Toxicogenomics Strategies for Predicting Drug Toxicity

• Kola I , LandisJ: Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates?Nat. Rev. Drug Discov.3 , 711–715 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barros S : The importance of applying toxicogenomics to increase the efficiency of drug discovery.Pharmacogenomics6 , 547–550 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Natsoulis G , GhaouiL, LanckrietG et al.: Classification of a large microaray data set: algorithm comparison and analysis of drug signatures. Genome Res.15 , 724–736 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raghavan N , AmaratungaD, NieA, McMillianM: Class prediction in toxicogenomics.J. Biopharm. Stat.15 , 327–341 (2004).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahmed S , GogalR, WalshJ: A new rapid and non-radioactive assay to monitor and determine the proliferation of lymphocytes.J. Immunol. Meth.170 , 211–224 (1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irizarry R , HobbsB, ColinF et al.: Exploration, normalization and summaries of high density oligonucleotide array probe level data. Biostatistics2 , 249–264 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Friedman J : Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine.Ann. Stat.29 , 1189–1232 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Breiman L , FriedmanJ, OlshenR, StoneC: Classification and Regression Trees. Chapman and Hall, New York, USA (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Luenberger D : Linear and Nonlinear Programming (Second Edition). Springer, Berlin, Germany (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Svetnik V , WangT, TongC, LiawA, SheridanR, SongQ: Boosting: an ensemble learning tool for compound classification and QSAR modeling.J. Chem. Inf. Model.45 , 786–799 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu B , AbbottT, FishmanD et al.: Comparison of statistical methods for classification of ovarian cancer using mass spectrometry data. Bioinformatics19 , 1636–1643 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer D , LeischF, HornikK: The support vector machine under test.Neurocomputing55 , 169–186 (2003).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svetnik V , LiawA, TongC, CulbersonC, SheridanR, FeustonP: Random forest: a classification and regression tool for compound classification and QSAR modeling.J. Chem. Inf. Com. Sci.43 , 1947–1958 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Martin R , YuK: Assessing performance of prediction rules in machine learning.Pharmacogenomics7 , 543–550 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breiman L : Statistical modeling: the two cultures.Stat. Sci.16 , 199–231 (2001).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Efron B : Estimating the error rate of a prediction rule.J. Am. Stat. Assoc.78 , 316–331 (1983).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Efron B , TibshiraniR: Improvements on cross-validation: the .632+ bootstrap method.J. Am. Stat. Assoc.92 , 548–560 (1997).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Therneau T , AtkinsonE: An introduction to recursive partitioning using the RPART routines.Mayo Clinic Technical Report61 , (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Hastie T , TibshiraniR, FriedmanJ: The Elements of Statistical Learning. Springer Verlag, New York, USA (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Irizarry R , WarrenD, SpencerF et al.: Multiple-laboratory comparison of microarray platforms. Nat. Methods2 , 345–349 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larkin J , FrankB, GavrasH, SultanaR, QuackenbushJ: Independence and reproducibility across microarray platforms.Nat. Methods2 , 337–343 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Members of the Toxicogenomics Research Consortium: Standardizing global gene expression analysis between laboratories and across platforms. Nat. Methods2 , 351–356 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benjamini Y , HochbergY: Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing.J. R. Statist. Soc. B57 , 289–300 (1995).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jessen B , MullinsJ, de Peyster A, Stevens G: Assessment of hepatocytes and liver slices as in vitro test systems to predict in vivo gene expression. Toxicol. Sci.75 , 209–222 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Kaplowitz N : Idiosyncratic drug hepatotoxicity.Nat. Rev. Drug Discov.4 , 489–499 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodriquez-Garay E : Cholestasis: human disease and experimental animal models.Ann. Hepatol.2 , 150–158 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gosselin R , SmithR, HodgeH: Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products. Fifth Edition Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, USA (1984).
   Google Scholar
• Perez C , BosiaJ, CantoreM et al.: Liver damage in workers exposed to hydrocarbons. Gastroenterol. Hepatol.29 , 334–337 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Environmental Health Criteria, Number 208. Carbon Tetrachloride. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Moody D , ReddyJ, LakeB, PoppJ, Reese D: Peroxisome proliferation and nongenotoxic carcinogenesis. Commentary on a symposium. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol.16 , 233–248 (1991).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conway J , TomaszewskiK, OlsonM, CattleyR, MarsmanD, PoppJ: Relationship of oxidative damage to the hepatocarcinogenicity of the peroxisome proliferators di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and Wy-14,643.Carcinogenesis10 , 513–519 (1989).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woodyatt N , LambeK, MyersK, Tugwood J, Roberts R: The peroxisome proliferator (PP) response element upstream of the human acyl CoA oxidase gene is inactive among a sample human population: significance for species differences in response to PPs. Carcinogenesis20 , 369–372 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen D , AnaniaF, ChalasaniN: An assessment of statin safety by hepatologists.Am. J. Cardiol.97 , S77–S81 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Website

• Affymetrix: NetAffx™ Analysis Center www.affymetrix.com/analysis/index.affx
   Google Scholar