Biomedical subjects

Brian R Marable

Publications and source records attributed to Brian R Marable.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMedDate not supplied

Validation of an auditory startle response system using chemicals or parametric modulation as positive controls.

Neurotoxicity regulatory guidelines mandate that automated test systems be validated using chemicals. However, in some cases, chemicals may not necessarily be needed to prove test system validity. To examine this issue, two independent experiments were conducted to validate an automated auditory startle response (ASR) system. In Experiment 1, we used adult (PND 63) and weanling (PND 22) Sprague-Dawley rats (10/sex/dose) to determine the effect of either d-amphetamine (4.0 or 8.0 mg/kg) or clonidine (0.4 or 0.8 mg/kg) on the ASR peak amplitude (ASR PA). The startle response of each rat to a short burst of white noise (120 dB SPL) was recorded over 50 consecutive trials. The ASR PA was significantly decreased (by clonidine) and increased (by d-amphetamine) compared to controls in PND 63 rats. In PND 22 rats, the response to clonidine was similar to adults, but d-amphetamine effects were not significant. Neither drug affected the rate of the decrease in ASR PA over time (habituation). In Experiment 2, PND 31 Sprague-Dawley rats (8/sex) were presented with 150 trials consisting of either white noise bursts of variable intensity (70-120 dB SPL in 10 dB increments, presented in random order) or null (0 dB SPL) trials. Statistically significant sex- and intensity-dependent differences were detected in the ASR PA. These results suggest that in some cases, parametric modulation may be an alternative to using chemicals for test system validation.

Acoustic Stimulation↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Neurotoxicity test validation, positive controls and proficiency: are chemicals necessary?

The USEPA neurotoxicity guidelines require the use of positive control data in support of toxicology studies submitted to the Agency and emphasize the use of chemicals to accomplish this requirement. These guidelines, though, propose a number of different rationales for the use of chemicals as positive control agents. We re-evaluated the potential roles of positive control data in addressing three questions: 1) what does the test measure? 2) is the performing laboratory proficient in the use of the test? 3) do the complementary data submitted in support of neurotoxicity studies conducted with the test material provide enough context for the interpretation of the biological significance of an effect? While, for most types of guideline neurotoxicity tests, the use of test chemicals has been emphasized for positive control testing, the use of non-chemical procedures (i.e., systematic manipulation of the experimental parameters of a test, which poses less risk of adverse effects to the test animals) should be strongly considered as a potential alternative.

Animals↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Factors affecting grip strength testing.

The rodent grip strength test was developed decades ago and is a putative measure of muscular strength. This test has been included in the functional observational battery (FOB) to screen for neurobehavioral toxicity, and changes in grip strength have been interpreted as evidence of motor neurotoxicity. Despite its widespread use, questions remain about what the grip strength test actually measures. In this study, potential confounders of the grip strength test were identified and tested, including operational parameters, disruption of peripheral sensory function and changes in body weight. Operational parameters (sampling rate, system type and trial angle but not trial speed) had dramatic effects on grip strength data. Doxorubicin (DX, 10 mg/kg iv) was used to cause sensory impairment. It decreased forelimb and hindlimb grip strength (by 27% and 32%, respectively, compared with controls), an effect that was correlated with degeneration of peripheral and central sensory components (distal tibial and sural nerves, dorsal funiculus of the spinal cord and dorsal, but not ventral, spinal roots). Feed restriction-induced loss of body weight (26% compared with controls) and muscle mass (20% compared with controls) reversibly decreased both forelimb and hindlimb grip strength (18% and 17%, respectively, compared with controls). Ignoring these confounding factors could potentially lead to increased data variability and inconsistency within single studies, across studies and in historical control data sets. To assist in data interpretation and evaluation of grip strength results, it is suggested that exact conditions of application of the test be reported in greater detail. Furthermore, given that the grip strength test can be influenced by factors other than true muscular strength, use of the term grip performance is proposed to better reflect the apical nature of this test.

Analysis of Variance↗