Integration of metabolic activation with a predictive toxicogenomics signature to classify genotoxic versus nongenotoxic chemicals in human <scp>TK</scp>6 cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of integrated approaches in genetic toxicology, including the incorporation of gene expression data to determine the molecular pathways involved in the response, is becoming more common. In a companion article, a genomic biomarker was developed in human TK6 cells to classify chemicals as genotoxic or nongenotoxic. Because TK6 cells are not metabolically competent, we set out to broaden the utility of the biomarker for use with chemicals requiring metabolic activation. Specifically, chemical exposures were conducted in the presence of rat liver S9. The ability of the biomarker to classify genotoxic (benzo[a]pyrene, BaP; aflatoxin B1, AFB1) and nongenotoxic (dexamethasone, DEX; phenobarbital, PB) agents correctly was evaluated. Cells were exposed to increasing chemical concentrations for 4 hr and collected 0 hr, 4 hr, and 20 hr postexposure. Relative survival, apoptosis, and micronucleus frequency were measured at 24 hr. Transcriptome profiles were measured with Agilent microarrays. Statistical modeling and bioinformatics tools were applied to classify each chemical using the genomic biomarker. BaP and AFB1 were correctly classified as genotoxic at the mid- and high concentrations at all three time points, whereas DEX was correctly classified as nongenotoxic at all concentrations and time points. The high concentration of PB was misclassified at 24 hr, suggesting that cytotoxicity at later time points may cause misclassification. The data suggest that the use of S9 does not impair the ability of the biomarker to classify genotoxicity in TK6 cells. Finally, we demonstrate that the biomarker is also able to accurately classify genotoxicity using a publicly available dataset derived from human HepaRG cells.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".