4.0 Article

Thyroid Follicular Lesions Induced by Oral Treatment for 2 Years with 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and Dioxin-like Compounds in Female Harlan Sprague-Dawley Rats

期刊

TOXICOLOGIC PATHOLOGY
卷 38, 期 7, 页码 1037-1050

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0192623310382560

关键词

carcinogenesis; dioxin; follicular cell hypertrophy; rat; thyroid

向作者/读者索取更多资源

2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and structurally-similar dioxin-like compounds affect thyroid function and morphology and thyroid hormone metabolism in animals and humans. The National Toxicology Program conducted eight 2-year gavage studies in female Harlan Sprague-Dawley rats to determine the relative potency of chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity of TCDD, 3,3',4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl (PCB126), 2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran (PeCDF), 2,3',4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl (PCB118), 2,2',4,4',5,5'-hexachloro-biphenyl (PCB153), a tertiary mixture of TCDD/PCB126/PeCDF, and two binary mixtures (PCB126/PCB153 and PCB126/PCB118). Administration of these compounds was associated with increased incidences of thyroid follicular cell hypertrophy, variably observed in the 14-, 31-, and 53-week interim and 2-year sacrifice groups. In all studies, the incidences of follicular cell adenoma and carcinoma were not increased. Decreased levels of serum thyroxine were primarily noted in the 14-or-later - week interim groups of all chemicals. Serum triiodothyronine (T3) levels were increased in the TCDD, PCB126, PeCDF, TCDD/PCB126/PeCDF, and PCB126/PCB153 studies, while decreased levels were noted in the PCB153 and PCB126/PCB118 studies. TCDD, PCB126, PCB126/PCB153, and PCB126/PCB118 increased levels of serum thyroid-stimulating hormone almost in a dose-dependent manner in the 14-week groups. These data suggest that although dioxin-like compounds alter thyroid hormones and increase follicular cell hyperplasia, there is not an increase in thyroid adenoma or carcinoma in female Sprague-Dawley rats.

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