Accelerating Adverse Outcome Pathway Development Using Publicly Available Data Sources

Current environmental health reports

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 53-63

  Oki, Noffisat O ^a,b   Nelms, Mark D ^a,b   Bell, Shannon M ^a,b,c   Mortensen, Holly M ^b   Edwards, Stephen W ^b  

^a OAK RIDGE INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE AND EDUCATION   (United States)

^b U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

^c ILS NTP Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM)   (United States)

Author keywords

Adverse outcome pathways (AOPs); Computationally predicted AOPs (cpAOPs); Data mining; Risk assessment; Toxicity pathways

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SIMULATION; ECOTOXICOLOGY; HUMAN; INFORMATION SYSTEM; PROCEDURES; RISK ASSESSMENT; TOXICITY TESTING;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; ECOTOXICOLOGY; HUMANS; INFORMATION MANAGEMENT; RISK ASSESSMENT; TOXICITY TESTS;

EID: 84964747565     PISSN: None     EISSN: 21965412     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40572-016-0079-y     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Martić-Kehl MI, Schibli R, Schubiger PA. Can animal data predict human outcome? Problems and pitfalls of translational animal research. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39(9):1492–6.
2. Russell WMS, Burch RL. The principles of humane experimental technique. Methuen 1959.
3. United States Congress. ICCVAM authorization act of 2000. 2000 [cited 2015 08/03/2015]; available from: https://www.congress.gov/bill/106th-congress/house-bill/4281.
4. Meek ME, Armstrong VC. The assessment and management of industrial chemicals in Canada. In: Leeuwen CJV, Vermeire TG, editors. Risk assessment of chemicals. Netherlands: Springer; 2007. p. 591–621.
5. Commission;, E., Corrigenda of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH). Official Journal of the European Union, 2006b. EC 1907/2006.
6. Commission;, E., Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH). Official Journal of the European Union 2006a. EC 1907/2006.
7. National Research Council. Toxicity testing in the 21st century: a vision and a strategy. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies; 2007. p. 216.
8. Ankley GT, Bennet RS, Erickson RJ, et al. Adverse outcome pathways: a conceptual framework to support ecotoxicology research and risk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2010;29(3):730–41.
9. Garcia-Reyero NL. Are adverse outcome pathways here to stay? Environ Sci Technol. 2014;49(1):3–9.
10. Villeneuve DL, Crump D, Garcia-Reyero N, et al. Adverse outcome pathway development II: best practices. Toxicol Sci. 2014;142(2):321–30.
11. OECD. Users’ handbook supplement to the guidance document for developing and assessing AOPs. 2014 [cited 2015 7/13/2015]; available from: https://aopkb.org/common/AOP_Handbook.pdf.
12. Becker RA, Ankley GT, Edwards SW, et al. Increasing scientific confidence in adverse outcome pathways: application of tailored Bradford-Hill considerations for evaluating weight of evidence. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2015;72(3):514–37.
13. Villeneuve DL, Crump D, Garcia-Reyero N, et al. Adverse outcome pathway (AOP) development I: strategies and principles. Toxicol Sci. 2014;142(2):312–20. This paper outlines the current principles for defining AOPs and discusses the different phases of AOP development ranging from putative AOPs to fully described quantitative AOPs.
14. Tollefsen KE, Scholz S, Cronin MT, et al. Applying adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) to support integrated approaches to testing and assessment (IATA). Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2014;70(3):629–40.
15. Groh KJ, Carvalho RN, Chipman JK, et al. Development and application of the adverse outcome pathway framework for understanding and predicting chronic toxicity: I. Challenges and research needs in ecotoxicology. Chemosphere. 2015;120:764–77.
16. OECD. Guidance document on developing and assessing adverse outcome pathways, P.A.B. Environment Directorate; Joint Meeting of the Chemicals Committee and the Working Party on Chemicals, Editor. 2013, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: Paris, France.
17. Pearl J. Causality: models, reasoning and inference. Cambridge University Press; 2009. p 478.
18. Kleinstreuer N et al. A computational model predicting disruption of blood vessel development. PLoS Comput Biol. 2013;9(4):e1002996. This paper provides a recent example of using computational approaches to build AOPs based on an existing scaffold.
19. Kleinstreuer NC, Dix D, Rountree M, et al. Environmental impact on vascular development predicted by high-throughput screening. Environ Health Perspect. 2011;119(11):1596–603.
20. Perkins EJ, Chipman K, Edwards S, et al. Reverse engineering adverse outcome pathways. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2011;30(1):22–38.
21. Schadt EE, Friend SH, Shaywitz DA. A network view of disease and compound screening. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2009;8(4):286–95.
22. Edwards SW, Preston RJ. Systems biology and mode of action based risk assessment. Toxicol Sci. 2008;106(2):312–8.
23. AbdulHameed MD, Tawa GJ, Kumar K, et al. Systems level analysis and identification of pathways and networks associated with liver fibrosis. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(11):e112193.
24. Agrawal R, Imielinski T, Swami A, et al. Mining association rules between sets of items in large databases. SIGMOD Rec. 1993;22(2):207–16.
25. Agrawal R, Srikant R. Fast algorithms for mining association rules in large databases. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases. 1994, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. p. 487–499.
26. Bell SM, Edwards SW. Identification and prioritization of relationships between environmental stressors and adverse human health impacts. Environ Health Perspect. 2015.
27. Bell SM, Edwards SW. Building associations between markers of environmental stressors and adverse human health impacts using frequent itemset mining. In: Proceedings of the 2014 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining. 2014. p. 551–559. This paper discusses the use of frequent itemset mining in an environmental context. The approach is analogous to the use of frequent itemset mining for cpAOP development once the transactions have been defined based on the chemical.
28. Davis AP, Grondin CJ, Lennon-Hopkins K, et al. The comparative toxicogenomics database’s 10th year anniversary: update 2015. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43(Database issue):D914–20.
29. Kolesnikov N, Hastings E, Keays M, et al. ArrayExpress update—simplifying data submissions. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43(D1):D1113–6.
30. Edgar R, Domrachev M, Lash AE. Gene expression omnibus: NCBI gene expression and hybridization array data repository. Nucleic Acids Res. 2002;30(1):207–10.
31. Judson RS, Houck KA, Kavlock RJ, et al. In vitro screening of environmental chemicals for targeted testing prioritization: the ToxCast project. Environ Health Perspect. 2010;118(4):485–92.
32. Ganter B, Tugendreich S, Pearson CI, et al. Development of a large-scale chemogenomics database to improve drug candidate selection and to understand mechanisms of chemical toxicity and action. J Biotechnol. 2005;119(3):219–44.
33. Igarashi Y, Nakatsu N, Yamashita T, et al. Open TG-GATEs: a large-scale toxicogenomics database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43(Database issue):D921–7.
34. Wishart DS, Jewison T, Guo AC, et al. HMDB 3.0—the human metabolome database in 2013. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41(Database issue):D801–7.
35. Wishart DS, Knox C, Guo AC, et al. DrugBank: a comprehensive resource for in silico drug discovery and exploration. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006;34 suppl 1:D668–72.
36. Whirl-Carrillo M, McDonagh EM, Hebert JM, et al. Pharmacogenomics knowledge for personalized medicine. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2012;92(4):414–7.
37. Kanehisa M, Goto S. KEGG: Kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2000;28(1):27–30.
38. Kanehisa M, Goto S, Sato Y, et al. Data, information, knowledge and principle: back to metabolism in KEGG. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42(Database issue):D199–205.
39. Milacic M, Haw R, Rothfels K, et al. Annotating cancer variants and anti-cancer therapeutics in Reactome. Cancers. 2012;4(4):1180–211.
40. Mi H, Muruganujan A, Thomas PD. PANTHER in 2013: modeling the evolution of gene function, and other gene attributes, in the context of phylogenetic trees. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41(Database issue):D377–86.
41. Stark C, Breitkreutz BJ, Reguly T, et al. BioGRID: a general repository for interaction datasets. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006;34(Database issue):D535–9.
42. Sandelin A, Alkema W, Engstrom P, et al. JASPAR: an open-access database for eukaryotic transcription factor binding profiles. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32(Database issue):D91–4.
43. Hume MA, Barrera LA, Gisselbrecht SS, et al. UniPROBE, update 2015: new tools and content for the online database of protein-binding microarray data on protein–DNA interactions. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43(Database issue):D117–22.
44. Hamosh A, Scott AF, Amberger JS, et al. Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM), a knowledgebase of human genes and genetic disorders. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005;33 suppl 1:D514–7.
45. Groth P, Pavlova N, Kalev I, et al. PhenomicDB: a new cross-species genotype/phenotype resource. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;35(Database issue):D696–9.
46. Ramos EM, Hoffman D, Junkins HA, et al. Phenotype–Genotype Integrator (PheGenI): synthesizing genome-wide association study (GWAS) data with existing genomic resources. Eur J Hum Genet. 2014;22(1):144–7.
47. Eppig JT, Blake JA, Bult CJ, et al. The Mouse Genome Database (MGD): facilitating mouse as a model for human biology and disease. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43(Database issue):D726–36.
48. Smith CM, Finger JH, Hayamizu TF, et al. The mouse Gene Expression Database (GXD): 2014 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42(Database issue):D818–24.
49. Smith CM, Finger JH, Hayamizu TF, et al. GXD: a community resource of mouse gene expression data. Mamm Genome, 2015.
50. Howe DG, Bradford YM, Conlin T, et al. ZFIN, the zebrafish model organism database: increased support for mutants and transgenics. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41(D1):D854–60.
51. Harris TW, Baran J, Bieri T, et al. WormBase 2014: new views of curated biology. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42(D1):D789–93.
52. dos Santos G, Schroeder AJ, Goodman JL, et al. FlyBase: introduction of the Drosophila melanogaster Release 6 reference genome assembly and large-scale migration of genome annotations. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014. doi:10.1093/nar/gku1099.
53. Martin MT, Judson RS, Reif DM, et al. Profiling chemicals based on chronic toxicity results from the US EPA ToxRef Database. Environ Health Perspect. 2009;117(3):392–9.
54. Abeyruwan S, Vempati UD, Kucuk-McGinty H, et al. Evolving BioAssay Ontology (BAO): modularization, integration and applications. J Biomed Sem. 2014;5 Suppl 1:S5.
55. The Gene Ontology Consortium. Gene ontology consortium: going forward. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43(D1):D1049–56.
56. Smith CL, Eppig JT. The mammalian phenotype ontology: enabling robust annotation and comparative analysis. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Syst Biol Med. 2009;1(3):390–9.
57. Goecks J, Nekrutenko A, Taylor J, et al. Galaxy: a comprehensive approach for supporting accessible, reproducible, and transparent computational research in the life sciences. Genome Biol. 2010;11(8):R86.
58. Giardine B, Riemer C, Hardison RC, et al. Galaxy: a platform for interactive large-scale genome analysis. Genome Res. 2005;15(10):1451–5.
59. Blankenberg D, Von Kuster G, Coraor N, et al. Galaxy: a web-based genome analysis tool for experimentalists. Current Protocols in Molecular Biology, 2010: 19.10.1–19.10. 21.
60. Berthold MR, Cebron N, Dill F, et al. KNIME: the Konstanz Information Miner. Data analysis, machine learning and applications. Berlin: Springer; 2008. p. 319–26.
61. Shannon PT, Reiss DJ, Bonneau R, et al. The Gaggle: an open-source software system for integrating bioinformatics software and data sources. BMC Bioinf. 2006;7:176.
62. Smedley D, Haider S, Durinck S, et al. The BioMart community portal: an innovative alternative to large, centralized data repositories. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43(W1):W589–98.
63. Huber W, Carey VJ, Gentleman R, et al. Orchestrating high-throughput genomic analysis with bioconductor. Nat Methods. 2015;12(2):115–21.
64. R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria; 2014. URL http://www.R-project.org, 2015.