Validation of transcriptomics-based in vitro methods

Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology

Volumn 856, Issue , 2016, Pages 243-257

  Corvi, Raffaella ^a   Vilardell, Mireia ^a   Aubrecht, Jiri ^b   Piersma, Aldert ^c,d  

^a JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE   (Italy)

^b Pfi zer Global Research and Development   (United States)

^c NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT   (Netherlands)

^d UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Bioinformatics workflow; In vitro tests; Toxicogenomics; Transcriptomics; Validation

Indexed keywords

BIOINFORMATICS; CASE STUDY; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; EXPERIMENTAL TEST; GENE EXPRESSION PROFILING; GENOTOXICITY; HUMAN; IN VITRO STUDY; METABOLOMICS; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARDIZATION; TRANSCRIPTOMICS; VALIDATION PROCESS; BIOLOGY; METHODOLOGY; VALIDATION STUDY;

TRANSCRIPTOME;

COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; IN VITRO TECHNIQUES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; TRANSCRIPTOME; VALIDATION STUDIES AS TOPIC;

EID: 84988979900     PISSN: 00652598     EISSN: 22148019     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-33826-2_10     Document Type: Chapter

References (50)

1. Adler S, Basketter D, Creton S et al (2011) Alternative (non-animal) methods for cosmetics testing: current status and future prospects-2010. Arch Toxicol 85(5):367-485
2. Allison DB, Cui X, Page GP, Sabripour M (2006) Microarray data analysis: from disarray to consolidation and consensus. Nat Rev Genet 7(1):55-65, Erratum in: Nat Rev Genet 7(5):406
3. Bammler T, Beyer RP, Bhattacharya S et al (2005) Standardizing global gene expression analysis between laboratories and across platforms. Nat Methods 2(5):351-356, Erratum in: Nat Methods 2(6):477
4. Bourdon-Lacombe JA, Moffat ID, Deveau M et al (2015) Technical guide for applications of gene expression profi ling in human health risk assessment of environmental chemicals. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 289(3):573-588
5. Boverhof D, Gollapudi BB (eds) (2011) Applications of toxicogenomics in safety evaluation and risk assessment. Wiley, New York
6. Buick JK, Moffat I, Williams A et al (2015) Integration of metabolic activation with a predictive toxicogenomics signature to classify genotoxic versus nongenotoxic chemicals in human TK6 cells. Environ Mol Mutagen 56:520-534. doi: 10.1002/em.21940
7. Chu TM, Deng S, Wolfi nger R et al (2004) Cross-site comparison of gene expression data reveals high similarity. Environ Health Perspect 112(4):449-455
8. Corvi R, Ahr HJ, Albertini S et al (2006) Meeting report: validation of toxicogenomics-based test systems: ECVAM-ICCVAM/NICEATM considerations for regulatory use. Environ Health Perspect 114(3):420-429
9. Croft D, Mundo AF, Haw R et al (2013) The Reactome pathway knowledgebase. Nucleic Acids Res 42(Database issue):D472-D477. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkt1102
10. Dobbin K, Simon R (2005) Sample size determination in microarray experiments for class comparison and prognostic classifi cation. Biostatistics 6(1):27-38, Erratum in: Biostatistics (2005) 6(2):348
11. Dobbin KK, Simon RM (2007) Sample size planning for developing classifi ers using highdimensional DNA microarray data. Biostatistics 8(1):101-117
12. Doktorova TY, Yildirimman R, Ceelen L et al (2014) Testing chemical carcinogenicity by using a transcriptomics HEPARG-based model? EXCLI J 13:623-637
13. ECETOC Workshop report No 25 (2013) Omics and risk assessment. http://www.ecetoc.org/publication
14. Ellinger-Ziegelbauer H, Fostel JM, Aruga C et al (2009) Characterization and interlaboratory comparison of a gene expression signature for differentiating genotoxic mechanisms. Toxicol Sci 110(2):341-352
15. Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) (2014) Guidance for industry and FDA staff—qualifi cation process for drug development tools. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM230597.pdf
16. Goetz AK, Singh BP, Battalora M et al (2011) Current and future use of genomics data in toxicology: opportunities and challenges for regulatory applications. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 61:141-153
17. Goodsaid FM, Amur S, Aubrecht J et al (2010) Voluntary exploratory data submissions to the US FDA and the EMA: experience and impact. Nat Rev Drug Discov 9(6):435-445
18. Hahne F, Mehrle A, Arlt D et al (2008) Extending pathways based on gene lists using InterPro domain signatures. BMC Bioinformatics 9:3
19. Hamadeh HK, Bushel P, Paules R, Afshari CA (2001) Discovery in toxicology: mediation by gene expression array technology. J Biochem Mol Toxicol 15(5):231-242
20. Hamadeh HK, Bushel PR, Jayadev S et al (2002a) Gene expression analysis reveals chemicalspecifi c profi les. Toxicol Sci 67(2):219-231
21. Hamadeh HK, Knight BL, Haugen AC et al (2002b) Methapyrilene toxicity: anchorage of pathologic observations to gene expression alterations. Toxicol Pathol 30(4):470-482
22. Hartung T, Bremer S, Casati S et al (2004) A modular approach to the ECVAM principles on test validity. Altern Lab Anim 32(5):467-472
23. Herwig R, Gmuender H, Corvi R et al (2015) Inter-laboratory study of human in vitro toxicogenomics-based tests as alternative methods for evaluating chemical carcinogenicity: a bioinformatics perspective. Archiv Toxicol, doi: 10.1007/s00204-015-1617-3
24. Irizarry RA, Warren D, Spencer F et al (2005) Multiple-laboratory comparison of microarray platforms. Nat Methods 2(5):345-350
25. Jennings P, Aydin S, Bennett J et al (2009) Inter-laboratory comparison of human renal proximal tubule (HK-2) transcriptome alterations due to Cyclosporine A exposure and medium exhaustion. Toxicol In Vitro 23:486-499
26. Kamburov A, Stelzl U, Lehrach H, Herwig R (2013) The ConsensusPathDB interaction database: 2013 update. Nucleic Acids Res 41(Database issue):D793-D800
27. Kasprzyk A (2011) BioMart: driving a paradigm change in biological data management. Database (Oxford) 2011:bar049
28. Kinsner-Ovaskainen A, Maxwell G, Kreysa J et al (2012) Report of the EPAA-ECVAM workshop on the validation of Integrated Testing Strategies (ITS). Altern Lab Anim 40(3):175-181
29. Landesmann B, Mennecozzi M, Berggren E, Whelan M (2013) Adverse outcome pathway-based screening strategies for an animal-free safety assessment of chemicals. Altern Lab Anim 41(6):461-471
30. Larkin JE, Frank BC, Gavras H et al (2005) Independence and reproducibility across microarray platforms. Nat Methods 2(5):337-344
31. Li HH, Hyduke DR, Chen R et al (2015) Development of a toxicogenomics signature for genotoxicity using a dose-optimization and informatics strategy in human cells. Environ Mol Mutagen 56:505-519. doi: 10.1002/em.21941
32. Luo J, Schumacher M, Scherer A et al (2010) A comparison of batch effect removal methods for enhancement of prediction performance using MAQC-II microarray gene expression data. Pharmacogenomics J 10(4):278-291
33. Miller CJ, Kassem HS, Pepper SD et al (2003) Mycoplasma infection signifi cantly alters microarray gene expression profi les. Biotechniques 35(4):812-814
34. Patlewicz G, Ball N, Becker RA et al (2014) Read-across approaches-misconceptions, promises and challenges ahead. ALTEX 31(4):387-396
35. Paules RS, Aubrecht J, Corvi R et al (2011) Moving forward in human cancer risk assessment. Environ Health Perspect 119(6):739-743
36. Pettit S, des Etages SA, Mylecraine L et al (2010) Current and future applications of toxicogenomics: results summary of a survey from the HESI Genomics State of Science Subcommittee. Environ Health Perspect 118(7):992-997
37. Piersma AH, Hernandez LG, van Benthem J et al (2011) Reproductive toxicants have a threshold of adversity. Crit Rev Toxicol 41(6):545-554
38. Piersma AH, Bosgra S, van Duursen MB et al (2013) Evaluation of an alternative in vitro test battery for detecting reproductive toxicants. Reprod Toxicol 38:53-64
39. Piersma AH, Ezendam J, Luijten M et al (2014) A critical appraisal of the process of regulatory implementation of novel in vivo and in vitro methods for chemical hazard and risk assessment. Crit Rev Toxicol 24:1-19
40. Römer M, Eichmer J, Metzger U et al (2014) Cross-platform toxicogenomics for the prediction of non-genotoxic hepatocarcinogenesis in rat. PLoS One 9(5):e97640. doi: 10.1371/journal. pone.0097640
41. Scott DJ, Devonshire AS, Adeleye YA et al (2011) Inter-and intra-laboratory study to determine the reproducibility of toxicogenomics datasets. Toxicology 290:50-58
42. Shi L, Campbell G, Jones WD et al (2010) The Microarray Quality Control (MAQC)—II study of common practices for the development and validation of microarray/based predictive models. Nat Biotechnol 28(8):827-838
43. Steiner G, Suter L, Boess F et al (2004) Discriminating different classes of toxicants by transcript profi ling. Environ Health Perspect 112(12):1236-1248
44. Subramanian A, Tamayo P, Mootha VK et al (2005) Gene set enrichment analysis: a knowledgebased approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profi les. Proc Natl Acad Sci 102(43): 15545-15550
45. Tarca AL, Lauria M, Unger M et al (2013) Strengths and limitations of microarray-based phenotype prediction: lessons learned from the IMPROVER Diagnostic Signature Challenge. Bioinformatics 29(22):2892-2899
46. Venet D, Dumont JE, Detours V (2011) Most random gene expression signatures are signifi cantly associated with breast cancer outcome. PLoS Comput Biol 7(10):e1002240
47. Waring JF, Ulrich RG, Flint N et al (2004) Interlaboratory evaluation of rat hepatic gene expression changes induced by methapyrilene. Environ Health Perspect 112(4):439-448
48. Wen Z, Wang C, Shi Q et al (2010) Evaluation of gene expression data generated from expired Affymetrix GeneChip® microarrays using MAQC reference RNA samples. BMC Bioinformatics 11(Suppl 6):S10
49. Worth A, Barroso J, Bremer S et al (2014) Alternative methods for regulatory toxicology-a stateof-the-art review. EUR 26797. http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC91361
50. Yildirimman R, Brolén G, Vilardell M et al (2011) Human embryonic stem cell derived epatocytelike cells as a tool for in vitro hazard assessment of chemical arcinogenicity. Toxicol Sci 124(2):278-290