In this review, we first list some experimental rodent models of breast cancer induction. We then focus on several topics that are important in understanding the mechanisms and risk modification of breast cancer development, and compare radiation and chemical carcinogenesis models. BVD-523 We will focus on the pathology and natural history of cancer development in these models, genetic changes observed in induced cancers, indirect effects of carcinogens, and finally risk modification by reproductive factors and age at exposure to the carcinogens. In addition, we summarize the knowledge available on mammary stem/progenitor cells as a potential target of carcinogens. Comparison of chemical and radiation carcinogenesis models on these
topics indicates certain www.selleckchem.com/products/OSI-906.html similarities, but it also indicates clear differences in several important aspects, such as genetic alterations of induced cancers and modification of susceptibility by age and reproductive factors. Identification of the target cell type and relevant translational research for human risk management may be among the important issues that are addressed by radiation carcinogenesis models.”
“Background:
Behavioral sensitization in rodents is hypothesized to reflect neuronal adaptations that are related to drug addiction in humans. We evaluated the effects of group exposure on the acute hyperlocomotion and behavioral sensitization induced by four drugs of abuse in C57BL/6 mice: methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), d-amphetamine, morphine and ethanol.
Methods: In the priming session, animals www.selleckchem.com/products/U0126.html received an ip injection of one of the drugs of abuse and were exposed to an open field either individually or in groups of four. Seven days later, we assessed behavioral sensitization in the challenge session. All animals received an ip injection of the same drug and were exposed to the open field in the same social conditions described for the priming session. Locomotion and social interaction were quantified during each session.
Results: Acute MDMA, morphine and ethanol, but not d-amphetamine, increased social interaction. However, group exposure only potentiated MDMA-induced hyperlocomotion. After
a challenge injection of each drug, there was no sensitization to the facilitating effect of MDMA, morphine or ethanol on social interaction, but locomotion sensitization developed to all drugs of abuse except ethanol. This sensitization was potentiated by group exposure in MDMA-treated animals, attenuated in morphine-treated animals and not modified in d-amphetamine-treated animals. Acute MDMA enhanced body contact and peaceful following, while acute morphine and ethanol increased social sniffing.
Conclusions: These results provide preclinical evidence showing that while different drugs of abuse affect different components of social interaction, the neuronal adaptations related to drug dependence can be critically and specifically influenced by group exposure.