Literature DB >> 22445948

Toxicogenomics: the challenges and opportunities to identify biomarkers, signatures and thresholds to support mode-of-action.

Richard A Currie1.   

Abstract

Toxicogenomics (TGx) can be defined as the application of "omics" techniques to toxicology and risk assessment. By identifying molecular changes associated with toxicity, TGx data might assist hazard identification and investigate causes. Early technical challenges were evaluated and addressed by consortia (e.g. ISLI/HESI and the Microarray Quality Control consortium), which demonstrated that TGx gave reliable and reproducible information. The MAQC also produced "best practice on signature generation" after conducting an extensive evaluation of different methods on common datasets. Two findings of note were the need for methods that control batch variability, and that the predictive ability of a signature changes in concert with the variability of the endpoint. The key challenge remaining is data interpretation, because TGx can identify molecular changes that are causal, associated with or incidental to toxicity. Application of Bradford Hill's tests for causation, which are used to build mode of action (MOA) arguments, can produce reasonable hypotheses linking altered pathways to phenotypic changes. However, challenges in interpretation still remain: are all pathway changes equal, which are most important and plausibly linked to toxicity? Therefore the expert judgement of the toxicologist is still needed. There are theoretical reasons why consistent alterations across a metabolic pathway are important, but similar changes in signalling pathways may not alter information flow. At the molecular level thresholds may be due to the inherent properties of the regulatory network, for example switch-like behaviours from some network motifs (e.g. positive feedback) in the perturbed pathway leading to the toxicity. The application of systems biology methods to TGx data can generate hypotheses that explain why a threshold response exists. However, are we adequately trained to make these judgments? There is a need for collaborative efforts between regulators, industry and academia to properly define how these technologies can be applied using appropriate case-studies.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22445948     DOI: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2012.03.002

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


  10 in total

Review 1.  DNA microarray-based gene expression profiling of estrogenic chemicals.

Authors:  Ryoiti Kiyama; Yun Zhu
Journal:  Cell Mol Life Sci       Date:  2014-01-08       Impact factor: 9.261

2.  Phenobarbital and propiconazole toxicogenomic profiles in mice show major similarities consistent with the key role that constitutive androstane receptor (CAR) activation plays in their mode of action.

Authors:  Richard A Currie; Richard C Peffer; Amber K Goetz; Curtis J Omiecinski; Jay I Goodman
Journal:  Toxicology       Date:  2014-03-24       Impact factor: 4.221

Review 3.  Analysis of the transcriptome in molecular epidemiology studies.

Authors:  Cliona M McHale; Luoping Zhang; Reuben Thomas; Martyn T Smith
Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen       Date:  2013-08-01       Impact factor: 3.216

Review 4.  Comparison of toxicogenomics and traditional approaches to inform mode of action and points of departure in human health risk assessment of benzo[a]pyrene in drinking water.

Authors:  Ivy Moffat; Nikolai Chepelev; Sarah Labib; Julie Bourdon-Lacombe; Byron Kuo; Julie K Buick; France Lemieux; Andrew Williams; Sabina Halappanavar; Amal Malik; Mirjam Luijten; Jiri Aubrecht; Daniel R Hyduke; Albert J Fornace; Carol D Swartz; Leslie Recio; Carole L Yauk
Journal:  Crit Rev Toxicol       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 5.635

5.  Differential reconstructed gene interaction networks for deriving toxicity threshold in chemical risk assessment.

Authors:  Yi Yang; Andrew Maxwell; Xiaowei Zhang; Nan Wang; Edward J Perkins; Chaoyang Zhang; Ping Gong
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2013-10-09       Impact factor: 3.169

6.  Highly Predictive Reprogramming of tRNA Modifications Is Linked to Selective Expression of Codon-Biased Genes.

Authors:  Clement T Y Chan; Wenjun Deng; Fugen Li; Michael S DeMott; I Ramesh Babu; Thomas J Begley; Peter C Dedon
Journal:  Chem Res Toxicol       Date:  2015-04-13       Impact factor: 3.739

7.  Quantification of cerivastatin toxicity supports organismal performance assays as an effective tool during pharmaceutical safety assessment.

Authors:  Shannon M Gaukler; James S Ruff; Tessa Galland; Tristan K Underwood; Kirstie A Kandaris; Nicole M Liu; Linda C Morrison; John M Veranth; Wayne K Potts
Journal:  Evol Appl       Date:  2016-04-15       Impact factor: 5.183

8.  Gene expression profiling to identify potentially relevant disease outcomes and support human health risk assessment for carbon black nanoparticle exposure.

Authors:  Julie A Bourdon; Andrew Williams; Byron Kuo; Ivy Moffat; Paul A White; Sabina Halappanavar; Ulla Vogel; Håkan Wallin; Carole L Yauk
Journal:  Toxicology       Date:  2012-11-09       Impact factor: 4.221

9.  Functional differences and similarities in activated peripheral blood mononuclear cells by lipopolysaccharide or phytohemagglutinin stimulation between human and cynomolgus monkeys.

Authors:  Zhi Lin; Ying Huang; Hua Jiang; Di Zhang; Yanwei Yang; Xingchao Geng; Bo Li
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2021-02

10.  Genome-wide expression screening in the cardiac embryonic stem cell test shows additional differentiation routes that are regulated by morpholines and piperidines.

Authors:  R H Mennen; N Hallmark; M Pallardy; R Bars; H Tinwell; A H Piersma
Journal:  Curr Res Toxicol       Date:  2022-09-13
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.