for toxicological screening. Crit Rev Toxicol 18, 1–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Committee on Toxicity and Food Standards Agency (2007) Variability and Uncertainty in Toxicology of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment. Scholar
  17. 17.
    Arcos, J. C., Argus, M. F. and Wolf, G. (1968) Chemical induction of cancer. Academic Press, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kacew, S., Ruben, Z., McConnell, R. F. and MacPhail, R. C. (1995) Strain as a determinant factor in the differential responsiveness of rats to chemicals. Toxicol Pathol 23, 701–715.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Felton, R. P. and Gaylor, D. W. (1989) Multistrain experiments for screening toxic substances. J Toxicol Environ Health 26, 399–411.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Floyd, E., Mann, P., Long, G. and Ochoa, R. (2002) The Trp53 hemizygous mouse in pharmaceutical development: points to consider for pathologists. Toxicol Pathol 30, 147–156.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Montgomery, D. C. (2004) Design and analysis of experiments, 6th ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Petkov, P. M., Ding, Y., Cassell, M. A., Zhang, W., Wagner, G., Sargent, E. E., et al. (2004) An efficient SNP system for mouse genome scanning and elucidating strain relationships. Genome Res 14, 1806–1811.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Simonian, S. J., Gill, T. J., 3rd and Gershoff, S. N. (1968) Studies on synthetic polypeptide antigens. XX. Genetic control of the antibody response in the rat to structurally different synthetic polypeptide antigens. J Immunol 101, 730–742.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Churchill, G. A., Airey, D. C., Allayee, H., Angel, J. M., Attie, A. D., Beatty, J., et al. (2004) The Collaborative Cross, a community resource for the genetic analysis of complex traits. Nat Genet 36, 1133–1137.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Festing, M. F., Diamanti, P. and Turton, J. A. (2001) Strain differences in haematological response to chloramphenicol succinate in mice: implications for toxicological research. Food Chem Toxicol 39, 375–383.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. (1980) Statistical methods, 7th ed. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Peters, L. L., Zhang, W., Lambert, A. J., Brugnara, C., Churchill, G. A. and Platt, O. S. (2005) Quantitative trait loci for baseline white blood cell count, platelet count, and mean platelet volume. Mamm Genome 16, 749–763.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nalls, M. A., Wilson, J. G., Patterson, N. J., Tandon, A., Zmuda, J. M., Huntsman, S., et al. (2008) Admixture mapping of white cell count: genetic locus responsible for lower white blood cell count in the Health ABC and Jackson Heart studies. Am J Hum Genet 82, 81–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Feder, H. M., Jr., Osier, C. and Maderazo, E. G. (1981) Chloramphenicol: a review of its use in clinical practice. Rev Infect Dis 3, 479–491.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fisher, R. A. (1960) The design of experiments, 7th ed. Hafner Publishing Company, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press, a part of Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael F.W. Festing
    • 1
  1. 1.Understanding Animal ResearchLondonUK

Personalised recommendations