Chemical-induced liver cancer: an adverse outcome pathway perspective

References

• Alves VM, Muratov EN, Zakharov A, et al. Chemical toxicity prediction for major classes of industrial chemicals: is it possible to develop universal models covering cosmetics, drugs, and pesticides? Food Chem Toxicol. 2018;112:526–534. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2017.04.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sayiner M, Golabi P, Younossi ZM. Disease burden of hepatocellular carcinoma: a global perspective. Dig Dis Sci. 2019;64(4):910–917. doi: 10.1007/s10620-019-05537-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yauk CL, Harrill AH, Ellinger-Ziegelbauer H, et al. A cross-sector call to improve carcinogenicity risk assessment through use of genomic methodologies. Reg Toxicol Pharm. 2020;110:104526. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2019.104526
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Union (EU). EC directive 2003/15/EC amending directive 78/786/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to cosmetic products. Off J Eur Union. 2003;66:26–35.
   Google Scholar
• Bajard L, Adamovsky O, Audouze K, et al. Application of AOPs to assist regulatory assessment of chemical risks – case studies, needs and recommendations. Environ Res. 2023;217:114650. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2022.114650
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Estabrook RW, Birt D, Carlson GP, et al. P450 superfamily: update on new sequences, gene mapping, accession numbers and nomenclature. Pharmacogenetics. 1996;6(1):1–42. doi: 10.1097/00008571-199602000-00002
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vinken M. Adverse outcome pathways as tools to assess drug-induced toxicity. In: Benfenati E, editor. Silico Methods For Predicting Drug Toxicity. Vol. 1425, Methods in Molecular Biology. New York, NY: Humana press; 2016. p. 325–337. doi: 10.1242/dmm.049010
   Google Scholar
• Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. The hallmarks of cancer. Cell. 2000;100(1):57–70. doi: 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81683-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanahan D. Hallmarks of cancer: new dimensions. Cancer Discov. 2022;12(1):31–46. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-21-1059
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith MT, Guyton KZ, Gibbons CF, et al. Key characteristics of carcinogens as a basis for organizing data on mechanisms of carcinogenesis. Environ Health Perspect. 2016;124(6):713–721. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1509912
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith MT, Guyton KZ, Kleinstreuer N, et al. The key characteristics of carcinogens: relationship to the hallmarks of cancer, relevant biomarkers, and assays to measure them. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2020;29(10):1887–1903. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-19-1346
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brescia S, Alexander-White C, Li H, et al. Risk assessment in the 21st century: where are we heading? Toxicol Res. 2023;12(1):1–11. doi: 10.1093/toxres/tfac087
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). U.S. EPA conference on the state of the science on development and use of New Approach Methods (NAMs); 2022. p. 1–31.
   Google Scholar
• European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). New approach methodologies in regulatory science. 2016.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. Toxicity testing in the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Krewski D, Andersen ME, Tyshenko MG, et al. Toxicity testing in the 21st century: progress in the past decade and future perspectives. Arch Toxicol. 2020;94(1):1–58. doi: 10.1007/s00204-019-02613-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Revised guidance document on developing and assessing adverse outcome pathways. Paris, France: OECD; 2017. ENV/JM/MONO(2013)6.
   Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Draft guidance document for the scientific review of adverse outcome pathways. Paris, France: OECD; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Knapen D, Angrish MM, Fortin MC, et al. Adverse outcome pathway networks I: development and applications. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2018;37(6):1723–1733. doi: 10.1002/etc.4125
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). AOP-Wiki [Internet]. [cited 2023 Aug 31]. Available from: https://aopwiki.org/
   Google Scholar
• Babiker S, Lotfollahzadeh A, Recio-Boiles HM. Liver cancer. Treasure Island: StatPearls Publishing; 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Burden N, Sewell F, Andersen ME, et al. Adverse outcome pathways can drive non‐animal approaches for safety assessment. J Appl Toxicol. 2015;35(9):971–975. doi: 10.1002/jat.3165
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green T, Toghill A, Lee R, et al. Thiamethoxam induced mouse liver tumors and their relevance to humans. Toxicol Sci. 2005;86(1):36–47. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfi124
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institutes of Health. Thiamethoxam (CAS#153719-23-4) GreenScreen® for safer chemicals assessment. 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Calvisi DF, Pinna F, Ladu S, et al. Aberrant iNOS signaling is under genetic control in rodent liver cancer and potentially prognostic for the human disease. Carcinogenesis. 2008;29(8):1639–1647. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgn155
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). Thiamethoxam. Helsinki, Finland: ECHA; 2018. CLH-O-0000006724-70-01/F.
   Google Scholar
• Pest management regulatory agency health Canada. Evaluation report - Thiamethoxam. 2007. p. 1–96.
   Google Scholar
• Pascale RM, Frau M, Feo F. Prognostic significance of iNOS in hepatocellular carcinoma. In: Bonavida B, editor. Nitric Oxide (NO) and cancer. Cancer Drug Discovery and Development. New York, NY: Springer; 2010. p. 309–328. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-1432-3_17
   Google Scholar
• Wang R, Geller DA, Wink DA, et al. NO and hepatocellular cancer. Br J Pharmacol. 2020;177(24):5459–5466. doi: 10.1111/bph.14838
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dios-Barbeito S, González R, Cadenas M, et al. Impact of nitric oxide in liver cancer microenvironment. Nitric Oxide. 2022;128:1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.niox.2022.07.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pastoor T, Rose P, Lloyd S, et al. Case study: weight of evidence evaluation of the human health relevance of thiamethoxam-related mouse liver tumors. Toxicol Sci. 2005;86(1):56–60. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfi126
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dubois V, Eeckhoute J, Lefebvre P, et al. Distinct but complementary contributions of PPAR isotypes to energy homeostasis. J Clin Invest. 2017;127(4):1202–1214. doi: 10.1172/JCI88894
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang Y, Nakajima T, Gonzalez FJ, et al. Ppars as metabolic regulators in the liver: lessons from liver-specific PPAR-null mice. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(6):2061. doi: 10.3390/ijms21062061
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hays T. Role of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor- (PPAR) in bezafibrate-induced hepatocarcinogenesis and cholestasis. Carcinogenesis. 2004;26(1):219–227. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgh285
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang Q, Ito S, Gonzalez FJ. Hepatocyte-restricted constitutive activation of PPAR induces hepatoproliferation but not hepatocarcinogenesis. Carcinogenesis. 2007;28(6):1171–1177. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgm046
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corton JC, Peters JM, Klaunig JE. The PPARα-dependent rodent liver tumor response is not relevant to humans: addressing misconceptions. Arch Toxicol. 2018;92(1):83–119. doi: 10.1007/s00204-017-2094-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamada T, Cohen SM, Lake BG. Critical evaluation of the human relevance of the mode of action for rodent liver tumor formation by activators of the constitutive androstane receptor (CAR). Crit Rev Toxicol. 2021;51(5):373–394. doi: 10.1080/10408444.2021.1939654
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiao Y, Cai S, Liu L, et al. Decreased expression of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha indicates unfavorable outcomes in hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Manag Res. 2018;10:1781–1789. doi: 10.2147/CMAR.S166971
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meng F-G, Zhang X-N, Liu S-X, et al. Roles of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α in the pathogenesis of ethanol-induced liver disease. Chem Biol Interact. 2020;327:109176. doi: 10.1016/j.cbi.2020.109176
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keshamouni VG, Han S, Roman J. Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors in lung cancer. PPAR Res. 2007;2007:1–10. doi: 10.1155/2007/90289
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang C-Y, Chao Y-J, Chen Y-L, et al. Upregulation of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-α and the lipid metabolism pathway promotes carcinogenesis of ampullary cancer. Int J Med Sci. 2021;18(1):256–269. doi: 10.7150/ijms.48123
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Filgo AJ, Quist EM, Hoenerhoff MJ, et al. Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)–induced liver lesions in two strains of mice following developmental exposures. Toxicol Pathol. 2015;43(4):558–568. doi: 10.1177/0192623314558463
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Budinsky RA, Schrenk D, Simon T, et al. Mode of action and dose–response framework analysis for receptor-mediated toxicity: the aryl hydrocarbon receptor as a case study. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2014;44(1):83–119. doi: 10.3109/10408444.2013.835787
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becker RA, Patlewicz G, Simon TW, et al. The adverse outcome pathway for rodent liver tumor promotion by sustained activation of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor. Reg Toxicol Pharm. 2015;73(1):172–190. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.06.015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van den Berg M, Birnbaum LS, Denison M, et al. The 2005 World Health Organization reevaluation of human and mammalian toxic equivalency factors for dioxins and dioxin-like compounds. Toxicol Sci. 2006;93:223–241. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfl055
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens EA, Mezrich JD, Bradfield CA. The aryl hydrocarbon receptor: a perspective on potential roles in the immune system. Immunology. 2009;127(3):299–311. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2567.2009.03054.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gasiewicz TA, Henry EC, Collins LL. Expression and activity of aryl hydrocarbon receptors in development and cancer. Crit Rev Eukaryot Gene Expr. 2008;18(4):279–321. doi: 10.1615/CritRevEukarGeneExpr.v18.i4.10
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AOP 41 [Internet]. Available from: https://aopwiki.org/aops/41
   Google Scholar
• Paku S, Schnur J, Nagy P, et al. Origin and structural evolution of the early proliferating oval cells in rat liver. Am J Pathol. 2001;158(4):1313–1323. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9440(10)64082-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hailey JR, Walker NJ, Sells DM, et al. Classification of proliferative hepatocellular lesions in harlan sprague–dawley rats chronically exposed to dioxin-like compounds. Toxicol Pathol. 2005;33(1):165–174. doi: 10.1080/01926230590888324
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon TW, Simons SS, Preston RJ, et al. The use of mode of action information in risk assessment: quantitative key events/dose-response framework for modeling the dose-response for key events. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2014;44(sup3):17–43. doi: 10.3109/10408444.2014.931925
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rushing BR, Selim MI. Aflatoxin B1: A review on metabolism, toxicity, occurrence in food, occupational exposure, and detoxification methods. Food Chem Toxicol. 2019;124:81–100. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2018.11.047
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore MM, Schoeny RS, Becker RA, et al. Development of an adverse outcome pathway for chemically induced hepatocellular carcinoma: case study of AFB1, a human carcinogen with a mutagenic mode of action. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2018;48(4):312–337. doi: 10.1080/10408444.2017.1423462
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCullough AK, Lloyd RS. Mechanisms underlying aflatoxin-associated mutagenesis – implications in carcinogenesis. DNA Repair. 2019;77:76–86. doi: 10.1016/j.dnarep.2019.03.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li J, Liu M. The carcinogenicity of Aflatoxin B1. In: Long X-D, editor. Aflatoxin B1 Occurrence, Detection and Toxicological Effects. London, UK: IntechOpen; 2020. p. 1–12. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.88353
   Google Scholar
• Cao W, Yu P, Yang K, et al. Aflatoxin B1: metabolism, toxicology, and its involvement in oxidative stress and cancer development. Toxicol Mech Methods. 2022;32(6):395–419. doi: 10.1080/15376516.2021.2021339
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owumi SE, Irozuru CE, Arunsi UO, et al. Caffeic acid protects against DNA damage, oxidative and inflammatory mediated toxicities, and upregulated caspases activation in the hepatorenal system of rats treated with aflatoxin B1. Toxicon. 2022;207:1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.toxicon.2021.12.021
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bedard LL, Massey TE. Aflatoxin B1-induced DNA damage and its repair. Cancer Lett. 2006;241(2):174–183. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2005.11.018
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mace K. Aflatoxin B1-induced DNA adduct formation and p53 mutations in CYP450- expressing human liver cell lines. Carcinogenesis. 1997;18(7):1291–1297. doi: 10.1093/carcin/18.7.1291
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh KB, Maurya BK, Trigun SK. Activation of oxidative stress and inflammatory factors could account for histopathological progression of aflatoxin-B1 induced hepatocarcinogenesis in rat. Mol Cell Biochem. 2015;401(1–2):185–196. doi: 10.1007/s11010-014-2306-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chawanthayatham S, Valentine CC, Fedeles BI, et al. Mutational spectra of aflatoxin B1 in vivo establish biomarkers of exposure for human hepatocellular carcinoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2017;114(15):E3101–E3109. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1700759114
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smela ME, Hamm ML, Henderson PT, et al. The aflatoxin B1 formamidopyrimidine adduct plays a major role in causing the types of mutations observed in human hepatocellular carcinoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2002;99(10):6655–6660. doi: 10.1073/pnas.102167699
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engin AB, Engin A. DNA damage checkpoint response to aflatoxin B1. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol. 2019;65:90–96. doi: 10.1016/j.etap.2018.12.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang H, Liao P, Zeng SX, et al. It takes a team: a gain-of-function story of p53-R249S. J Mol Cell Biol. 2019;11(4):277–283. doi: 10.1093/jmcb/mjy086
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira RG, Cardoso MV, de Souza Furtado KM, et al. Epigenetic alterations caused by aflatoxin b1: a public health risk in the induction of hepatocellular carcinoma. Transl Res. 2019;204:51–71. doi: 10.1016/j.trsl.2018.09.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foley JF, Elgart B, Phadke D, et al. Whole exome and transcript profiling of liver following aflatoxin B1 exposure in rats. J Appl Toxicol. 2023;43(9):1293–1305. doi: 10.1002/jat.4463
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gramantieri L, Gnudi F, Vasuri F, et al. Aflatoxin B1 DNA-adducts in hepatocellular carcinoma from a low exposure area. Nutrients. 2022;14(8):1652. doi: 10.3390/nu14081652
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang MN, Yu W, Teoh WW, et al. Genome-scale mutational signatures of aflatoxin in cells, mice, and human tumors. Genome Res. 2017;27(9):1475–1486. doi: 10.1101/gr.220038.116
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swales K, Negishi M. CAR, driving into the future. Mol Endocrinol. 2004;18(7):1589–1598. doi: 10.1210/me.2003-0397
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Peffer RC, Cowie DE, Currie RA, et al. Sedaxane—use of nuclear receptor transactivation assays, toxicogenomics, and toxicokinetics as part of a mode of action framework for rodent liver tumors. Toxicol Sci. 2018;162(2):582–598. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfx281
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Columbano A, Ledda-Columbano GM, Pibiri M, et al. Gadd45β is induced through a CAR-dependent, TNF-independent pathway in murine liver hyperplasia. Hepatology. 2005;42(5):1118–1126. doi: 10.1002/hep.20883
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoshinari K. Role of nuclear receptors PXR and CAR in xenobiotic-induced hepatocyte proliferation and chemical carcinogenesis. Biol Pharm Bull. 2019;42(8):1243–1252. doi: 10.1248/bpb.b19-00267
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oshida K, Vasani N, Jones C, et al. Identification of chemical modulators of the constitutive activated receptor (CAR) in a gene expression compendium. Nucl Recept Signal. 2015;13(1):e002. doi: 10.1621/nrs.13002
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yamada T, Uwagawa S, Okuno Y, et al. Case study: an evaluation of the human relevance of the synthetic pyrethroid metofluthrin-induced liver tumors in rats based on mode of action. Toxicol Sci. 2009;108(1):59–68. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfp007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Omiecinski CJ, Coslo DM, Chen T, et al. Multi-species analyses of direct activators of the constitutive androstane receptor. Toxicol Sci. 2011;123(2):550–562. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfr191
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• La Vecchia C, Negri E. A review of epidemiological data on epilepsy, phenobarbital, and risk of liver cancer. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2014;23(1):1–7. doi: 10.1097/CEJ.0b013e32836014c8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lake BG, Price RJ, Osimitz TG. Mode of action analysis for pesticide-induced rodent liver tumours involving activation of the constitutive androstane receptor: relevance to human cancer risk. Pest Manag Sci. 2015;71(6):829–834. doi: 10.1002/ps.3854
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li Z, Kwon SM, Li D, et al. Human constitutive androstane receptor represses liver cancer development and hepatoma cell proliferation by inhibiting erythropoietin signaling. J Biol Chem. 2022;298(5):101885. doi: 10.1016/j.jbc.2022.101885
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cairns RA, Harris IS, Mak TW. Regulation of cancer cell metabolism. Nat Rev Cancer. 2011;11(2):85–95. doi: 10.1038/nrc2981
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward PS, Thompson CB. Metabolic reprogramming: a cancer hallmark Rven Warburg did not anticipate. Cancer Cell. 2012;21(3):297–308. doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2012.02.014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sutendra G, Michelakis ED. Pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase as a novel therapeutic target in oncology. Front Oncol. 2013;3:38. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2013.00038
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gray LR, Tompkins SC, Taylor EB. Regulation of pyruvate metabolism and human disease. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2014;71(14):2577–2604. doi: 10.1007/s00018-013-1539-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang X, Shen X, Yan Y, et al. Pyruvate dehydrogenase kinases (PDKs): an overview toward clinical applications. Biosci Rep. 2021;41(4):41. doi: 10.1042/BSR20204402
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gudi R, Melissa M-K, Kedishvili NY, et al. Diversity of the pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase gene family in humans. J Biol Chem. 1995;270(48):28989–28994. doi: 10.1074/jbc.270.48.28989
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Toxicological review of dichloroacetic acid. Washington, DC: EPA; 2003. EPA/635/R-03/007.
   Google Scholar
• Wigfield SM, Winter SC, Giatromanolaki A, et al. PDK-1 regulates lactate production in hypoxia and is associated with poor prognosis in head and neck squamous cancer. Br J Cancer. 2008;98(12):1975–1984. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604356
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Su D, Lin Z. Dichloroacetate attenuates the stemness of hepatocellular carcinoma cells via promoting nucleus‐cytoplasm translocation of YAP. Environ Toxicol. 2021;36(5):975–983. doi: 10.1002/tox.23098
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Font-Díaz J, Jiménez-Panizo A, Caelles C, et al. Nuclear receptors: lipid and hormone sensors with essential roles in the control of cancer development. Semin Cancer Biol. 2021;73:58–75. doi: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2020.12.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeh S-H, Chen P-J. Gender disparity of hepatocellular carcinoma: the roles of sex hormones. Oncology. 2010;78(Suppl. 1):172–179. doi: 10.1159/000315247
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song H, Yu Z, Sun X, et al. Androgen receptor drives hepatocellular carcinogenesis by activating enhancer of zeste homolog 2-mediated Wnt/β-catenin signaling. EBioMedicine. 2018;35:155–166. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2018.08.043
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feitelson MA, Arzumanyan A, Kulathinal RJ, et al. Sustained proliferation in cancer: mechanisms and novel therapeutic targets. Semin Cancer Biol. 2015;35:S25–S54. doi: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2015.02.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulte-Hermann R, Schuppler J, Timmermann-Trosiener I, et al. The role of growth of normal and preneoplastic cell populations for tumor promotion in rat liver. Environ Health Perspect. 1983;50:185–194. doi: 10.1289/ehp.8350185
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ma W, Hsu C, Wu M, et al. Androgen receptor is a new potential therapeutic target for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology. 2008;135(3):947–955.e5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2008.05.046
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tian Y, Xie X, Lin Y, et al. Androgen receptor in hepatocarcinogenesis: recent developments and perspectives. Oncol Lett. 2015;9(5):1983–1988. doi: 10.3892/ol.2015.3025
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montgomery EJ, Xing E, Campbell MJ, et al. Constitutively active androgen receptor in hepatocellular carcinoma. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23(22):13768. doi: 10.3390/ijms232213768
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banerjee A, De P, Kumar V, et al. Quick and efficient quantitative predictions of androgen receptor binding affinity for screening endocrine disruptor chemicals using 2D-QSAR and chemical read-across. Chemosphere. 2022;309:136579. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.136579
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Felter SP, Foreman JE, Boobis A, et al. Human relevance of rodent liver tumors: key insights from a toxicology forum workshop on nongenotoxic modes of action. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2018;92:1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2017.11.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Adverse outcome pathway on Cyp2E1 activation leading to liver cancer. In: OECD Series On Adverse Outcome Pathways. Vol. 19. Paris, France: OECD Publishing; 2021. p. 1–65. doi: 10.1787/56e9bbf0-en
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Toxicological review of chloroform. Washington, DC: EPA; 2001. EPA/635/R-01/001.
   Google Scholar
• Meek ME, Bucher JR, Cohen SM, et al. A framework for human relevance analysis of information on carcinogenic modes of action. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2003;33(6):591–653. doi: 10.1080/713608373
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fukunaga S, Ogata K, Eguchi A, et al. Evaluation of the mode of action and human relevance of liver tumors in male mice treated with epyrifenacil. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2022;136:105268. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2022.105268
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown E, Yedjou CG, Tchounwou PB. Cytotoxicity and oxidative stress in human liver carcinoma cells exposed to arsenic trioxide (HepG(2)). Met Ions Biol Med. 2008;10:583–587.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cohen SM. Evaluation of possible carcinogenic risk to humans based on liver tumors in rodent assays. Toxicol Pathol. 2010;38(3):487–501. doi: 10.1177/0192623310363813
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolf DC, Cohen SM, Boobis AR, et al. Chemical carcinogenicity revisited: a unified theory of carcinogenicity based on contemporary knowledge. Reg Toxicol Pharm. 2019;103:86–92. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2019.01.021
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holsapple MP, Pitot HC, Cohen SH, et al. Mode of action in relevance of rodent liver tumors to human cancer risk. Toxicol Sci. 2006;89(1):51–56. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfj001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park W-J, Kim S-Y, Kim Y-R, et al. Bortezomib alleviates drug-induced liver injury by regulating CYP2E1 gene transcription. Int J Mol Med. 2016;37(3):613–622. doi: 10.3892/ijmm.2016.2461
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shi Y, Liu Y, Wang S, et al. Endoplasmic reticulum-targeted inhibition of CYP2E1 with vitamin E nanoemulsions alleviates hepatocyte oxidative stress and reverses alcoholic liver disease. Biomaterials. 2022;288:121720. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2022.121720
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quintanilha JCF, de Sousa VM, Visacri MB, et al. Involvement of cytochrome P450 in cisplatin treatment: implications for toxicity. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2017;80(2):223–233. doi: 10.1007/s00280-017-3358-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiang C, Teng Y, Yao C, et al. Antioxidant properties of flavonoid derivatives and their hepatoprotective effects on CCl4 induced acute liver injury in mice. RSC Adv. 2018;8(28):15366–15371. doi: 10.1039/C8RA02523A
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ankley GT, Bennett RS, Erickson RJ, et al. Adverse outcome pathways: a conceptual framework to support ecotoxicology research and risk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2010;29(3):730–741. doi: 10.1002/etc.34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corton JC, Hill T, Sutherland JJ, et al. A set of six gene expression biomarkers identify rat liver tumorigens in short-term assays. Toxicol Sci. 2020;177(1):11–26. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfaa101
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rooney J, Hill T, Qin C, et al. Adverse outcome pathway-driven identification of rat liver tumorigens in short-term assays. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2018;356:99–113. doi: 10.1016/j.taap.2018.07.023
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Users’ handbook supplement to the guidance document for developing and assessing adverse outcome pathways. In: OECD Series On Adverse Outcome Pathways. Vol. 1. Paris, France: OECD Publishing; 2018. p. 1–63. doi: 10.1787/5jlv1m9d1g32-en
   Google Scholar
• Sewell F, Gellatly N, Beaumont M, et al. The future trajectory of adverse outcome pathways: a commentary. Arch Toxicol. 2018;92(4):1657–1661. doi: 10.1007/s00204-018-2183-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnesdotter E, Spinu N, Firman J, et al. Derivation, characterisation and analysis of an adverse outcome pathway network for human hepatotoxicity. Toxicology. 2021;459:152856. doi: 10.1016/j.tox.2021.152856
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patlewicz G, Simon TW, Rowlands JC, et al. Proposing a scientific confidence framework to help support the application of adverse outcome pathways for regulatory purposes. Reg Toxicol Pharm. 2015;71(3):463–477. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.02.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gijbels E, Vinken M. An update on adverse outcome pathways leading to liver injury. Appl In Vitro Toxicol. 2017;3(4):283–285. doi: 10.1089/aivt.2017.0027
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kurosaki K, Uesawa Y. Molecular initiating events associated with drug-induced liver malignant tumors: an integrated study of the FDA adverse event reporting system and toxicity predictions. Biomolecules. 2021;11(7):944. doi: 10.3390/biom11070944
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen C. Mechanisms of hepatocellular carcinoma and challenges and opportunities for molecular targeted therapy. World J Hepatol. 2015;7(15):1964. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v7.i15.1964
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corradi MPF, de Haan AM, Staumont B, et al. Natural language processing in toxicology: delineating adverse outcome pathways and guiding the application of new approach methodologies. Biomater Byosyst. 2022;7:100061. doi: 10.1016/j.bbiosy.2022.100061
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• van Ertvelde J, Verhoeven A, Maerten A, et al. Optimization of an adverse outcome pathway network on chemical-induced cholestasis using an artificial intelligence-assisted data collection and confidence level quantification approach. J Biomed Inform. 2023;145:104465. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2023.104465
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang J, van Ertvelde J, Ertaylan G, et al. Unraveling the mechanisms underlying drug-induced cholestatic liver injury: identifying key genes using machine learning techniques on human in vitro data sets. Arch Toxicol. 2023;97(11):2969–2981. doi: 10.1007/s00204-023-03583-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anstee QM, Reeves HL, Kotsiliti E, et al. From NASH to HCC: current concepts and future challenges. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;16(7):411–428. doi: 10.1038/s41575-019-0145-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donne R, Lujambio A. The liver cancer immune microenvironment: Therapeutic implications for hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology. 2023;77(5):1773–1796. doi: 10.1002/hep.32740
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guo C, Tang Y, Yang Z, et al. Hallmark-guided subtypes of hepatocellular carcinoma for the identification of immune-related gene classifiers in the prediction of prognosis, treatment efficacy, and drug candidates. Front Immunol. 2022;13:958161. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.958161
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becker RA, Ankley GT, Edwards SW, et al. Increasing scientific confidence in adverse outcome pathways: application of tailored bradford-hill considerations for evaluating weight of evidence. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2015;72(3):514–537. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.04.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villeneuve DL, Crump D, Garcia-Reyero N, et al. Adverse outcome pathway (AOP) development I: strategies and principles. Toxicol Sci. 2014;142(2):312–320. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfu199
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perkins EJ, Ashauer R, Burgoon L, et al. Building and applying quantitative adverse outcome pathway models for chemical hazard and risk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2019;38(9):1850–1865. doi: 10.1002/etc.4505
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen H-J, Hu M-H, Xu F-G, et al. Understanding the inflammation-cancer transformation in the development of primary liver cancer. Hepatoma Res. 2018;4(7):29. doi: 10.20517/2394-5079.2018.18
   Google Scholar
• Gao S, Jiang X, Wang L, et al. The pathogenesis of liver cancer and the therapeutic potential of bioactive substances. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13:1029601. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.1029601
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou S, Yin D, Hu Z, et al. A positive feedback loop between cancer stem‐like cells and tumor‐associated neutrophils controls hepatocellular carcinoma progression. Hepatology. 2019;70(4):1214–1230. doi: 10.1002/hep.30630
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nohmi T. Thresholds of genotoxic and non-genotoxic carcinogens. Toxicol Res. 2018;34(4):281–290. doi: 10.5487/TR.2018.34.4.281
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menz J, Götz ME, Gündel U, et al. Genotoxicity assessment: opportunities, challenges and perspectives for quantitative evaluations of dose–response data. Arch Toxicol. 2023;97(9):2303–2328. doi: 10.1007/s00204-023-03553-w
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clewell RA, Leonard JA, Nicolas CI, et al. Application of a combined aggregate exposure pathway and adverse outcome pathway (AEP-AOP) approach to inform a cumulative risk assessment: a case study with phthalates. Toxicol Vitro. 2020;66:104855. doi: 10.1016/j.tiv.2020.104855
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan Y-M, Leonard JA, Edwards S, et al. Aggregate exposure pathways in support of risk assessment. Curr Opin Toxicol. 2018;9:8–13. doi: 10.1016/j.cotox.2018.03.006
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), World Health Organization (WHO). Global cancer observatory (GCO) [Internet]. 2023. Available from: https://gco.iarc.fr/
   Google Scholar
• Hulla JE, Navarro L, Kruger CL, et al. Toxicity, subchronic and chronic. In: Wexler P, editor. Encyclopedia of Toxicology. 3rd ed. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier; 2014. p. 626–633. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-386454-3.00070-1
   Google Scholar