Development of a toxicogenomics signature for genotoxicity using a dose‐optimization and informatics strategy in human cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of in vitro molecular biomarkers to accurately predict toxicological effects has become a priority to advance testing strategies for human health risk assessment. The application of in vitro transcriptomic biomarkers promises increased throughput as well as a reduction in animal use. However, the existing protocols for predictive transcriptional signatures do not establish appropriate guidelines for dose selection or account for the fact that toxic agents may have pleiotropic effects. Therefore, comparison of transcriptome profiles across agents and studies has been difficult. Here we present a dataset of transcriptional profiles for TK6 cells exposed to a battery of well-characterized genotoxic and nongenotoxic chemicals. The experimental conditions applied a new dose optimization protocol that was based on evaluating expression changes in several well-characterized stress-response genes using quantitative real-time PCR in preliminary dose-finding studies. The subsequent microarray-based transcriptomic analyses at the optimized dose revealed responses to the test chemicals that were typically complex, often exhibiting substantial overlap in the transcriptional responses between a variety of the agents making analysis challenging. Using the nearest shrunken centroids method we identified a panel of 65 genes that could accurately classify toxicants as genotoxic or nongenotoxic. To validate the 65-gene panel as a genomic biomarker of genotoxicity, the gene expression profiles of an additional three well-characterized model agents were analyzed and a case study demonstrating the practical application of this genomic biomarker-based approach in risk assessment was performed to demonstrate its utility in genotoxicity risk assessment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".