A cell-free testing platform to screen chemicals of potential neurotoxic concern across twenty vertebrate species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There is global demand for new in vitro testing tools for ecological risk assessment. The objective of the present study was to apply a set of cell-free neurochemical assays to screen many chemicals across many species in a relatively high-throughput manner. The platform assessed 7 receptors and enzymes that mediate neurotransmission of γ-aminobutyric acid, dopamine, glutamate, and acetylcholine. Each assay was optimized to work across 20 vertebrate species (5 fish, 5 birds, 7 mammalian wildlife, 3 biomedical species including humans). We tested the screening assay platform against 80 chemicals (23 pharmaceuticals and personal care products, 20 metal[loid]s, 22 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and halogenated organic compounds, 15 pesticides). In total, 10 800 species–chemical–assay combinations were tested, and significant differences were found in 4041 cases. All 7 assays were significantly affected by at least one chemical in each species tested. Among the 80 chemicals tested, nearly all resulted in a significant impact on at least one species and one assay. The 5 most active chemicals were prochloraz, HgCl2, Sn, benzo[a]pyrene, and vinclozolin. Clustering analyses revealed groupings according to chemicals, species, and chemical–assay combinations. The results show that cell-free assays can screen a large number of samples in a short period of time in a cost-effective manner in a range of animals not easily studied using traditional approaches. Strengths and limitations of this approach are discussed, as well as next steps. Environ Toxicol Chem 2017;36:3081–3090. © 2017 SETAC
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".