MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317717883 · doi:10.3389/ftox.2023.1098432

Application of a new approach methodology (NAM)-based strategy for genotoxicity assessment of data-poor compounds

2023· article· en· W4317717883 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Toxicology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaHealth Canada
FundersHealth CanadaCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsGenotoxicityToxicogenomicsComputational biologyBiologyComputer scienceChemistryGeneGene expressionGeneticsToxicity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The conventional battery for genotoxicity testing is not well suited to assessing the large number of chemicals needing evaluation. Traditional in vitro tests lack throughput, provide little mechanistic information, and have poor specificity in predicting in vivo genotoxicity. New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) aim to accelerate the pace of hazard assessment and reduce reliance on in vivo tests that are time-consuming and resource-intensive. As such, high-throughput transcriptomic and flow cytometry-based assays have been developed for modernized in vitro genotoxicity assessment. This includes: the TGx-DDI transcriptomic biomarker (i.e., 64-gene expression signature to identify DNA damage-inducing (DDI) substances), the MicroFlow ® assay (i.e., a flow cytometry-based micronucleus (MN) test), and the MultiFlow ® assay (i.e., a multiplexed flow cytometry-based reporter assay that yields mode of action (MoA) information). The objective of this study was to investigate the utility of the TGx-DDI transcriptomic biomarker, multiplexed with the MicroFlow ® and MultiFlow ® assays, as an integrated NAM-based testing strategy for screening data-poor compounds prioritized by Health Canada’s New Substances Assessment and Control Bureau. Human lymphoblastoid TK6 cells were exposed to 3 control and 10 data-poor substances, using a 6-point concentration range. Gene expression profiling was conducted using the targeted TempO-Seq™ assay, and the TGx-DDI classifier was applied to the dataset. Classifications were compared with those based on the MicroFlow ® and MultiFlow ® assays. Benchmark Concentration (BMC) modeling was used for potency ranking. The results of the integrated hazard calls indicate that five of the data-poor compounds were genotoxic in vitro , causing DNA damage via a clastogenic MoA, and one via a pan-genotoxic MoA. Two compounds were likely irrelevant positives in the MN test; two are considered possibly genotoxic causing DNA damage via an ambiguous MoA. BMC modeling revealed nearly identical potency rankings for each assay. This ranking was maintained when all endpoint BMCs were converted into a single score using the Toxicological Prioritization (ToxPi) approach. Overall, this study contributes to the establishment of a modernized approach for effective genotoxicity assessment and chemical prioritization for further regulatory scrutiny. We conclude that the integration of TGx-DDI, MicroFlow ® , and MultiFlow ® endpoints is an effective NAM-based strategy for genotoxicity assessment of data-poor compounds.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.527
Threshold uncertainty score0.784

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it