Literature DB >> 28316117

How consistent are we? Interlaboratory comparison study in fathead minnows using the model estrogen 17α-ethinylestradiol to develop recommendations for environmental transcriptomics.

April Feswick1, Meghan Isaacs1, Adam Biales2, Robert W Flick2, David C Bencic2, Rong-Lin Wang2, Chris Vulpe3, Marianna Brown-Augustine3, Alex Loguinov3, Francesco Falciani4, Philipp Antczak4, John Herbert4, Lorraine Brown5, Nancy D Denslow6, Kevin J Kroll6, Candice Lavelle6, Viet Dang6, Lynn Escalon7, Natàlia Garcia-Reyero7,8, Christopher J Martyniuk1,6, Kelly R Munkittrick1.   

Abstract

Fundamental questions remain about the application of omics in environmental risk assessments, such as the consistency of data across laboratories. The objective of the present study was to determine the congruence of transcript data across 6 independent laboratories. Male fathead minnows were exposed to a measured concentration of 15.8 ng/L 17α-ethinylestradiol (EE2) for 96 h. Livers were divided equally and sent to the participating laboratories for transcriptomic analysis using the same fathead minnow microarray. Each laboratory was free to apply bioinformatics pipelines of its choice. There were 12 491 transcripts that were identified by one or more of the laboratories as responsive to EE2. Of these, 587 transcripts (4.7%) were detected by all laboratories. Mean overlap for differentially expressed genes among laboratories was approximately 50%, which improved to approximately 59.0% using a standardized analysis pipeline. The dynamic range of fold change estimates was variable between laboratories, but ranking transcripts by their relative fold difference resulted in a positive relationship for comparisons between any 2 laboratories (mean R2  > 0.9, p < 0.001). Ten estrogen-responsive genes encompassing a fold change range from dramatic (>20-fold; e.g., vitellogenin) to subtle (∼2-fold; i.e., block of proliferation 1) were identified as differentially expressed, suggesting that laboratories can consistently identify transcripts that are known a priori to be perturbed by a chemical stressor. Thus, attention should turn toward identifying core transcriptional networks using focused arrays for specific chemicals. In addition, agreed-on bioinformatics pipelines and the ranking of genes based on fold change (as opposed to p value) should be considered in environmental risk assessment. These recommendations are expected to improve comparisons across laboratories and advance the use of omics in regulations. Environ Toxicol Chem 2017;36:2593-2601.
© 2017 SETAC. © 2017 SETAC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Endocrine disruptor; Estrogenic compound; Interlaboratory comparison; Risk assessment; Transcriptomics

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28316117      PMCID: PMC6145073          DOI: 10.1002/etc.3799

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Toxicol Chem        ISSN: 0730-7268            Impact factor:   3.742


  41 in total

1.  Identification of toxicologically predictive gene sets using cDNA microarrays.

Authors:  R S Thomas; D R Rank; S G Penn; G M Zastrow; K R Hayes; K Pande; E Glover; T Silander; M W Craven; J K Reddy; S B Jovanovich; C A Bradfield
Journal:  Mol Pharmacol       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 4.436

Review 2.  Promise and progress in environmental genomics: a status report on the applications of gene expression-based microarray studies in ecologically relevant fish species.

Authors:  S E Hook
Journal:  J Fish Biol       Date:  2010-10-26       Impact factor: 2.051

3.  Ecotoxicogenomics: Microarray interlaboratory comparability.

Authors:  Doris E Vidal-Dorsch; Steven M Bay; Shelly Moore; Blythe Layton; Alvine C Mehinto; Chris D Vulpe; Marianna Brown-Augustine; Alex Loguinov; Helen Poynton; Natàlia Garcia-Reyero; Edward J Perkins; Lynn Escalon; Nancy D Denslow; Colli-Dula R Cristina; Tri Doan; Shweta Shukradas; Joy Bruno; Lorraine Brown; Graham Van Agglen; Paula Jackman; Megan Bauer
Journal:  Chemosphere       Date:  2015-09-10       Impact factor: 7.086

Review 4.  A review of potential methods of determining critical effect size for designing environmental monitoring programs.

Authors:  Kelly R Munkittrick; Collin J Arens; Richard B Lowell; Greg P Kaminski
Journal:  Environ Toxicol Chem       Date:  2009-02-06       Impact factor: 3.742

5.  Interlaboratory and interplatform comparison of microarray gene expression analysis of HepG2 cells exposed to benzo(a)pyrene.

Authors:  Sarah L Hockley; Karen Mathijs; Yvonne C M Staal; Daniel Brewer; Ian Giddings; Joost H M van Delft; David H Phillips
Journal:  OMICS       Date:  2009-04

6.  Hepatic gene expression profiling using Genechips in zebrafish exposed to 17alpha-ethynylestradiol.

Authors:  J L Hoffmann; S P Torontali; R G Thomason; D M Lee; J L Brill; B B Price; G J Carr; D J Versteeg
Journal:  Aquat Toxicol       Date:  2006-07-25       Impact factor: 4.964

7.  The influence of breeding strategy, reproductive stage, and tissue type on transcript variability in fish.

Authors:  David A Dreier; Jennifer R Loughery; Nancy D Denslow; Christopher J Martyniuk
Journal:  Comp Biochem Physiol Part D Genomics Proteomics       Date:  2016-06-04       Impact factor: 2.674

8.  An assessment of estrogenic organic contaminants in Canadian wastewaters.

Authors:  Marc P Fernandez; Michael G Ikonomou; Ian Buchanan
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2006-12-29       Impact factor: 7.963

9.  The occurrence of steroidal estrogens in south-eastern Ontario wastewater treatment plants.

Authors:  Susanna K Atkinson; Vicki L Marlatt; Lynda E Kimpe; David R S Lean; Vance L Trudeau; Jules M Blais
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2012-05-25       Impact factor: 7.963

10.  Integrating omic technologies into aquatic ecological risk assessment and environmental monitoring: hurdles, achievements, and future outlook.

Authors:  Graham Van Aggelen; Gerald T Ankley; William S Baldwin; Daniel W Bearden; William H Benson; J Kevin Chipman; Tim W Collette; John A Craft; Nancy D Denslow; Michael R Embry; Francesco Falciani; Stephen G George; Caren C Helbing; Paul F Hoekstra; Taisen Iguchi; Yoshi Kagami; Ioanna Katsiadaki; Peter Kille; Li Liu; Peter G Lord; Terry McIntyre; Anne O'Neill; Heather Osachoff; Ed J Perkins; Eduarda M Santos; Rachel C Skirrow; Jason R Snape; Charles R Tyler; Don Versteeg; Mark R Viant; David C Volz; Tim D Williams; Lorraine Yu
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 9.031

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Twenty years of transcriptomics, 17alpha-ethinylestradiol, and fish.

Authors:  Christopher J Martyniuk; April Feswick; Kelly R Munkittrick; David A Dreier; Nancy D Denslow
Journal:  Gen Comp Endocrinol       Date:  2019-11-13       Impact factor: 2.822

2.  Common Gene Expression Patterns in Environmental Model Organisms Exposed to Engineered Nanomaterials: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Michael Burkard; Alexander Betz; Kristin Schirmer; Anze Zupanic
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2019-12-13       Impact factor: 9.028

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.