Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Mouse Models of Cancer Study02:43

Mouse Models of Cancer Study

Mice have long served as models for studying human biology and pathology because of their phylogenetic and physiological similarity with humans. They are also easy to maintain and breed in the laboratory, and hence, many inbred strains are now available for research. Studies on mice have contributed immeasurably to our understanding of cancer biology.
The development of transgenic, knockout, and knock-in mice has led to an exponential increase in their use as model organisms in research,...
Mouse Models of Cancer Study02:43

Mouse Models of Cancer Study

Mice have long served as models for studying human biology and pathology because of their phylogenetic and physiological similarity with humans. They are also easy to maintain and breed in the laboratory, and hence, many inbred strains are now available for research. Studies on mice have contributed immeasurably to our understanding of cancer biology.
The development of transgenic, knockout, and knock-in mice has led to an exponential increase in their use as model organisms in research,...
Mutagenicity and Carcinogenicity01:25

Mutagenicity and Carcinogenicity

Mutagenicity and carcinogenicity refer to the ability of drugs to cause genetic defects and induce cancer, respectively. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies agents into four groups based on their carcinogenic potential. Group 1 agents are known human carcinogens; group 2A agents are probably carcinogenic to humans; group 3 agents lack data to support their role in carcinogenesis; and group 4 includes agents for which data support that they are not likely to be...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Correction: Ahmed et al. Comparative Carcinogenicity of Double-Walled Carbon Nanotubes of Different Lengths Administered by Intratracheal Installation into Rat Lungs. <i>Nanomaterials</i> 2025, <i>15</i>, 1402.

Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland)·2026
Same author

Longitudinal Ultrasound Evaluation of Cervical Length for Predicting Spontaneous Preterm Delivery Before 34 Weeks in Twin Gestations: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Journal of clinical medicine·2026
Same author

Intitiation of satralizumab during pregnancy for successful childbirth in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder: A case report and literature review.

Journal of neuroimmunology·2026
Same author

Dynamic Reassessment of Pulmonary Embolism Risk after Metabolic-Bariatric Surgery.

Journal of the American College of Surgeons·2026
Same author

Trends in brachytherapy utilization in Canada from 2011 to 2020.

Physics and imaging in radiation oncology·2026
Same author

Diagnostic Performance of Prenatal Ultrasound to Detect Velamentous Cord Insertion in Twin Pregnancies.

Journal of clinical medicine·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 19, 2026

Chemical-Induced Skin Carcinogenesis Model Using Dimethylbenz[a]Anthracene and 12-O-Tetradecanoyl Phorbol-13-Acetate (DMBA-TPA)
04:12

Chemical-Induced Skin Carcinogenesis Model Using Dimethylbenz[a]Anthracene and 12-O-Tetradecanoyl Phorbol-13-Acetate (DMBA-TPA)

Published on: December 19, 2019

Panel discussion: alternative mouse models for carcinogenicity assessment.

John E French1, Bernard Leblanc, Gerald G Long

  • 1National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.

Toxicologic Pathology
|November 4, 2009
PubMed
Summary

This article discusses European perspectives on alternative mouse carcinogenicity models. It summarizes key points and Q&A from a panel on alternative models for carcinogenicity assessment.

More Related Videos

Assessment of Chemical Toxicity in Adult Drosophila Melanogaster
07:02

Assessment of Chemical Toxicity in Adult Drosophila Melanogaster

Published on: March 24, 2023

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 19, 2026

Chemical-Induced Skin Carcinogenesis Model Using Dimethylbenz[a]Anthracene and 12-O-Tetradecanoyl Phorbol-13-Acetate (DMBA-TPA)
04:12

Chemical-Induced Skin Carcinogenesis Model Using Dimethylbenz[a]Anthracene and 12-O-Tetradecanoyl Phorbol-13-Acetate (DMBA-TPA)

Published on: December 19, 2019

Assessment of Chemical Toxicity in Adult Drosophila Melanogaster
07:02

Assessment of Chemical Toxicity in Adult Drosophila Melanogaster

Published on: March 24, 2023

Area of Science:

  • Toxicology
  • Carcinogenicity Assessment
  • Animal Models

Background:

  • Traditional 2-year rodent bioassays are standard for carcinogenicity assessment.
  • Concerns exist regarding the cost, time, and ethical implications of these traditional models.
  • Alternative models are being explored to improve carcinogenicity testing.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To summarize European perspectives on alternative mouse carcinogenicity models.
  • To distill key questions and answers from a panel discussion on this topic.
  • To provide insights into the current state and future of alternative carcinogenicity assessment.

Main Methods:

  • Summary of a presentation by Dr. Bernard Leblanc.
  • Distillation of a panel discussion on alternative mouse models.
  • Information gathered from the Society of Toxicologic Pathology's annual symposium in 2009.

Main Results:

  • Key points from European perspectives on alternative carcinogenicity models were presented.
  • A panel discussion addressed various aspects of alternative mouse models for carcinogenicity assessment.
  • Questions and answers provided further clarification on the utility and challenges of these models.

Conclusions:

  • Alternative mouse carcinogenicity models are a developing area of toxicological research.
  • The discussions highlighted the ongoing evaluation and refinement of these alternative approaches.
  • Further research and validation are crucial for the widespread adoption of alternative models.