Transcriptomic Points of Departure Calculated from Rainbow Trout Gill, Liver, and Gut Cell Lines Exposed to Methylmercury and Fluoxetine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ethical and resource limitation concerns are pushing chemicals management to develop alternatives to animal testing strategies. The objective of our study was to determine whether transcriptomic point of departure (tPOD) values could be derived from studies that followed Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Test No. 249 (rainbow trout gill cell line), as well as from studies on trout liver and gut cells. Gill, liver, and gut cell lines were exposed to methylmercury and fluoxetine. Concentrations causing 50% cytotoxicity (LC50) were derived, the whole transcriptome was sequenced, and gene tPOD and pathway benchmark dose (BMD) values were derived from transcriptomic dose–response analysis. Differences in LC50 and transcriptomic responses across the cell lines were noted. For methylmercury, the tPODmode values were 14.5, 20.5, and 17.8 ppb for the gill, liver, and gut cells, respectively. The most sensitive pathway (pathway BMDs in parentheses) was ferroptosis in the gill (3.1 ppb) and liver (3.5 ppb), and glutathione metabolism in the gut (6.6 ppb). For fluoxetine, the tPODmode values were 109.4, 108.4, and 97.4 ppb for the gill, liver, and gut cells, respectively. The most sensitive pathway was neurotrophin signaling in the gill (147 ppb) and dopaminergic signaling in the gut (86.3 ppb). For both chemicals, the gene tPOD and pathway BMD values were lower than cytotoxic concentrations in vitro, and within 10-fold below the in vivo LC50s. By bringing together transcriptomics and dose–response analysis with an OECD test method in three cell lines, the results help to establish an in vitro method yielding tPOD values that are hypothesized to be protective of in vivo concentrations associated with adverse outcomes, and also give insights into mechanisms of action. Environ Toxicol Chem 2022;41:1982–1992. © 2022 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".