Assessing how in vitro assay types predict in vivo toxicology data

References

• Attene-Ramos, M., N. Miller, R. Huang, S. Michael, M. Itkin, R. Kavlock, M. Xia, P. Shinn, A. Simeonov, and R. R. Tice. 2013. The Tox21 robotic platform for assessment of environmental chemicals - from vision to reality. Drug Discov. Today 18 (15–16):716–23. doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2013.05.015.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnes, D. G., M. L. Dourson, M. Dourson, P. Preuss, D. G. Barnes, J. Bellin, C. Derosa, R. Engler, L. Erdreich, and T. Farber. 1988. Reference dose (RfD): Description and use in health risk assessments. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 8 (4):471–88. doi:10.1016/0273-2300(88)90047-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhattacharya, S., Q. Zhang, P. L. Carmichael, K. Boekelheide, M. E. Andersen, and B. Zhang. 2011. Toxicity testing in the 21st century: Defining new risk assessment approaches based on perturbation of intracellular toxicity pathways. PLoS One 6 (6):e20887. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0020887.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins, F. S., G. M. Gray, and J. R. Bucher. 2008. Transforming environmental health protection. Science 319 (5865):906–07. doi:10.1126/science.1154619.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crump, K. 1984. A new method for determining allowable daily intakes. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 4 (5):854–71. doi:10.1016/0272-0590(84)90107-6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Crump, K., B. Allen, and E. Faustman. 1995. The use of benchmark dose approach in health risk assessment. EPA/630/R-94/007, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
   Google Scholar
• Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. Benchmark dose technical guidance. EPA/100/R-12/001, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
   Google Scholar
• Environmental Protection Agency. 2018. Benchmark Dose Software (BMDS) - Version 3. Last Modified September 21, 2020. Accessed September 26, 2020. https://www.epa.gov/bmds/benchmark-dose-software-bmds-version-3
   Google Scholar
• Goldoni, M., M. V. Vettori, R. Alinovi, A. Caglieri, S. Ceccatelli, and A. Mutti. 2003. Models of neurotoxicity: Extrapolation of benchmark doses. In Vitro. Risk Anal 23 (3):505–14. doi:10.1111/1539-6924.00331.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haber, L. T., M. L. Dourson, B. C. Allen, R. C. Hertzberg, A. Parker, M. J. Vincent, A. Maier, and A. R. Boobis. 2018. Benchmark dose (BMD) modeling: Current practice, issues, and challenges. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 48 (5):387–415. doi:10.1080/10408444.2018.1430121.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han, X., N. Corson, P. Wade-Mercer, R. Gelein, J. Jiang, M. Sahu, G. Oberdorster, J. N. Finkelstein, A. Elder, and G. Oberdörster. 2012. Assessing the relevance of in vitro studies in nanotoxicology by examining correlations between in vitro and in vivo data. Toxicology 297 (1–3):1–9. doi:10.1016/j.tox.2012.03.006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hardy, A., D. Benford, T. Halldorsson, M. Jeger, K. Knutsen, S. More, and J. Schlatter. 2017. Update: Use of the benchmark dose approach in risk assessment. EFSA J 15:e04658.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsieh, J.-H., A. Sedykh, R. Huang, M. Xia, and R. R. Tice. 2015. A data analysis pipeline accounting for artifacts in Tox21 quantitative high-throughput screening assays. J. Biomol. Screen. 20 (7):887–97. doi:10.1177/1087057115581317.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Huang, R. 2016. A quantitative high-throughput screening data analysis pipeline for activity profiling. Meth. Mol. Biol. 1473:111–22.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Huang, R., M. Xia, S. Sakamuru, J. Zhao, C. Lynch, T. Zhao, H. Zhu, C. P. Austin, and A. Simeonov. 2018. Expanding biological space coverage enhances the prediction of drug adverse effects in human using in vitro activity profiles. Sci. Rep. 8 (1):3783. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-22046-w.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Huang, R., M. Xia, S. Sakamuru, J. Zhao, S. A. Shahane, M. Attene-Ramos, T. Zhao, C. P. Austin, and A. Simeonov. 2016. Modelling the Tox21 10 K chemical profiles for in vivo toxicity prediction and mechanism characterization. Nat. Commun. 7 (1):10425. doi:10.1038/ncomms10425.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hubbard, T. D., J.-H. Hsieh, C. V. Rider, N. S. Sipes, A. Sedykh, B. J. Collins, S. S. Auerbach, M. Xia, R. Huang, N. J. Walker et al.. 2019. Using Tox21 high-throughput screening assays for the evaluation of botanical and dietary supplements. Appl. In Vitro Toxicol. 5(1):10–25. doi:10.1089/aivt.2018.0020.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jarabek, A. M., M. G. Menache, J. H. Overton, M. L. Dourson, and F. J. Miller. 1989. Inhalation reference dose (RfD): An application of interspecies dosimetry modeling for risk assessment of insoluble particles. Health Phys. 57:177–83. doi:10.1097/00004032-198907001-00022.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kratchman, J., B. Wang, and G. Gray. 2018b. Which is most sensitive? Assessing responses of mice and rats in toxicity bioassays. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A 81 (7):173–83. doi:10.1080/15287394.2018.1423799.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kratchman, J., B. Wang, J. Fox, and G. Gray. 2018a. Correlation of noncancer benchmark doses in short- and long-term rodent bioassays. Risk Anal. 38 (5):1052–69. doi:10.1111/risa.12903.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krewski, D., D. Acosta, M. Andersen, H. Anderson, J. C. Bailar, K. Boekelheide, R. Brent, G. Charnley, V. G. Cheung, S. Green Jr. et al.. 2010. Toxicity testing in the 21st century: A vision and a strategy. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health B. 13(2–4):51–138. doi:10.1080/10937404.2010.483176.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marshall Protocol Knowledge Base. 2018. Differences between in vitro, in vivo, and in silico studies. Last Modified September 01, 2019. Accessed September 26, 2020. https://mpkb.org/home/patients/assessing_literature/in_vitro_studies
   Google Scholar
• McHugh, M. L. 2012. Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochem. Med. 22:276–82. doi:10.11613/BM.2012.031.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institutes of Health. 2020. Tox21 Public Data. Accessed February 2020. Tox21 Data (nih.gov)
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. 2007. Toxicity testing in the 21st century: A vision and a strategy. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
   Google Scholar
• Pham, N., S. Iyer, E. Hackett, B. Lock, M. Sandy, L. Zeise, G. Solomon, and M. Marty. 2016. Using toxcast to explore chemical activities and hazard traits: A case study with ortho-phthalates. Toxicol. Sci. 151 (2):286–301. doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfw049.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riss, T., A. Niles, R. Moravec, N. Karassina, and J. Vidugiriene. 2019. Cytoxicity assays: In vitro methods to measure dead cells. In Assay Guidance Manual, ed. S. Markossian, G. S. Sittampalam, A. Grossman, K. Brimacombe, A. Arkin, D. Auld, C. P. Austin, J. Baell, J. M. M. Caaveiro, T. D. Y. Chung, et al.. Bethesda, MD: Eli Lilly & Company and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Sand, S., F. Parham, C. J. Portier, R. R. Tice, and D. Krewski. 2017. Comparison of points of departure for health risk assessment based on high-throughput screening data. Environ. Health Perspect. 125 (4):.623–633. doi:10.1289/EHP408.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soetman-Hernandez, L. G., G. E. Johnson, and W. Slob. 2016. Estimating the carcinogenic potency of chemicals from the in vivo micronucleus test. Mutagenesis 31 (3):347–58. doi:10.1093/mutage/gev043.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, R. S., M. B. Black, L. Li, E. Healy, T. M. Chu, W. Bao, M. E. Andersen, and R. D. Wolfinger. 2012. A comprehensive statistical analysis of predicting in vivo hazard using high-throughput in vitro screening. Toxicol. Sci 128 (2):398–417. doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfs159.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, R. S., R. S. Paules, A. Simenov, S. C. Fitzpatrick, K. M. Crofton, W. M. Casey, and D. L. Mendrick. 2018. The US federal Tox21 program: A strategic and operational plan for continued leadership. ALTEX 35:163–68. doi:10.14573/altex.1803011.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Webster West, R., W. W. Piegorsch, E. A. Pena, L. An, W. Wu, A. A. Wickens, H. Xiong, and W. Chen. 2012. The impact of model uncertainty on benchmark dose estimation. Environmetrics 23 (8):706–16. doi:10.1002/env.2180.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu, H., J. Zhang, M. T. Kim, A. Boison, A. Sedykh, and K. Moran. 2014. Big data in chemical toxicity research: The use of high-throughput screening assays to identify potential toxicants. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 27 (10):1643–51. doi:10.1021/tx500145h.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar