Cited by 50Carcinogens and Genotoxicity AssessmentImmunotoxicology and immune responsesVeterinary Oncology Research

Incidences of selected lesions in control female Harlan Sprague-Dawley rats from two-year studies performed by the National Toxicology Program

Open access
Brix, Amy E., Nyska, Abraham, Haseman, Joseph K., Sells, Donald M., Jokinen, Micheal P., Walker, Nigel J.·2005·Toxicologic Pathology

Abstract

The NTP has a long history of using Fischer rats and has compiled a large database of incidences of lesions seen in control animals. Such a database is lacking for Harlan Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats. The intention of this paper is to report spontaneous lesions observed in female vehicle control Harlan SD rats, and to compare the incidence in 2 strains of rats (Fischer and Harlan SD) used in NTP studies. Female Harlan SD rats served as the test animals for a special series of 2-year studies. Male rats were not used in these studies. Complete histopathology was performed on all animals, and the pathology results underwent comprehensive NTP pathology peer review. The most commonly observed neoplasms in these female control Harlan SD rats were mammary gland fibroadenoma (71%), tumors of the pars distalis of the pituitary (41%) and thyroid gland C-cell tumors (30%). Female Fischer rats had incidences of 44% for mammary gland fibroadenomas, 34% for tumors of the pars distalis, and 16% for thyroid gland C-cell tumors. Fischer rats had a 15% incidence of clitoral gland tumors, while the Harlan SD rats had an incidence of < 1%. In contrast to Fischer F344 rats, the Harlan SD rats had a high incidence of squamous metaplasia of the uterus (44.2%). Squamous metaplasia is not a lesion commonly observed in NTP control Fischer rats. The Harlan SD rats had a very low incidence of mononuclear cell leukemia (0.5%), compared with an incidence of 24% in female Fischer rats.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/01926230590961836

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • All treatments in both sexes enhanced large tumor incidence by 2-3-fold in comparison to controls, and also the number of mammary tumors in comparison to the same Harlan Sprague Dawley strain, and overall around 3-fold in comparison to the largest study with 1329 Sprague Dawley female rats.

    “All treatments in both sexes enhanced large tumor incidence by 2-3-fold in com- parison to our controls but also for the number of mammary tumors in comparison to the same Harlan Sprague Dawley strain (Brix et al., 2005), and overall around 3-fold in comparison to the largest study with 1329 Sprague Dawley female rats (Chandra et al., 1992).”
  • All treatments in both sexes enhanced large tumor incidence by two- to threefold in comparison to controls and also the number of mammary tumors in comparison to the Harlan Sprague-Dawley strain and overall around threefold in comparison to the largest study with 1,329 Sprague-Dawley female rats.

    “All treatments in both sexes enhanced large tumor incidence by two- to threefold in comparison to our controls and also the number of mammary tumors in comparison to the Harlan Sprague-Dawley strain [56] and overall around threefold in comparison to the largest study with 1,329 Sprague-Dawley female rats [57].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Boorman, G. A., Eustis, S. L., Elwell, M. R., Montgomery, C. A. Jr., and MacKenzie, W. F. (eds.) (1990). Pathology of the Fischer Rat. Academic Press, Inc., New York.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brix, A. E., Nyska, A., Haseman, J. K., Sells, D. M., Jokinen, M. P., & Walker, N. J.
Affiliations
  • Experimental Pathology Laboratories (US)
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (US)
  • Battelle (US)
  • Pathology Associates—A Charles River Company, Durham, North Carolina 27713, USA
Corresponding author
Brix, Amy E.
Venue
Toxicologic Pathology
Published
2005-06
Volume
33
Issue
4
Pages
477-483
ISSN
  • 0192-6233 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-1601
OpenAlex
W2068971806
Cited by
50
References
16
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 9
FWCI
0.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Toxicologic Pathology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Carcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immunotoxicology and immune responses
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Veterinary Oncology Research
Keywords
Fischer rats, spontaneous neoplasms, mononuclear cell leukemia, strain comparison, National Toxicology Program
MeSH terms
Animals, Female, Neoplasms, Rodent Diseases, United States, United States Dept. of Health and Human Services, Carcinogenicity Tests, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Toxicity Tests, Chronic, Rats

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review