Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by GRAHAM, M. J.
Right arrow Articles by BONNER, F. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by GRAHAM, M. J.
Right arrow Articles by BONNER, F. W.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 1994 Oxford University Press

research-article

Lack of Peroxisome Proliferation in Marmoset Liver Following Treatment with Ciprofibrate for 3 Years

M. J. GRAHAM1, S. A. WILSON, M. A. WINHAM, A. J. SPENCER, J. A. REES, S. L. OLD and F. W. BONNER

Department of Toxicology, Sterling Winthrop Pharmaceuticals Research Division, Alnwick, Northumberland United Kingdom. NE66 2JH

Received April 16, 1993; accepted August 6, 1993

The effect of treatment of marmosets with ciprofibrate for 3 years on activities of hepatic enzymes, hepatic histomorphology, and ultrastructure were investigated. Male and female mar mosets were dosed with ciprofibrate (2, 10, and 20 mg/kg) by oral gavage once daily for 3 years. No effect on liver weight (adjusted for body weight) or liver morphology was observed. The activities of catalase, glutathione peroxidase, {alpha}-glycero phosphate dehydrogenase, benzphetamine N-dernethylase, and ethoxyresorufln O-deethylase were unaffected by treatment with ciprofibrate. Activity of glutathione transferase was in creased in the low dosage group but unaffected in the mid and high dosage groups. Modest increases in activities of peroxiso mal ß-oxidation (2.5-fold, maximal), carnitine acetyl transfer ase (1.7-fold, maximal), and carnitine palmitoyl transferase (2- fold, maximal) were observed. Cytochemical staining and quan titative image analysis failed to indicate any effect on peroxisomal number, size, or volume density. Similarly, there was no increase in lipofuscin deposition. This study provides data on the effects of a potent peroxisome proliferator on pri mate liver following a dosing period much greater than that used in previously published studies and is further evidence that the marmoset is relatively insensitive to the well-documented effects that ciprofibrate and other peroxisome proliferators have on rat liver.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.