4.0 Article

Continuing Education Course #3: Current Practices and Future Trends in Neuropathology Assessment for Developmental Neurotoxicity Testing

期刊

TOXICOLOGIC PATHOLOGY
卷 39, 期 1, 页码 289-293

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0192623310386247

关键词

developmental neurotoxicity; neuropathology; risk assessment

资金

  1. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [U24CA092656] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH RESOURCES [P41RR005959] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NCI NIH HHS [U24 CA092656] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NCRR NIH HHS [P41 RR005959] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The continuing education course on Developmental Neurotoxicity Testing (DNT) was designed to communicate current practices for DNT neuropathology, describe promising innovations in quantitative analysis and noninvasive imaging, and facilitate a discussion among experienced neuropathologists and regulatory scientists regarding suitable DNT practices. Conventional DNT neuropathology endpoints are qualitative histopathology and morphometric endpoints of particularly vulnerable sites (e. g., cerebral, cerebellar, or hippocampal thickness). Novel imaging and stereology measurements hold promise for automated analysis of factors that cannot be effectively examined in routinely processed specimens (e. g., cell numbers, fiber tract integrity). The panel recommended that dedicated DNT neuropathology data sets be acquired on a minimum of 8 sections (for qualitative assessment) or 3 sections (for quantitative linear and stereological analyses) using a small battery of stains to examine neurons and myelin. Where guidelines permit discretion, immersion fixation is acceptable for younger animals (postnatal day 22 or earlier), and peripheral nerves may be embedded in paraffin. Frequent concerns regarding DNT data sets include false-negative outcomes due to processing difficulties (e. g., lack of concordance among sections from different animals) and insensitive analytical endpoints (e. g., qualitative evaluation) as well as false-positive results arising from overinterpretation or misreading by inexperienced pathologists.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据