1991
DOI: 10.1016/0278-6915(91)90047-b
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Oncogenicity study of trifluralin in B6C3F1 mice

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

1992
1992
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Trifluralin is not genotoxic, as indicated by the standard tests, such as the Salmonella/microsome mutagenicity test, the yeast genotoxicity assay, the mouse lymphoma assay, the sister chromatid exchange assay, the in vitro chromosome aberration assay, and the in vivo micronucleus test for mammalian genotoxicity (Humburg 1989; Garriott et al 1991; Ebert et al 1992). Oncogenicity tests in rats and mice and embryotoxicity tests in rats and rabbits revealed neither carcinogenic nor teratogenic potential when taken orally (Francis et al 1991; Ebert et al 1992). In addition tubulins, as new targets affected by trifluralin, are encoded by multiple copies of genes, and thus drug resistance may be less likely to develop (Croft 1988; Fairlamb 1989; Seeback et al 1990).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Trifluralin is not genotoxic, as indicated by the standard tests, such as the Salmonella/microsome mutagenicity test, the yeast genotoxicity assay, the mouse lymphoma assay, the sister chromatid exchange assay, the in vitro chromosome aberration assay, and the in vivo micronucleus test for mammalian genotoxicity (Humburg 1989; Garriott et al 1991; Ebert et al 1992). Oncogenicity tests in rats and mice and embryotoxicity tests in rats and rabbits revealed neither carcinogenic nor teratogenic potential when taken orally (Francis et al 1991; Ebert et al 1992). In addition tubulins, as new targets affected by trifluralin, are encoded by multiple copies of genes, and thus drug resistance may be less likely to develop (Croft 1988; Fairlamb 1989; Seeback et al 1990).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Trifluralin is not genotoxic, as indicated by the standard tests, such as the Salmonella /microsome mutagenicity test, the yeast genotoxicity assay, and the in vivo micronucleus test for mammalian genotoxicity [21–23]. Embryotoxicity tests in rats and rabbits revealed no potential when taken orally [23,24].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The NO 2 groups on trifluralin have previously been linked to questions about carcinogenicity (4, 7). Our reading of the literature (2,12,14,15,32,38) suggests that the trifluralin used in the carcinogenicity tests was contaminated with residual N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine (38) as a result of the reaction of dipropylamine [HN(C 3 H 7 ) 2 ] with chloralin in the last step of trifluralin synthesis (Fig. 4).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…4). Nitrosoamines are potent carcinogens and their presence could easily account for the one study out of three that linked carcinogenic potential with trifluralin (2,12,14,15). Although NO 2 groups can also be carcinogenic, it would be shortsighted to rule out active compounds solely on the basis of whether they contain these substituents, since these moieties are present in similar currently prescribed drugs (for example, nifedipine).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%