Literature DB >> 23338806

Perspectives on validation of high-throughput assays supporting 21st century toxicity testing.

Richard Judson1, Robert Kavlock, Matthew Martin, David Reif, Keith Houck, Thomas Knudsen, Ann Richard, Raymond R Tice, Maurice Whelan, Menghang Xia, Ruili Huang, Christopher Austin, George Daston, Thomas Hartung, John R Fowle, William Wooge, Weida Tong, David Dix.   

Abstract

In vitro high-throughput screening (HTS) assays are seeing increasing use in toxicity testing. HTS assays can simultaneously test many chemicals but have seen limited use in the regulatory arena, in part because of the need to undergo rigorous, time-consuming formal validation. Here we discuss streamlining the validation process, specifically for prioritization applications. By prioritization, we mean a process in which less complex, less expensive, and faster assays are used to prioritize which chemicals are subjected first to more complex, expensive, and slower guideline assays. Data from the HTS prioritization assays is intended to provide a priori evidence that certain chemicals have the potential to lead to the types of adverse effects that the guideline tests are assessing. The need for such prioritization approaches is driven by the fact that there are tens of thousands of chemicals to which people are exposed, but the yearly throughput of most guideline assays is small in comparison. The streamlined validation process would continue to ensure the reliability and relevance of assays for this application. We discuss the following practical guidelines: (1) follow current validation practice to the extent possible and practical; (2) make increased use of reference compounds to better demonstrate assay reliability and relevance; (3) de-emphasize the need for cross-laboratory testing; and (4) implement a web-based, transparent, and expedited peer review process.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23338806      PMCID: PMC3934015          DOI: 10.14573/altex.2013.1.051

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  ALTEX        ISSN: 1868-596X            Impact factor:   6.043


  42 in total

Review 1.  Microarrays and toxicology: the advent of toxicogenomics.

Authors:  E F Nuwaysir; M Bittner; J Trent; J C Barrett; C A Afshari
Journal:  Mol Carcinog       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 4.784

2.  ICCVAM evaluation of the murine local lymph node assay. The ICCVAM review process.

Authors:  D M Sailstad; D Hattan; R N Hill; W S Stokes
Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 3.271

Review 3.  Adverse outcome pathways: a conceptual framework to support ecotoxicology research and risk assessment.

Authors:  Gerald T Ankley; Richard S Bennett; Russell J Erickson; Dale J Hoff; Michael W Hornung; Rodney D Johnson; David R Mount; John W Nichols; Christine L Russom; Patricia K Schmieder; Jose A Serrrano; Joseph E Tietge; Daniel L Villeneuve
Journal:  Environ Toxicol Chem       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 3.742

4.  Meeting the scientific needs of ecological risk assessment in a regulatory context.

Authors:  Steven P Bradbury; Tom C J Feijtel; Cornelis J Van Leeuwen
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2004-12-01       Impact factor: 9.028

5.  Toxicology. Transforming environmental health protection.

Authors:  Francis S Collins; George M Gray; John R Bucher
Journal:  Science       Date:  2008-02-15       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  In vitro screening of 200 pesticides for agonistic activity via mouse peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR)alpha and PPARgamma and quantitative analysis of in vivo induction pathway.

Authors:  Shinji Takeuchi; Tadashi Matsuda; Satoshi Kobayashi; Tetsuo Takahashi; Hiroyuki Kojima
Journal:  Toxicol Appl Pharmacol       Date:  2006-09-06       Impact factor: 4.219

7.  IPCS conceptual framework for evaluating a mode of action for chemical carcinogenesis.

Authors:  C Sonich-Mullin; R Fielder; J Wiltse; K Baetcke; J Dempsey; P Fenner-Crisp; D Grant; M Hartley; A Knaap; D Kroese; I Mangelsdorf; E Meek; J M Rice; M Younes
Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 3.271

8.  A specific mechanism for nonspecific activation in reporter-gene assays.

Authors:  Douglas S Auld; Natasha Thorne; Dac-Trung Nguyen; James Inglese
Journal:  ACS Chem Biol       Date:  2008-07-01       Impact factor: 5.100

Review 9.  IPCS framework for analyzing the relevance of a noncancer mode of action for humans.

Authors:  Alan R Boobis; John E Doe; Barbara Heinrich-Hirsch; M E Bette Meek; Sharon Munn; Mathuros Ruchirawat; Josef Schlatter; Jennifer Seed; Carolyn Vickers
Journal:  Crit Rev Toxicol       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 5.635

10.  The EDKB: an established knowledge base for endocrine disrupting chemicals.

Authors:  Don Ding; Lei Xu; Hong Fang; Huixiao Hong; Roger Perkins; Steve Harris; Edward D Bearden; Leming Shi; Weida Tong
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2010-10-07       Impact factor: 3.169

View more
  41 in total

1.  Discovery of Transcriptional Targets Regulated by Nuclear Receptors Using a Probabilistic Graphical Model.

Authors:  Mikyung Lee; Ruili Huang; Weida Tong
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2015-12-07       Impact factor: 4.849

2.  Incorporating ToxCast and Tox21 datasets to rank biological activity of chemicals at Superfund sites in North Carolina.

Authors:  Sloane K Tilley; David M Reif; Rebecca C Fry
Journal:  Environ Int       Date:  2017-01-31       Impact factor: 9.621

3.  Pathways of Toxicity.

Authors:  Andre Kleensang; Alexandra Maertens; Michael Rosenberg; Suzanne Fitzpatrick; Justin Lamb; Scott Auerbach; Richard Brennan; Kevin M Crofton; Ben Gordon; Albert J Fornace; Kevin Gaido; David Gerhold; Robin Haw; Adriano Henney; Avi Ma'ayan; Mary McBride; Stefano Monti; Michael F Ochs; Akhilesh Pandey; Roded Sharan; Rob Stierum; Stuart Tugendreich; Catherine Willett; Clemens Wittwehr; Jianguo Xia; Geoffrey W Patton; Kirk Arvidson; Mounir Bouhifd; Helena T Hogberg; Thomas Luechtefeld; Lena Smirnova; Liang Zhao; Yeyejide Adeleye; Minoru Kanehisa; Paul Carmichael; Melvin E Andersen; Thomas Hartung
Journal:  ALTEX       Date:  2013-10-15       Impact factor: 6.043

Review 4.  Contributions of nonhematopoietic cells and mediators to immune responses: implications for immunotoxicology.

Authors:  Barbara L F Kaplan; Jinze Li; John J LaPres; Stephen B Pruett; Peer W F Karmaus
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 4.849

5.  Screening the ToxCast Phase 1, Phase 2, and e1k Chemical Libraries for Inhibitors of Iodothyronine Deiodinases.

Authors:  Jennifer H Olker; Joseph J Korte; Jeffrey S Denny; Phillip C Hartig; Mary C Cardon; Carsten N Knutsen; Paige M Kent; Jessica P Christensen; Sigmund J Degitz; Michael W Hornung
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2019-04-01       Impact factor: 4.849

6.  Investigating the establishment of primary cultures of hemocytes from Mytilus edulis.

Authors:  Andrew Barrick; Catherine Guillet; Catherine Mouneyrac; Amélie Châtel
Journal:  Cytotechnology       Date:  2018-03-06       Impact factor: 2.058

7.  Ligand-Mediated Receptor Assembly as an End Point for High-Throughput Chemical Toxicity Screening.

Authors:  Elizabeth K Medlock Kakaley; Stephanie A Eytcheson; Gerald A LeBlanc
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2017-07-28       Impact factor: 9.028

8.  The use of purified rat Leydig cells complements the H295R screen to detect chemical-induced alterations in testosterone production.

Authors:  Nicole L Botteri Principato; Juan D Suarez; Susan C Laws; Gary R Klinefelter
Journal:  Biol Reprod       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 4.285

9.  Modern Approaches to Chemical Toxicity Screening.

Authors:  Eli G Hvastkovs; James F Rusling
Journal:  Curr Opin Electrochem       Date:  2017-04-03

Review 10.  Implementation of alternative test strategies for the safety assessment of engineered nanomaterials.

Authors:  A E Nel
Journal:  J Intern Med       Date:  2013-07-24       Impact factor: 8.989

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.