Comparing transcriptomic responses to chemicals across six species using the EcoToxChip RNASeq database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The EcoToxChip project includes RNA-sequencing data from experiments involving model (Japanese quail, fathead minnow, African clawed frog) and ecological (double-crested cormorant, rainbow trout, northern leopard frog) species at multiple life stages (whole embryo and adult) exposed to eight chemicals of environmental concern known to perturb a wide range of biological systems (ethinyl estradiol, hexabromocyclododecane, lead, selenomethionine, 17β trenbolone, chlorpyrifos, fluoxetine, and benzo[a]pyrene). The objectives of this short communication were to (1) present and make available this RNA-sequencing database (i.e., 724 samples from 49 experiments) under the FAIR principles (FAIR data are data which meet principles of findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability), while also summarizing key meta-data attributes and (2) use ExpressAnalyst (including the Seq2Fun algorithm and EcoOmicsDB) to perform a comparative transcriptomics analysis of this database focusing on baseline and differential transcriptomic changes across species-life stage-chemical combinations. The database is available in NCBI GEO under accession number GSE239776. Across all species, the number of raw reads per sample ranged between 13 and 58 million, with 30% to 79% of clean reads mapped to the "vertebrate" subgroup database in EcoOmicsDB. Principal component analyses of the reads illustrated separation across the three taxonomic groups as well as some between tissue types. The most common differentially expressed gene was CYP1A1 followed by CTSE, FAM20CL, MYC, ST1S3, RIPK4, VTG1, and VIT2. The most common enriched pathways were metabolic pathways, biosynthesis of cofactors and biosynthesis of secondary metabolites, and chemical carcinogenesis, drug metabolism, and metabolism of xenobiotics by cytochrome P450. The RNA-sequencing database in the present study may be used by the research community for multiple purposes, including, for example, cross-species investigations, in-depth analyses of a particular test compound, and transcriptomic meta-analyses.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".