In vitro to in vivo extrapolation modeling to facilitate the integration of transcriptomics data into genotoxicity assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In vitro transcriptomics holds promise for high-throughput, human-relevant data but is not yet integrated into regulatory decision-making due to the lack of standardized approaches. For genotoxicity assessment, transcriptomic biomarkers such as GENOMARK and TGx-DDI facilitate qualitative and quantitative analysis of complex in vitro transcriptomic datasets. However, advancing their use in quantitative testing requires standardized methods for deriving transcriptomic Points of Departure (tPoDs) and linking them to in vivo responses. Herein, we investigated different approaches to calculate tPoDs and applied in vitro to in vivo extrapolation to obtain administered equivalent doses (AEDs). Human HepaRG cells were exposed for 72 h to 10 known in vivo genotoxicants (glycidol, methyl methanesulfonate , nitrosodimethylamine , 4-nitroquinoline-N-oxide, aflatoxin B1 , colchicine , cyclophosphamide , mitomycin C , ethyl methanesulfonate , and N-Nitroso-N-ethylurea) from the highest concentration that induces up to 50 % cytotoxicity through a range of lower concentrations. Gene expression data was generated using a customized version of the TempO-Seq® human S1500 + gene panel. The GENOMARK and TGx-DDI biomarkers produced genotoxic calls for all of these reference genotoxicants. Next, we performed benchmark concentration (BMC) modeling to generate both genotoxicity-specific biomarker (tPoD biomarkers ) and generic tPoDs (tPoD S1500+ ). High-throughput toxicokinetic models estimated the human AEDs for these tPoDs, which were compared with (a) previously reported genotoxicity-specific AEDs from other New Approach Methodologies, and (b) in vivo PoDs from animal studies. We found that the generic AEDs were more conservative than genotoxicity-specific biomarker AEDs. For six of the nine genotoxicants, transcriptomic AEDs were lower than the in vivo PoDs; refined kinetic models may improve predictions. Overall, in vitro transcriptomic data in HepaRG cells provide protective estimates of in vivo genotoxic concentrations, consistent with other in vitro genotoxicity testing systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".