Inconsistent transcriptomic responses to hexabromocyclododecane in Japanese quail: a comparative analysis of results from four different study designs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Efforts to use transcriptomics for toxicity testing have classically relied on the assumption that chemicals consistently produce characteristic transcriptomic signatures that are reflective of their mechanism of action. However, the degree to which transcriptomic responses are conserved across different test methodologies has seldom been explored. With increasing regulatory demand for New Approach Methods (NAMs) that use alternatives to animal models and high-content approaches such as transcriptomics, this type of comparative analysis is needed. We examined whether common genes are dysregulated in Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica) liver following sublethal exposure to the flame retardant hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), when life stage and test methodologies differ. The four exposure scenarios included one NAM: Study 1-early-life stage (ELS) exposure via a single egg injection, and three more traditional approaches; Study 2-adult exposure using a single oral gavage; Study 3-ELS exposure via maternal deposition after adults were exposed through their diet for 7 weeks; and Study 4-ELS exposure via maternal deposition and re-exposure of nestlings through their diet for 17 weeks. The total number of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) detected in each study was variable (Study 1, 550; Study 2, 192; Study 3, 1; Study 4, 3) with only 19 DEGs shared between Studies 1 and 2. Factors contributing to this lack of concordance are discussed and include differences in dose, but also quail strain, exposure route, sampling time, and HBCD stereoisomer composition. The results provide a detailed overview of the transcriptomic responses to HBCD at different life stages and routes of exposure in a model avian species and highlight certain challenges and limits of comparing transcriptomics across different test methodologies.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".