Comparative bioinformatics and computational toxicology

Developmental Toxicology

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 311-360

  Knudsen, Thomas B ^a   Kavlock, Robert J ^a  

^a U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85014868569     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (135)

1. National Research Council. Scientific frontiers in developmental toxicology and risk assessment. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2000.
2. Cooper MK, Porter JA, Young KE, et al. Teratogen-mediated inhibition of target tissue response to Shh signaling. Science 1998; 280:1603–1607.
3. Kochhar DM, Jiang H, Penner JD, et al. The use a retinoid receptor antagonist in a new model to study vitamin A-dependent developmental events. Int J Dev Biol 1998; 42:601–608.
4. Fleming A, Copp AJ. Embryonic folate metabolism and mouse neural tube defects. Science 1998; 280:2107–2109.
5. Mirkes PE, Little SA. Teratogen-induced cell death in postimplantation mouse embryos: Differential tissue sensitivity and hallmarks of apoptosis. Cell Death Differ 1998; 5:592–600.
6. Finnell RH, Gelineau-van Waes J, Eudy JD, et al. Molecular basis of environmentally induced birth defects. Ann Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 2002; 42:181–208.
7. Knudsen TB, Charlap JH, Nemeth KR. Microarray applications in developmental toxicology. In Perspectives in Gene Expression, Appasani K, ed. Eaton Publishing/BioTechniques Press, Westboro, MA, 2003:173–194.
8. Daston GP. Genomics and developmental risk assessment. Birth Defects Res A 2007; 79:1–7.
9. Thibault C, Wang L, Zhang L, et al. DNA arrays and functional genomics in neurobiology. Int Rev Neurobiol 2001; 48:219–253.
10. Singh AV, Knudsen KB, Knudsen TB. Computational systems analysis of developmental toxicity: Design, development and implementation of a birth defects systems manager (BDSM). Reprod Toxicol 2005; 19:421–439.
11. Yu X, Griffith WC, Hanspers K, et al. A system-based approach to interpret dose-and time-dependent microarray data: Quantitative integration of gene ontology analysis for risk assessment. Toxicol Sci 2006; 92:560–577.
12. Green ML, Singh AV, Zhang Y, et al. Reprogramming of genetic networks during initiation of the fetal alcohol syndrome. Devel Dynam 2007; 236:613–631.
13. BIOINFOMED Study. Synergy between medical informatics and bioinformatics: Facilitating genomic medicine for future healthcare. European Commission (EC)—Directorate General: Information Society, Brussels. EC-IST 2001–35024, 2003. http://www.infobiomed.org/paginas en/project.htm
14. Singh AV, Rouhka EC, Rempala GA, et al. Integrative database management for mouse development: systems and concepts. Birth Defects Res C 2007; 81:1–19.
15. Carroll SB. Endless forms most beautiful: The new science of evo devo and the making of the animal kingdom. W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., New York, NY, 2003:350.
16. Cummings A, Kavlock RJ. A systems biology approach to developmental toxicology. Reprod Toxicol 2005; 19:281–290.
17. Gohlke JM, Griffith WC, Faustman EM. A systems-based computational model for dose-response comparisons of two mode of action hypothesis for ethanol-induced neurodevelopmental toxicity. Toxicol Sci 2005; 86:470–484.
18. Singh AV, Knudsen KB, Knudsen TB. Integrative analysis of the mouse embryonic transcriptome. Bioinformation 2007; 1:24–30.
19. Naciff JM, Jump ML, Torontali SM, et al. Gene expression profile induced by 17ethynyl estradiol, bisphenol A, and genistein in the developing female reproductive system of the rat. Toxicol Sci 2002; 68:184–199.
20. Mikheeva S, Barrier M, Little SA, et al. Alterations in gene expression induced in day-9 mouse embryos exposed to hyperthermia (HS) or 4-hydroperoxycyclophosphamide (4CP): Analysis using cDNA microarrays. Toxicol Sci 2004; 79:345–359.
21. Karoly ED, Schmid JE, Hunter ES III. Ontogeny of transcription profiles during mouse early craniofacial development. Reprod Toxicol 2005; 19:339–352.
22. Nemeth KA, Singh AV, Knudsen TB. Searching for biomarkers of developmental toxicity with microarrays: Normal eye morphogenesis in rodent embryos. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2005; 206:219–228.
23. Qin P, Cimildoro R, Kochhar DM, et al. PBX, MEIS, and IGF-I are potential mediators of retinoic acid-induced proximodistal limb reduction defects. Teratology 2002; 66:224–234.
24. Ali-Khan SE, Hales BF. Novel retinoid targets in the mouse limb during organogenesis. Toxicol Sci 2006; 94:139–152.
25. Lee GS, Cantor RM, Abnoosian A, et al. A gene(s) for all-trans-retinoic acid-induced forelimb defects mapped and confirmed to murine chromosome 11. Genetics 2005; 170:345–353.
26. Barrett T, Troup DB, Wilhite SE, et al. NCBI GEO: Mining tens of millions of expression profiles—database and tools update. Nucl Acids Res 2007; 35:D760-D765.
27. Galperin MY. The molecular biology database collection: 2008 update. Nucleic Acids Res 2008; 36 (database issue) D2-D4 (doi:10.1093/nar/gkm1037).
28. Cavalieri D, De Filippo C. Bioinformatic methods for integrating whole-genome expression results into cellular networks. Drug Dis Ther 2005; 10:727– 734.
29. Corvi R, Ahr H-J, Albertini S, et al. Meeting report: Validation of toxicogenomics-based test systems: ECVAM-ICCVAM/NICEATM considerations for regulatory use. Env Health Perspect 2006; 114:420–429.
30. Lamb J, Crawford ED, Peck D, et al. The Connectivity Map: Using gene-expression signatures to connect small molecules, genes, and disease. Science 2006; 313:1929– 1935.
31. Dix DJ, Houck KA, Martin MT, et al. The ToxCast program for prioritizing toxicity testing of environmental chemicals. Toxicol Sci 2007; 95:5–12.
32. Perrizo W. The role of data mining in turning bio-data into bioinformation. Bioinformation 2007; 1:351–355.
33. Burgoon LD, Boutros PC, Dere E, et al. dbZach: A MIAME-compliant toxicogenomic supportive relational database. Toxicol Sci 2006; 90:558–568.
34. Yang C, Richard AM, Cross KP. The art of data mining the minefields of toxicity databases to link chemistry to biology. Curr Comp Aided Drug Des 2006; 2:135– 150.
35. Knudsen KB, Singh AV, Knudsen TB. Data input module for birth defects systems manager. Reprod Toxicol 2005; 20:369–375.
36. Bard J. Systems developmental biology: The use of ontologies in annotating models and in identifying gene function within and across species. Mamm Genome 2007; 18:402–411.
37. Hunter A, Kaufman MH, McKay A, et al. An ontology of human developmental anatomy. J Anat 2007; 203;347–355.
38. Burger A, Davidson D, Baldock R. Formalization of the mouse embryo anatomy. Bioinformatics 2004; 20:259–267.
39. Christiansen JH, Yang Y, Venkataraman S, et al. EMAGE: A spatial database of gene expression patterns during mouse embryo development. Nucl Acids Res 2006; 34:D637–D641.
40. Baldock R, Bard J, Kaufman M, et al. A real mouse for your computer. Bio Essays 1992; 14:501–503.
41. Ringwald M, Baldock R, Bard J, et al. A database for mouse development. Science 1994; 265:2033–2034.
42. Baldock RA, Bard JB, Burger A, et al. EMAP and EMAGE: A framework for understanding spatially organized data. Neuroinformatics 2003; 1:309–325.
43. Hill DP, Begley DA, Finger JH, et al. The mouse Gene Expression Database (GXD): Updates and enhancements. Nucl Acids Res 2004; 32:D568–D571.
44. Gombar VK, Mattioni BE, Zwickl C, et al. Computational approaches for assessment of toxicity: A historical perspective and current status. In Computational Toxicology. Risk Assessment for Pharmaceutical and Environmental Chemicals, Ekins S, ed. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2007:815.
45. Bassan A, Worth AP. Computational tools for regulatory needs. In Computational Toxicology. Risk Assessment for Pharmaceutical and Environmental Chemicals, Ekins S, ed. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2007:815.
46. Von Bertalanffy L. General systems theory: Foundations, development, applications. George Braziller, New York, 1968:295.
47. Idekar T, Galitski T, Hood L. A new approach to decoding life: Systems biology. Ann Rev Genom Hum Genet 2001; 2:343–372.
48. Kitano H. Foundations of systems biology. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001:297.
49. Butler D. Are you ready for the revolution? Nature 2001; 409:758–760.
50. Covert MW. Integrated regulatory and metabolic models. In Computational Systems Biology, Kriete A, Eils R, eds. Elsevier Academic Press, New York, 2006:191–204.
51. O’Malley MA, Dupré J. Fundamental issues in systems biology. Bio Essays 2005; 27:1270–1276.
52. Waters MD, Fostel JM, Wetmore BA, et al. Toxicogenomics and systems toxicology. In Computational Toxicology. Risk Assessment for Pharmaceutical and Environmental Chemicals, Ekins S, ed. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2007:815.
53. Ma H-W, Zeng A-P. Reconstruction of metabolic networks from genome information and its structural and functional analysis. In Computational Systems Biology, Kriete A, Eils R, eds. Elsevier Academic Press, New York, 2006:169–189.
54. Schnell S, Grima R, Maini PK. Multiscale modeling in biology. Amer Sci 2007; 95:134–142.
55. Gohlke JM, Griffith WC, Faustman EM. Computational models of ethanol-induced neurodevelopmental toxicity across species: Implications for risk assessment. Birth Defects Res B 2008; 83:1–11.
56. Morford LL, Henck JW, Breslin WJ, et al. Hazard identification and predictability of children’s health risk from animal data. Env Health Perspect 2004; 112:266– 271.
57. Rodriguez-Zas SL, Ko Y, Adams HA, et al. Advancing understanding of the embryo transcriptome co-regulation using meta-, functional, and gene network analysis tools. Reproduction 2008; 135:213–224.
58. Longabaugh WJR, Davidson EH, Bolouri H. Computational representation of developmental genetic regulatory networks. Devel Biol 2005; 283:1–16.
59. Davidson EH, Erwin DH. Gene regulatory networks and the evolution of animal body plans. Science 2006; 311:796–800.
60. Olson EN. Gene regulatory networks in the evolution and development of the heart. Science 2006; 313:1922–1927.
61. Davidson E. The regulatory genome. gene regulatory networks in development and evolution. Academic Press, London, 2006:289.
62. Obayashi T, Hayashi S, Shibaoka M, et al. COXPRESdb: A database of coexpressed networks in mammals. Nucl Acids Res 2007; 36:D77–D82.
63. Klamt S, Saez-Rodriguez J, Gilles ED. Structural and functional analysis of cellular networks with CellNetAnalyzer. BMC Syst Biol I:2, BioMed Central Ltd., 2007.
64. Alon U. An introduction to systems biology. Design principles of biological circuits. Chapman & Hall/CRC Mathematical and Computational Biology Series, Boca Raton, FL, 2007:301.
65. Shen-Orr SS, Milo R, Mangan S, et al. Network motifs in the transcriptional regulation network of Escherichia coli. Nature Gen 2002; 31:64–68.
66. Oikonomou P, Cluzel P. Effects of topology on network evolution. Nature Phys 2006; 2:532–536.
67. Wikepedia contributors. Scale-free network, Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 2 March 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title = Scale-free network&oldid = 195352029).
68. Combs AB, Acosta DA Jr. An introduction to toxicology and its methodologies. In Computational Toxicology. Risk Assessment for Pharmaceutical and Environmental Chemicals, Ekins S, ed. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2007:815.
69. Guittina P, Elefant E, Saint–Salvic B. Hierarchization of animal teratology findings for improving the human risk evaluation of drug. Reprod Toxicol 2000; 14:369–375.
70. Chernoff NA, Rogers EA, Gage MI, et al. The relationship of maternal and fetal toxicity in developmental toxicology bioassays with notes on the biological significance of the “no observed adverse effect level”. Reprod Toxicol 2008; 25:192–202.
71. EPA. Guidelines for Developmental Toxicity Risk Assessment; Notice. Fed Reg 56: 63798–63826, 1991 and FQPA 10x Safety Factor Update. FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting, SAP Report No. 99–01 C, January 22, 1999. (http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/1998/december/final3.pdf)
72. Vainio H, Coleman M, Wilburn J. Carcinogenicity evaluations and ongoing studies: The IARC databases. Environ Health Perspect 1991; 96:5–9.
73. National Research Council, Committee on Toxicity and Assessment of Environmental Agents. Testing in the twenty-first century: A vision and a strategy. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2007, (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11970.html).
74. Chapin R, Stedman D, Paquette J, et al. Struggles for equivalence: In vitro developmental toxicity model evolution in pharmaceuticals in 2006. Toxicol In Vitro 2007; 21:1545–1551.
75. Kavlock RJ, Ankley GA, Blancato J, et al. Computational toxicology—a state of the science mini review. Toxicol Sci 2008; 103:14–27.
76. Crump K. A new method for determining allowable intakes. Fund Appl Toxicol 1984; 4:854–871.
77. Faustman EM, Allen BC, Kavlock RJ, et al. Dose-response assessment for developmental toxicity. I. Characterization of the database and determination of the no observed adverse effect level. Fund Appl Toxicol 1994; 23:478–486.
78. Allen BC, Kavlock RJ, Kimmel CA, et al. Dose response assessment for developmental toxicity. II. Comparison of generic benchmark dose estimates with no observed adverse effect levels. Fund Appl Toxicol 1994; 23:487–495.
79. Allen BC, Kavlock RJ, Kimmel CA, et al. Dose response assessment for developmental toxicity. III. Statistical models. Fund Appl Toxicol 1994; 23:496–509.
80. Kavlock RJ, Allen BC, Faustman EM, et al. Dose-response assessment for developmental toxicity. IV. Benchmark doses for fetal weight changes. Fund Appl Toxicol 1995; 26:211–222.
81. Kavlock RJ, Schmid JE, Setzer RW. A simulation study of the influence of study design on the estimation of benchmark doses for developmental toxicity. Risk Anal 1996; 16:399–410.
82. Piersma AH, Janer G, Wolterink G, et al. Quantitative extrapolation of in vitro whole embryo culture embryotoxicity data to developmental toxicity in vivo using the benchmark dose approach. Toxicol Sci 2008; 101:91–100.
83. OECD. Guidance Document on the Validation of (Quantitative) Structure-Activity Relationships [(Q)SAR] Models. OECD Environmental Health and Safety Publications, Series on Testing and Assessment, No. 69 ENV/JM/MONO(2007)2, 2007.
84. Kavlock RJ. Structure-activity approaches in the screening of environmental agents for developmental toxicity. Reprod Toxicol 1993; 7:113–166.
85. Julien E, Willhite CC, Richard AM, et al. Challenges in constructing statistically based structure-activity models for developmental toxicity. Birth Defects Res A 2004; 70:902–911.
86. Accelrys. http://www.accelrys. com/products/topkat/index.html. Accessed Jan 15 2008, 2004.
87. Gombar VK, Enslein K, Blake BW. Assessment of developmental toxicity potential of chemicals by quantitative structure-activity relationship models. Chemosphere 1995; 31:2499–2510.
88. MultiCase. http://wwwmulticasecom/2004. Accessed Jan 15 2008.
89. Ghanooni M, Mattison DR, Zhang YP, et al. Structural determinants associated with the risk of human developmental toxicity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 176: 799–805.
90. Friedman JM, Little BB, Brent RL, et al. Potential human teratogenicity of frequently prescribed drugs. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 75:594–599.
91. Briggs GG, Freeman RK, Yaffee SJ. Drugs in pregnancy and lactation: A reference guide to fetal and neonatal risk. 5th ed. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, MD, 2005:1888.
92. NLM TOXNET. National Institutes of Health, National Library of Medicine (NLM), Toxicology Data Network (TOXNET). (http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov), 2007.
93. OECD. Report on Regulatory Uses and Applications in OECD Member Countries of (Quantitative) Structure-Activity Relationships [(Q)SAR] Models in the Assessment of New and Existing Chemicals. OECD Environmental Health and Safety Publications, Series on Testing and Assessment, No. 58 ENV/JM/MONO(2006)25, 2007.
94. Wise LD, Beck SL, Beltrame D, et al. Terminology of developmental abnormalities in common laboratory mammals (version 1). Teratology 1997; 55:249–292.
95. Chahoud I, Buschmann J, Clark R, et al. Classification terms in developmental toxicology: need for harmonization. Report of the second workshop on the terminology in developmental toxicology Berlin, 27–28 August 1998. Reprod Toxicol 1999; 13:77–82.
96. ∗1 Berlin, 14–16 September 2000. Reprod Toxicol 2001; 15:713–721.
97. Foster PMD, Gray G. Toxic Responses of the Reproductive System. In Casarette and Doull’s Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons, 7th ed. McGraw Hill, New York, 2007:1309.
98. Tong W, Xie Q, Hong H, et al. Assessment of prediction confidence and domain extrapolation of two structure-activity relationship models for predicting estrogen receptor binding activity. Environ Health Perspect 2004; 112:1249–1254.
99. Lui H, Papa E, Grammatica P. QSAR prediction of estrogen activity for a large set of diverse chemicals under the guidance of OECD principles. Chem Res Toxicol 2006; 19;1540–1548.
100. Shi LM, Fang H, Tong W, et al. QSAR models using a large diverse set of estrogens. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2001; 41:186–195.
101. Houck KA, Kavlock RJ. Understanding mechanisms of toxicity: Insights from drug discovery research. Toxicol Appl Pharm 2008; 227:163–178.
102. EPA ToxCast. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Center for Computational Toxicology Tox CastTM Program, 2007. (http://www.epa.gov/ncct/toxcast/)
103. Richard A. Future of toxicology–predictive toxicology: An expanded view of “chemical toxicity”. Chem Res Toxicol 2006; 19:1258–1262.
104. Richard A, Yang C, Judson R. Toxicity data informatics: Supporting a new paradigm for toxicity prediction. Toxicol Meth Mech 2008; 18:103–118.
105. Watt AH. Sams teach uourself XML in 10 minutes. Sams Publishing, Indianapolis, IN, 2003:292.
106. R Internet site: http://www.leadscope. com/toxml.php, 2007.
107. EPA DSSTox. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Distributed Structure-Searchable Toxicity (DSSTox) Database Network, 2007. (http://www.epa.gov/ncct/dsstox/index.html)
108. Judson R, Richard A, Dix D, et al. ACToR—aggregated computational toxicology resource. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2008; in press (online, doi: 10.1016/j.taap.2007.12.037).
109. Martin MT, Houck KA, McLaurin K, et al. Linking regulatory toxicological information on environmental chemicals with high-throughput screening (HTS) and genomic data. Toxicol CD–J Soc Toxicol 2007; 96:219–220.
110. EPA Regulating Pesticides. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Pesticide Programs, Regulating Pesticides, 2007. (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating)
111. Corley RA, Mast TJ, Carney EW, et al. Evaluation of physiologically based models of pregnancy and lactation for their application in children’s health assessments. Crit Rev Toxicol 2003; 33:137–211.
112. Clark LH, Setzer RW, Barton HA. Framework for evaluation of physiologically based pharmacokinetic models for use in safety and risk assessment. Risk Analysis 2004; 24:1697–1717.
113. Clewell HJ, Tueguarden J, McDonald T, et al. Review and evaluation of the potential impact of age-and gender-specific pharmacokinetic differences in tissue dosimetry. Crit Rev Toxicol 2002; 32:329–390.
114. Yoon M, Barton HA. Predicting maternal and pup exposures: How different are they? Toxicol Sci 2008; 102:15–32.
115. Andersen ME, Dennison JE. Mode of action and tissue dosimetry in current and future risk assessments. Sci Total Environ 2001; 274:3–14.
116. Moolgavkar SH, Luebeck G. Two-event model for carcinogenesis: Biological, mathematical and statistical considerations. Risk Anal 1990; 10:323– 341.
117. Leroux B, Leisenring W, Moolgavkar S, et al. A biologically based dose-response model for developmental toxicology. Risk Anal 1996; 16:449–458.
118. Faustman EM, Lewandowski T, Ponce R, et al. Biologically-based dose-response models for developmental toxicology: Lessons from methylmercury. Inhal Toxicol 1999; 11:559–572.
119. Lau C, Andersen ME, Crawford-Brown D, et al. Evaluation of biologically based dose-response modeling for developmental toxicity: A workshop report. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2000; 31:190–199.
120. Setzer RW, Lau C, Mole ML, et al. Toward a biologically based dose-response model for developmental toxicity of 5-fluorouracil: a mathematical construct. Toxicol Sci 2001; 59:49–58.
121. Lau C, Mole ML, Copeland F, et al. Toward a biologically based dose-response model for developmental toxicity of 5-fluorouracil: Acquisition of experimental data. Toxicol Sci 2001; 59:37–48.
122. Kavlock RJ, Setzer RW. The road to embryologically based dose-response models. Environ Health Perspect 1996; 104(Suppl 1):107–121.
123. Graner F, Glazier JA. Simulation of biological cell sorting using a two-dimensional extended Potts model. Phys Rev Lett 1992; 69:2013–2016.
124. Dormann S, Deutsch A. Modeling of self-organized avascular tumor growth with a hybrid cellular automaton. In Silico Biol 2002; 2:0035.
125. Izaguirre JA, Chaturvedi R, Huang C, et al. CompuCell, a multi-model framework for simulation of morphogenesis. Bioinformatics 2004; 20:1129–1137.
126. Cickovski TM, Huang C, Chaturvedi R, et al. A framework for three-dimensional simulation of morphogenesis. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform 2005; 2: 1–15.
127. Cickovski TM, Izaguirre JA. Biologo, a domain-specific language for morphogenesis. ACM Trans. Programming Languages and Systems, 2005. http://www.nd.edu/tcickovs/acmtr2e.pdf
128. Robertson SH, Smith CK, Langhans AL, et al. Multiscale computational analysis of Xenopus laevis morphogenesis reveals key insights of systems-level behavior. BMC Syst Biol 2007; 1:46, doi:10.1186/1752–0509–1–46.
129. Risk Policy Report. EPA High-Tech “Virtual Embryo Project” Will Target Developmental Risk. vol 15, no. 2, January 8, 2008. http://www.InsideEPA.com, 2008.
130. Krietes A, Eils R. Computational systems biology. Elsevier Academic Press, London, 2006:409.
131. Wubah JA, Setzer RW, Lau C, et al. Exposure-disease continuum for 2-chloro-2’-deoxyadenosine, a prototype ocular teratogen. I. Dose-response analysis. Teratology 2001; 64:154–169.
132. Saunders PT. An introduction to catastrophe theory. Cambridge University Press, New York, 1980:144.
133. Gilmore R. Catastrophe theory for scientists and engineers. General Publishing Company, Ltd., Toronto, 1981:666.
134. Konopka AK. Systems biology. Principles, methods, and concepts. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, 2007:244.
135. Fisher GH. Preparation of ambiguous stimulus materials. Perc Psychophys 1967; 2:421–422.