Cross-Model Comparison of Transcriptomic Dose–Response of Short-Chain Chlorinated Paraffins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Short-chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs) have attracted attention because of their toxicological potential in humans and wildlife at environmentally relevant doses. However, limited information is available regarding mechanistic differences across species in terms of the biological pathways that are impacted by SCCP exposure. Here, a concentration-dependent reduced human transcriptome (RHT) approach was conducted to evaluate 15 SCCPs in HepG2 cells and compared with our previous results using a reduced zebrafish transcriptome (RZT) approach in zebrafish embryos (ZFEs). Generally, SCCPs induced a broader suite of biological pathways in ZFEs than HepG2 cells, and all of the 15 SCCPs were more potent in HepG2 cells compared to ZFEs. Despite these general differences, the transcriptional potency of SCCPs in both model systems showed a significant linear relationship ( p = 0.0017, r 2 = 0.57), and the average ratios of transcriptional potency for each SCCP in RZT to that in RHT were ∼100,000. C 10 H 14 Cl 8 was the most potent SCCP, while C 10 H 17 Cl 5 was the least potent in both ZFEs and HepG2 cells. An adverse outcome pathway network-based analysis demonstrated model-specific responses, such as xenobiotic metabolism that may be mediated by different nuclear receptor-mediated pathways between HepG2 cells ( e.g., CAR and AhR activation) and ZFEs ( e.g., PXR activation). Moreover, induced transcriptional changes in ZFEs associated with pathways and molecular initiating events ( e.g., activation of nicotinic acetylcholine receptor) suggest that SCCPs may disrupt neural development processes. The cross-model comparison of concentration-dependent transcriptomics represents a promising approach to assess and prioritize SCCPs.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".