Evaluating the influences of confounding variables on benchmark dose using a case study in the field of ionizing radiation

References

• Aardema MJ, MacGregor JT. 2002. Toxicology and genetic toxicology in the new era of “toxicogenomics”: impact of “-omics” technologies. Mutat Res. 499(1):13–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alnajar A, Nordhoff C, Schied T, Chiquet-Ehrismann R, Loser K, Vogl T, Ludwig S, Wixler V. 2013. The LIM-only protein FHL2 attenuates lung inflammation during bleomycin-induced fibrosis. PLOS One. 8(11):e81356.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beane J, Sebastiani P, Liu G, Brody JS, Lenburg ME, Spira A. 2007. Reversible and permanent effects of tobacco smoke exposure on airway epithelial gene expression. Genome Biol. 8(9):R201.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boelens MC, Van Den Berg A, Fehrmann RSN, Geerlings M, De Jong WK, Te Meerman GJ, Sietsma H, Timens W, Postma DS, Groen HJM. 2009. Current smoking-specific gene expression signature in normal bronchial epithelium is enhanced in squamous cell lung cancer. J Pathol. 218(2):182–191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borgert CJ. 2007. Predicting interactions from mechanistic information: can omic data validate theories? Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 223(2):114–120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourdon JA, Williams A, Kuo B, Moffat I, White PA, Halappanavar S, Vogel U, Wallin H, Yauk CL. 2013. Gene expression profiling to identify potentially relevant disease outcomes and support human health risk assessment for carbon black nanoparticle exposure. Toxicology. 303:83–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buesen R, Chorley BN, da Silva Lima B, Daston G, Deferme L, Ebbels T, Gant TW, Goetz A, Greally J, Gribaldo L, et al. 2017. Applying ’omics technologies in chemicals risk assessment: report of an ECETOC workshop. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 91(Suppl 1):S3–S13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chari R, Lonergan KM, Ng RT, MacAulay C, Lam WL, Lam S. 2007. Effect of active smoking on the human bronchial epithelium transcriptome. BMC Genomics. 8:297.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chauhan V, Adam N, Kuo B, Williams A, Yauk CL, Wilkins R, Stainforth R. 2021. Meta-analysis of transcriptomic datasets using benchmark dose modeling shows value in supporting radiation risk assessment. Int J Radiat Biol. 97(1):31–49.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chauhan V, Kuo B, McNamee JP, Wilkins RC, Yauk CL. 2016. Transcriptional benchmark dose modeling: Exploring how advances in chemical risk assessment may be applied to the radiation field. Environ Mol Mutagen. 57(8):589–604.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chauhan V, Rowan-Carroll A, Gagné R, Kuo B, Williams A, Yauk CL. 2019. The use of in vitro transcriptional data to identify thresholds of effects in a human lens epithelial cell-line exposed to ionizing radiation. Int J Radiat Biol. 95(2):156–169.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chepelev NL, Moffat ID, Labib S, Bourdon-Lacombe J, Kuo B, Buick JK, Lemieux F, Malik AI, Halappanavar S, Williams A, et al. 2015. Integrating toxicogenomics into human health risk assessment: lessons learned from the benzo[a]pyrene case study. Crit Rev Toxicol. 45(1):44–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clewell HJ, Efremenko A, Campbell JL, Dodd DE, Thomas RS. 2014. Transcriptional responses in the rat nasal epithelium following subchronic inhalation of naphthalene vapor. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 280(1):78–85.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins FS, Green ED, Guttmacher AE, Guyer MS. 2003. A vision for the future of genomics research. Nature. 422(6934):835–847.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis JA, Gift JS, Zhao QJ. 2011. Introduction to benchmark dose methods and U.S. EPA’s benchmark dose software (BMDS) version 2.1.1. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 254(2):181–191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farmahin R, Williams A, Kuo B, Chepelev NL, Thomas RS, Barton-Maclaren TS, Curran IH, Nong A, Wade MG, Yauk CL. 2017. Recommended approaches in the application of toxicogenomics to derive points of departure for chemical risk assessment. Arch Toxicol. 91(5):2045–2065.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Filipsson AF, Sand S, Nilsson J, Victorin K. 2003. The benchmark dose method – review of available models, and recommendations for application in health risk assessment. Crit Rev Toxicol. 33(5):505–542.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gwinn WM, Auerbach SS, Parham F, Stout MD, Waidyanatha S, Mutlu E, Collins B, Paules RS, Merrick BA, Ferguson S, et al. 2020. Evaluation of 5-day in vivo rat liver and kidney with high-throughput transcriptomics for estimating benchmark doses of apical outcomes. Toxicol Sci. 176(2):343–354.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haber LT, Dourson ML, Allen BC, Hertzberg RC, Parker A, Vincent MJ, Maier A, Boobis AR. 2018. Benchmark dose (BMD) modeling: current practice, issues, and challenges. Crit Rev Toxicol. 48(5):387–415.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrill J, Shah I, Setzer RW, Haggard D, Auerbach S, Judson R, Thomas RS. 2019. Considerations for strategic use of high-throughput transcriptomics chemical screening data in regulatory decisions. Curr Opin Toxicol. 15:64–75.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Harvey BG, Heguy A, Leopold PL, Carolan BJ, Ferris B, Crystal RG. 2007. Modification of gene expression of the small airway epithelium in response to cigarette smoking. J Mol Med. 85(1):39–53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hou Y, Wang X, Li L, Fan R, Chen J, Zhu T, Li W, Jiang Y, Mittal N, Wu W, et al. 2015. FHL2 regulates hematopoietic stem cell functions under stress conditions. Leukemia. 29(3):615–624.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ilnytskyy Y, Zemp FJ, Koturbash I, Kovalchuk O. 2008. Altered microRNA expression patterns in irradiated hematopoietic tissues suggest a sex-specific protective mechanism. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 377(1):41–45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson AF, Williams A, Recio L, Waters MD, Lambert IB, Yauk CL. 2014. Case study on the utility of hepatic global gene expression profiling in the risk assessment of the carcinogen furan. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 274(1):63–77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khatri P, Sirota M, Butte AJ. 2012. Ten years of pathway analysis: current approaches and outstanding challenges. PLOS Comput Biol. 8(2):e1002375.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krewski D, Andersen ME, Tyshenko MG, Krishnan K, Hartung T, Boekelheide K, Wambaugh JF, Jones D, Whelan M, Thomas R, et al. 2020. Toxicity testing in the 21st century: progress in the past decade and future perspectives. Arch Toxicol. 94(1):1–58.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kyrtopoulos SA. 2013. Making sense of OMICS data in population-based environmental health studies. Environ Mol Mutagen. 54(7):468–479.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Labib S, Williams A, Yauk CL, Nikota JK, Wallin H, Vogel U, Halappanavar S. 2016. Nano-risk Science: Application of toxicogenomics in an adverse outcome pathway framework for risk assessment of multi-walled carbon nanotubes. Part Fibre Toxicol. 13:15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landi MT, Dracheva T, Rotunno M, Figueroa JD, Liu H, Dasgupta A, Mann FE, Fukuoka J, Hames M, Bergen AW, et al. 2008. Gene expression signature of cigarette smoking and its role in lung adenocarcinoma development and survival. PLOS One. 3(2):e1651.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laurier D, Rühm W, Paquet F, Applegate K, Cool D, Clement C. 2021. Areas of research to support the system of radiological protection. Radiat Environ Biophys. 60(4):519–530.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lodovici M, Luceri C, De Filippo C, Romualdi C, Bambi F, Dolara P. 2007. Smokers and passive smokers gene expression profiles: correlation with the DNA oxidation damage. Free Radic Biol Med. 43(3):415–422.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• López-Nieva P, Malavé M, González-Sánchez L, Fernández-Piqueras J, Fernández-Navarro P, Santos J. 2016. Transcriptomic analysis reveals sex-specific differences in the expression of Dcl1 and Fis1 genes in the radio-adaptive response of thymocytes to TRP53-mediated apoptosis. BMC Genomics. 17(1):12.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Meadows SK, Dressman HK, Muramoto GG, Himburg H, Salter A, Wei Z, Ginsburg GS, Ginsburg G, Chao NJ, Nevins JR, et al. 2008. Gene expression signatures of radiation response are specific, durable and accurate in mice and humans. PLOS One. 3(4):e1912.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Narendran N, Luzhna L, Kovalchuk O. 2019. Sex difference of radiation response in occupational and accidental exposure. Front Genet. 10(260):260.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• National Toxicology Program. 2018. NTP research report on national toxicology program approach to genomic dose-response modeling. In NTP research report on national toxicology program approach to genomic dose-response modeling: research report 5. National Toxicology Program. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK531562/.
   Google Scholar
• Paul S, Amundson SA. 2008. Development of gene expression signatures for practical radiation biodosimetry. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 71(4):1236–1244.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paul S, Amundson SA. 2011. Gene expression signatures of radiation exposure in peripheral white blood cells of smokers and non-smokers. Int J Radiat Biol. 87(8):791–801.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips JR, Svoboda DL, Tandon A, Patel S, Sedykh A, Mav D, Kuo B, Yauk CL, Yang L, Thomas RS, et al. 2019. BMDExpress 2: enhanced transcriptomic dose-response analysis workflow. Bioinformatics. 35(10):1780–1782.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pogribny I, Raiche J, Slovack M, Kovalchuk O. 2004. Dose-dependence, sex- and tissue-specificity, and persistence of radiation-induced genomic DNA methylation changes. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 320(4):1253–1261.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qutob SS, Chauhan V, Kuo B, Williams A, Yauk CL, McNamee JP, Gollapudi B. 2018. The application of transcriptional benchmark dose modeling for deriving thresholds of effects associated with solar-simulated ultraviolet radiation exposure. Environ Mol Mutagen. 59(6):502–515.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramaiahgari SC, Auerbach SS, Saddler TO, Rice JR, Dunlap PE, Sipes NS, Devito MJ, Shah RR, Bushel PR, Merrick BA, et al. 2019. The power of resolution: contextualized understanding of biological responses to liver injury chemicals using high-throughput transcriptomics and benchmark concentration modeling. Toxicol Sci. 169(2):553–566.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sand S, Victorin K, Filipsson AF. 2008. The current state of knowledge on the use of the benchmark dose concept in risk assessment. J Appl Toxicol. 28(4):405–421.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scholl FA, McLoughlin P, Ehler E, De Giovanni C, Schäfer BW. 2000. DRAL is a p53-responsive gene whose four and a half LIM domain protein product induces apoptosis. J Cell Biol. 151(3):495–505.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas RS, Philbert MA, Auerbach SS, Wetmore BA, Devito MJ, Cote I, Rowlands JC, Whelan MP, Hays SM, Andersen ME, et al. 2013. Incorporating new technologies into toxicity testing and risk assessment: moving from 21st century vision to a data-driven framework. Toxicol Sci. 136(1):4–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. Benchmark dose technical guidance. In (EPA/100/R-12/001) https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-01/documents/benchmark_dose_guidance.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Webster AF, Zumbo P, Fostel J, Gandara J, Hester SD, Recio L, Williams A, Wood CE, Yauk CL, Mason CE. 2015. Mining the archives: a cross-platform analysis of gene expression profiles in archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues. Toxicol Sci. 148(2):460–472.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang L, Allen BC, Thomas RS. 2007. BMDExpress: a software tool for the benchmark dose analyses of genomic data. BMC Genomics. 8(387):387–388.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar