Literature DB >> 15924884

Comparison of supervised clustering methods to discriminate genotoxic from non-genotoxic carcinogens by gene expression profiling.

J H M van Delft1, E van Agen, S G J van Breda, M H Herwijnen, Y C M Staal, J C S Kleinjans.   

Abstract

Prediction of the toxic properties of chemicals based on modulation of gene expression profiles in exposed cells or animals is one of the major applications of toxicogenomics. Previously, we demonstrated that by Pearson correlation analysis of gene expression profiles from treated HepG2 cells it is possible to correctly discriminate and predict genotoxic from non-genotoxic carcinogens. Since to date many different supervised clustering methods for discrimination and prediction tests are available, we investigated whether application of the methods provided by the Whitehead Institute and Stanford University improved our initial prediction. Four different supervised clustering methods were applied for this comparison, namely Pearson correlation analysis (Pearson), nearest shrunken centroids analysis (NSC), K-nearest neighbour analysis (KNN) and Weighted voting (WV). For each supervised clustering method, three different approaches were followed: (1) using all the data points for all treatments, (2) exclusion of the samples with marginally affected gene expression profiles and (3) filtering out the gene expression signals that were hardly altered. On the complete data set, NSC, KNN and WV outperformed the Pearson test, but on the reduced data sets no clear difference was observed. Exclusion of samples with marginally affected profiles improved the prediction by all methods. For the various prediction models, gene sets of different compositions were selected; in these 27 genes appeared three times or more. These 27 genes are involved in many different biological processes and molecular functions, such as apoptosis, cell cycle control, regulation of transcription, and transporter activity, many of them related to the carcinogenic process. One gene, BAX, was selected in all 10 models, while ZFP36 was selected in 9, and AHR, MT1E and TTR in 8. Summarising, this study demonstrates that several supervised clustering methods can be used to discriminate certain genotoxic from non-genotoxic carcinogens by gene expression profiling in vitro in HepG2 cells. None of the methods clearly outperforms the others.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15924884     DOI: 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2005.02.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mutat Res        ISSN: 0027-5107            Impact factor:   2.433


  10 in total

Review 1.  The evolution of bioinformatics in toxicology: advancing toxicogenomics.

Authors:  Cynthia A Afshari; Hisham K Hamadeh; Pierre R Bushel
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2010-12-22       Impact factor: 4.849

2.  Predicting the future: opportunities and challenges for the chemical industry to apply 21st-century toxicity testing.

Authors:  Raja S Settivari; Nicholas Ball; Lynea Murphy; Reza Rasoulpour; Darrell R Boverhof; Edward W Carney
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 1.232

3.  Development of a toxicogenomics signature for genotoxicity using a dose-optimization and informatics strategy in human cells.

Authors:  Heng-Hong Li; Daniel R Hyduke; Renxiang Chen; Pamela Heard; Carole L Yauk; Jiri Aubrecht; Albert J Fornace
Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen       Date:  2015-03-02       Impact factor: 3.216

Review 4.  Genetic toxicology in the 21st century: reflections and future directions.

Authors:  Brinda Mahadevan; Ronald D Snyder; Michael D Waters; R Daniel Benz; Raymond A Kemper; Raymond R Tice; Ann M Richard
Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen       Date:  2011-04-28       Impact factor: 3.216

5.  Overlapping gene expression profiles of cell migration and tumor invasion in human bladder cancer identify metallothionein 1E and nicotinamide N-methyltransferase as novel regulators of cell migration.

Authors:  Y Wu; M S Siadaty; M E Berens; G M Hampton; D Theodorescu
Journal:  Oncogene       Date:  2008-08-25       Impact factor: 9.867

6.  An untargeted multi-technique metabolomics approach to studying intracellular metabolites of HepG2 cells exposed to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.

Authors:  Ainhoa Ruiz-Aracama; Ad Peijnenburg; Jos Kleinjans; Danyel Jennen; Joost van Delft; Caroline Hellfrisch; Arjen Lommen
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2011-05-20       Impact factor: 3.969

7.  Integrating transcriptomics and metabonomics to unravel modes-of-action of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) in HepG2 cells.

Authors:  Danyel Jennen; Ainhoa Ruiz-Aracama; Christina Magkoufopoulou; Ad Peijnenburg; Arjen Lommen; Joost van Delft; Jos Kleinjans
Journal:  BMC Syst Biol       Date:  2011-08-31

8.  Toxicogenomic biomarkers for liver toxicity.

Authors:  Naoki Kiyosawa; Yosuke Ando; Sunao Manabe; Takashi Yamoto
Journal:  J Toxicol Pathol       Date:  2009-04-06       Impact factor: 1.628

9.  Effect of chemical mutagens and carcinogens on gene expression profiles in human TK6 cells.

Authors:  Lode Godderis; Reuben Thomas; Alan E Hubbard; Ali M Tabish; Peter Hoet; Luoping Zhang; Martyn T Smith; Hendrik Veulemans; Cliona M McHale
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-06-18       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Evaluation of toxicogenomics approaches for assessing the risk of nongenotoxic carcinogenicity in rat liver.

Authors:  Johannes Eichner; Clemens Wrzodek; Michael Römer; Heidrun Ellinger-Ziegelbauer; Andreas Zell
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-05-14       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.