Using <i>In Vitro</i> and Machine Learning Approaches to Determine Species-Specific Dioxin-like Potency and Congener-Specific Relative Sensitivity among Birds for Brominated Dioxin Analogues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a paucity of experimental data regarding dioxin-like toxicity of polybrominated dibenzo- p -dioxins/dibenzofurans (PBDD/Fs) and non- ortho polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs). In this study, avian aryl hydrocarbon receptor 1 (AHR1)-luciferase reporter gene assays were used to determine their species-specific dioxin-like potencies (DLPs) and congener-specific interspecies relative sensitivities in birds. The results suggested that DLPs of the brominated congeners for chicken-like (Ile324_Ser380) species did not always follow World Health Organization toxicity equivalency factors of their chlorinated analogues. For ring-necked pheasant-like (Ile324_Ala380) and Japanese quail-like (Val324_Ala380) species, the difference in DLP for several congeners was 1 or even 2 orders of magnitude. Moreover, molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulation were performed to explore the interactions between the brominated congeners and AHR1-ligand-binding domain (LBD). The molecular mechanics energy ( E MM ) between each congener and each individual amino acid (AA) residue in AHR1–LBD was calculated. These E MM values could finely characterize the final conformation of species-specific AHR1–LBD for each brominated congener. Based on this, mechanism-driven generalized linear models were successfully built using machine learning algorithms and the spline approximation method, and these models could qualitatively predict the complex relationships between AHR1 conformations and DLPs or avian interspecies relative sensitivity to brominated dioxin-like compounds (DLCs). In addition, several AAs conserved among birds were found to potentially interact with species-specific AAs, thereby inducing species-specific interactions between AHR1 and brominated DLCs. The present study provides a novel strategy to facilitate the development of mechanism-driven computational prediction models for supporting safety assessment of DLCs, as well as a basis for the ecotoxicological risk assessment of brominated congeners in birds.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".