GWOLFF at NCTR.FDA.GOV ("George L. Wolff") wrote:
> John Budny describes the ideal animal model in which to study
>human disease syndromes - using as an example the time course and
>relative virulence of M.tuberculosis-induced disease in the
>cynomolgus monkey as compared with the comparable response
>characteristics of the rhesus monkey. If the response pattern to the
>specific agent in the proposed animal model is closely similar to
>that of humans in general, what better crterion is there for choice
>of animal model?
> Why should there be any question that the best animal models to
>use in toxicology are those used in pharmacology and experimental
>therapeutics? If the pharmacologic response is studied in one animal
>model, the toxic responses to the samne agent should be studied in
>the same animal model - else how can you know whether the toxic
>responses to the same agent in a different animal model may not be due
>to the effects of a different background genome?
>>>>>
Perhaps I was not as clear as I could ahve been with my example of the
animal model discussion of a paper I cited (NATURE MEDICINE, Vol. 2,
Number 2, April 1996, pages 430-436) describing animal models for
tuberculosis. I was not raising the question of using a "therapeutic
amimal model" for the animal model that should be used in toxicity
testing. Rather, I was drawing an analogy of the criterion for an animal
model used in therapeutics development as being an equally valid
criterion for the choice of an animal model in toxicological
investigations.
The implied criterion for the therapeutic animal model for tuberculosis
was "time-course" of the disease. Is that criterion ("time-course" of
the disease) a valid criterion for animal models in toxicology - whether
or not the tocicant has any therapeutic value keeping in mind that the
toxic response is a disease?
