Literature DB >> 28866267

How well can carcinogenicity be predicted by high throughput "characteristics of carcinogens" mechanistic data?

Richard A Becker1, David A Dreier2, Mary K Manibusan3, Louis A Tony Cox4, Ted W Simon5, James S Bus6.   

Abstract

IARC has begun using ToxCast/Tox21 data in efforts to represent key characteristics of carcinogens to organize and weigh mechanistic evidence in cancer hazard determinations and this implicit inference approach also is being considered by USEPA. To determine how well ToxCast/Tox21 data can explicitly predict cancer hazard, this approach was evaluated with statistical analyses and machine learning prediction algorithms. Substances USEPA previously classified as having cancer hazard potential were designated as positives and substances not posing a carcinogenic hazard were designated as negatives. Then ToxCast/Tox21 data were analyzed both with and without adjusting for the cytotoxicity burst effect commonly observed in such assays. Using the same assignments as IARC of ToxCast/Tox21 assays to the seven key characteristics of carcinogens, the ability to predict cancer hazard for each key characteristic, alone or in combination, was found to be no better than chance. Hence, we have little scientific confidence in IARC's inference models derived from current ToxCast/Tox21 assays for key characteristics to predict cancer. This finding supports the need for a more rigorous mode-of-action pathway-based framework to organize, evaluate, and integrate mechanistic evidence with animal toxicity, epidemiological investigations, and knowledge of exposure and dosimetry to evaluate potential carcinogenic hazards and risks to humans.
Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cancer hazard classification; Cancer prediction modeling; High throughput screening (HTS); IARC

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28866267     DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2017.08.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol        ISSN: 0273-2300            Impact factor:   3.271


  9 in total

Review 1.  Progress in data interoperability to support computational toxicology and chemical safety evaluation.

Authors:  Sean Watford; Stephen Edwards; Michelle Angrish; Richard S Judson; Katie Paul Friedman
Journal:  Toxicol Appl Pharmacol       Date:  2019-08-09       Impact factor: 4.219

2.  Current status and future directions for a neurotoxicity hazard assessment framework that integrates in silico approaches.

Authors:  Kevin M Crofton; Arianna Bassan; Mamta Behl; Yaroslav G Chushak; Ellen Fritsche; Jeffery M Gearhart; Mary Sue Marty; Moiz Mumtaz; Manuela Pavan; Patricia Ruiz; Magdalini Sachana; Rajamani Selvam; Timothy J Shafer; Lidiya Stavitskaya; David T Szabo; Steven T Szabo; Raymond R Tice; Dan Wilson; David Woolley; Glenn J Myatt
Journal:  Comput Toxicol       Date:  2022-03-17

3.  Predictive modeling of biological responses in the rat liver using in vitro Tox21 bioactivity: Benefits from high-throughput toxicokinetics.

Authors:  Caroline Ring; Nisha S Sipes; Jui-Hua Hsieh; Celeste Carberry; Lauren E Koval; William D Klaren; Mark A Harris; Scott S Auerbach; Julia E Rager
Journal:  Comput Toxicol       Date:  2021-03-19

4.  Predicting the Probability that a Chemical Causes Steatosis Using Adverse Outcome Pathway Bayesian Networks (AOPBNs).

Authors:  Lyle D Burgoon; Michelle Angrish; Natalia Garcia-Reyero; Nathan Pollesch; Anze Zupanic; Edward Perkins
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2019-11-13       Impact factor: 4.302

5.  Potential of ToxCast Data in the Safety Assessment of Food Chemicals.

Authors:  Ans Punt; James Firman; Alan Boobis; Mark Cronin; John Paul Gosling; Martin F Wilks; Paul A Hepburn; Anette Thiel; Karma C Fussell
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2020-04-01       Impact factor: 4.849

6.  Modeling Bioavailable Concentrations in Zebrafish Cell Lines and Embryos Increases the Correlation of Toxicity Potencies across Test Systems.

Authors:  Sebastian Lungu-Mitea; Carolina Vogs; Gunnar Carlsson; Maximiliane Montag; Kim Frieberg; Agneta Oskarsson; Johan Lundqvist
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2020-12-15       Impact factor: 9.028

7.  Assessment of Mechanistic Data for Hexavalent Chromium-Induced Rodent Intestinal Cancer Using the Key Characteristics of Carcinogens.

Authors:  Grace A Chappell; Daniele S Wikoff; Chad M Thompson
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2021-02-26       Impact factor: 4.849

8.  A Collaborative Initiative to Establish Genomic Biomarkers for Assessing Tumorigenic Potential to Reduce Reliance on Conventional Rodent Carcinogenicity Studies.

Authors:  J Christopher Corton; Constance A Mitchell; Scott Auerbach; Pierre Bushel; Heidrun Ellinger-Ziegelbauer; Patricia A Escobar; Roland Froetschl; Alison H Harrill; Kamin Johnson; James E Klaunig; Arun R Pandiri; Alexei A Podtelezhnikov; Julia E Rager; Keith Q Tanis; Jan Willem van der Laan; Alisa Vespa; Carole L Yauk; Syril D Pettit; Frank D Sistare
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2022-06-28       Impact factor: 4.109

9.  Identifying Attributes That Influence In Vitro-to-In Vivo Concordance by Comparing In Vitro Tox21 Bioactivity Versus In Vivo DrugMatrix Transcriptomic Responses Across 130 Chemicals.

Authors:  William D Klaren; Caroline Ring; Mark A Harris; Chad M Thompson; Susan Borghoff; Nisha S Sipes; Jui-Hua Hsieh; Scott S Auerbach; Julia E Rager
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2019-01-01       Impact factor: 4.849

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.