Unlocking the Power of Transcriptomic Biomarkers in Qualitative and Quantitative Genotoxicity Assessment of Chemicals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide To modernize genotoxicity assessment and reduce reliance on experimental animals, new approach methodologies (NAMs) that provide human-relevant dose–response data are needed. Two transcriptomic biomarkers, GENOMARK and TGx-DDI, have shown a high classification accuracy for genotoxicity. As these biomarkers were extracted from different training sets, we investigated whether combining the two biomarkers in a human-derived metabolically competent cell line (i.e., HepaRG) provides complementary information for the classification of genotoxic hazard identification and potency ranking. First, the applicability of GENOMARK to TempO-Seq, a high-throughput transcriptomic technology, was evaluated. HepaRG cells were exposed for 72 h to increasing concentrations of 10 chemicals (i.e., eight known in vivo genotoxicants and two in vivo nongenotoxicants). Gene expression data were generated using the TempO-Seq technology. We found a prediction performance of 100%, confirming the applicability of GENOMARK to TempO-Seq. Classification using TGx-DDI was then compared to GENOMARK. For the chemicals identified as genotoxic, benchmark concentration modeling was conducted to perform potency ranking. The high concordance observed for both hazard classification and potency ranking by GENOMARK and TGx-DDI highlights the value of integrating these NAMs in a weight of evidence evaluation of genotoxicity.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".