1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology
  4. Volume 61, 2021
  5. Article

Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology

Volume 61, 2021

Introduction to the Theme “Old and New Toxicology: Interfaces with Pharmacology”

Abstract

The theme of Volume 61 is “Old and New Toxicology: Interfaces with Pharmacology.” Old toxicology is exemplified by the authors of the autobiographical articles: B.M. Olivera's work on toxins and venoms from cone snails and P. Taylor's studies of acetylcholinesterase and the nicotinic cholinergic receptor, which serve as sites of action for numerous pesticides and venoms. Other articles in this volume focus on new understanding and new types of toxicology, including () arsenic toxicity, which is an ancient poison that, through evolution, has caused most multicellular organisms to express an active arsenic methyltransferase to methylate arsenite, which accelerates the excretion of arsenic from the body; () small molecules that react with lipid dicarbonyls, which are now considered the most toxic oxidative stress end products; () immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), which have revolutionized cancer therapy but have numerous immune-related adverse events, including cardiovascular complications; () autoimmunity caused by the environment; () idiosyncratic drug-induced liver disease, which together with the toxicity of ICIs represents new toxicology interfacing with pharmacology; and () sex differences in the development of cardiovascular disease, with men more susceptible than women to vascular inflammation that initiates and perpetuates disease. These articles and others in Volume 61 reflect the interface and close integration of pharmacology and toxicology that began long ago but continues today.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-092220-033032
2021-01-06
2024-04-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/pharmtox/61/1/annurev-pharmtox-092220-033032.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-092220-033032&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1. 
    Olivera BM. 2021. A serendipitous path to neuropharmacology. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 61:9–23
     [Google Scholar]
  2. 2. 
    Olivera BM, Raghuraman S, Schmidt EW, Safavi-Hemami H 2017. Linking neuroethology to the chemical biology of natural products: interactions between cone snails and their fish prey, a case study. J. Comp. Physiol. A Neuroethol. Sens. Neural Behav. Physiol. 203:717–35
     [Google Scholar]
  3. 3. 
    Olivera BM, Hillyard DR, Marsh M, Yoshikami D 1995. Combinatorial peptide libraries in drug design: lessons from venomous cone snails. Trends Biotechnol 13:422–26
     [Google Scholar]
  4. 4. 
    Taylor P. 2021. Cholinergic capsules and academic admonitions. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 61:25–46
     [Google Scholar]
  5. 5. 
    Camacho-Hernandez GA, Taylor P. 2020. Lessons from nature: structural studies and drug design driven by a homologous surrogate from invertebrates, AChBP. Neuropharmacology 2020:108108
     [Google Scholar]
  6. 6. 
    Costa M. 2019. Review of arsenic toxicity, speciation and polyadenylation of canonical histones. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 375:1–4
     [Google Scholar]
  7. 7. 
    Chen QY, Costa M. 2021. Arsenic: a global environmental challenge. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 61:47–63
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 8. 
    Chang W-C, Tanoshima R, Ross CJD, Carleton BC 2021. Challenges and opportunities in implementing pharmacogenetic testing. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 61:65–84
     [Google Scholar]
  9. 9. 
    Geraud A, Gougis P, Vozy A, Anquetil C, Allenbach Y et al. 2021. Clinical pharmacology and interplay of immune checkpoint agents: a yin-yang balance. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 61:85–112
     [Google Scholar]
  10. 10. 
    Patel JJ, Levy DA, Nguyen SA, Knochelmann HM, Day TA 2020. Impact of PD-L1 expression and human papillomavirus status in anti-PD1/PDL1 immunotherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma—systematic review and meta-analysis. Head Neck 42:774–86
     [Google Scholar]
  11. 11. 
    Maung TZ, Ergin HE, Javed M, Inga EE, Khan S 2020. Immune checkpoint inhibitors in lung cancer: role of biomarkers and combination therapies. Cureus 12:e8095
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 12. 
    Bouhlel L, Doyen J, Chamorey E, Poudenx M, Ilie M et al. 2020. Occurrence and number of immune-related adverse events are independently associated with survival in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer treated by nivolumab. Bull. Cancer 107:946–58
     [Google Scholar]
  13. 13. 
    Waliany S, Lee D, Witteles RM, Neal JW, Nguyen P et al. 2021. Immune checkpoint inhibitor cardiotoxicity: understanding basic mechanisms and clinical characteristics and finding a cure. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 61:113–34
     [Google Scholar]
  14. 14. 
    Pollard KM, Cauvi DM, Mayeux JM, Toomey CB, Peiss AK et al. 2021. Mechanisms of environment-induced autoimmunity. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 61:135–57
     [Google Scholar]
  15. 15. 
    Khan S, Hauptman R, Kelly L 2021. Engineering the microbiome to prevent adverse events: challenges and opportunities. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 61:159–79
     [Google Scholar]
  16. 16. 
    Toth M. 2021. Epigenetic neuropharmacology: drugs affecting the epigenome in the brain. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 61:181–201
     [Google Scholar]
  17. 17. 
    Braakhuis HM, Gosens I, Heringa MB, Oomen AG, Vandebriel RJ et al. 2021. Mechanism of action of TiO2: recommendations to reduce uncertainties related to carcinogenic potential. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 61:203–23
     [Google Scholar]
  18. 18. 
    Bernard BK, Osheroff MR, Hofmann A, Mennear JH 1990. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of dietary titanium dioxide-coated mica in male and female Fischer 344 rats. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 29:417–29
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 19. 
    Darwich AS, Polasek TM, Aronson JK, Ogungbenro K, Wright DFB et al. 2021. Model-informed precision dosing: background, requirements, validation, implementation, and forward trajectory of individualizing drug therapy. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 61:225–45
     [Google Scholar]
  20. 20. 
    Yokoi T, Oda S. 2021. Models of idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 61:247–68
     [Google Scholar]
  21. 21. 
    Yang W, Wang L, Mettenbrink EM, DeAngelis PL, Wilhelm S 2021. Nanoparticle toxicology. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 61:269–89
     [Google Scholar]
  22. 22. 
    Li Y, Cummins E. 2020. Hazard characterization of silver nanoparticles for human exposure routes. J. Environ. Sci. Health A 55:704–25
     [Google Scholar]
  23. 23. 
    Kulwal V, Baxi K, Sawarkar SP, Bhatt LK 2020. Colorectal cancer management by herbal drug-based nanocarriers: an overview. Crit. Rev. Ther. Drug Carrier Syst. 37:65–104
     [Google Scholar]
  24. 24. 
    Wu Y, Kong L. 2020. Advance on toxicity of metal nickel nanoparticles. Environ. Geochem. Health 42:2277–86
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 25. 
    May-Zhang LS, Kirabo A, Huang J, Linton MF, Davies SS, Murray KT 2021. Scavenging reactive lipids to prevent oxidative injury. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 61:291–308
     [Google Scholar]
  26. 26. 
    Dimitropoulos A, Rosado CJ, Thomas MC 2020. Dicarbonyl-mediated AGEing and diabetic kidney disease. J. Nephrol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40620-020-00718-z
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  27. 27. 
    Davies SS, May-Zhang LS, Boutaud O, Amarnath V, Kirabo A, Harrison DG 2020. Isolevuglandins as mediators of disease and the development of dicarbonyl scavengers as pharmaceutical interventions. Pharmacol. Ther. 205:107418
     [Google Scholar]
  28. 28. 
    Ahmad S, Akhter F, Shahab U, Rafi Z, Khan MS et al. 2018. Do all roads lead to the Rome? The glycation perspective. ! Semin. Cancer Biol. 49:9–19
     [Google Scholar]
  29. 29. 
    Sawicki KT, Sala V, Prever L, Hirsch E, Ardehali H, Ghigo A 2021. Preventing and treating anthracycline cardiotoxicity: new insights. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 61:309–32
     [Google Scholar]
  30. 30. 
    Shabbir A, Rathod KS, Khambata RS, Ahluwalia A 2021. Sex differences in the inflammatory response: pharmacological opportunities for therapeutics for coronary artery disease. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 61:333–59
     [Google Scholar]
  31. 31. 
    Kong WKF, Bax JJ, Michelena HI, Delgado V 2020. Sex differences in bicuspid aortic valve disease. Prog. Cardiovasc. Dis.452–56
     [Google Scholar]
  32. 32. 
    Jusic A, Salgado-Somoza A, Paes AB, Stefanizzi FM, Martínez-Alarcón N et al. 2020. Approaching sex differences in cardiovascular non-coding RNA research. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 21:144890
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 33. 
    Göbel S, Hobohm L, Ostad MA, Lavie CJ, Gori T et al. 2020. Sex-specific differences drive temporal trends and outcomes of patients hospitalized for heart failure in Germany. Prog. Cardiovasc. Dis. In press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcad.2020.03.013
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  34. 34. 
    de Ritter R, de Jong M, Vos RC, van der Kallen CJH, Sep SJS et al. 2020. Sex differences in the risk of vascular disease associated with diabetes. Biol. Sex Differ. 11:1
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-092220-033032
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error