Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T15:07:39.874Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

15 - Toxicogenomic and pathway analysis

from II - INTEGRATED APPROACHES OF PREDICTIVE TOXICOLOGY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 December 2010

Jinghai J. Xu
Affiliation:
Merck Research Laboratory, New Jersey
Laszlo Urban
Affiliation:
Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research, Massachusetts
Get access

Summary

Toxicogenomics is the use of genomic technology for evaluating toxic potential of chemicals. It allows for large-scale study of gene expression changes associated with toxicity endpoints. While toxicogenomics brings greater access to information of chemical effects on gene expression than ever before, it presents unprecedented challenges to data analysis and interpretation, which is crucial if we want to turn the new available information into risk assessment knowledge that helps decision making.

In this chapter, we start with background information of toxicogenomics and its applications, challenges, and progress. We then focus on toxicogenomics data analysis by first highlighting the impact of study design, followed by a review of biological pathway and network, including their application to data analysis. Finally we discuss some case study by pathway approach. Even though this chapter largely focuses on transcription-based technologies, the study of toxicogenomics covers a far broader scope, including proteomics, metabonomics, and, by a broad definition, pharmacogenetics that links underlying genetics to different susceptibilities to toxicants. Indeed, an integral analysis of toxicity often calls for incorporating other ‘Omics such as proteomics and metabonomics.

INTRODUCTION TO TOXICOGENOMICS

With the advance of genome sequencing and availability of chip technology in the late 1990s, study of the genome-wide effect of toxicants become possible. Spawning the field of toxicogenomics is a drive from applied genomics. Whereas it began with cDNA arrays custom designed for toxicology, commercial whole genome chip for toxicologically important species such as rat, mouse, or dog soon become available and is being used in a variety of toxicogenomics studies.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Pennie, WD. Custom cDNA microarrays; Technologies and applications. Toxicology. 2002;181–182:551–4.Google ScholarPubMed
Fostel, J, Choi, D, Zwickl, C, et al. Chemical effects in biological systems – data dictionary (CEBS-DD): A compendium of terms for the capture and integration of biological study design description, conventional phenotypes, and ‘omics data. Toxicol Sci. 2005; 88(2):585–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tong, W, Harris, S, Cao, X, et al. Development of public toxicogenomics software for microarray data management and analysis. Mutat Res. 2004;549(1–2):241–253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
,U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry: Pharmacogenomic data submissions. FDA White Paper 2005.
Mattes, WB. Public consortium efforts in toxicogenomics. Methods Mol Biol. 2008;460:221–238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paules, R. Phenotypic anchoring: Linking cause and effect. Environ Health Perspect. 2003;111(6):A338–A339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jiang, Y, Gerhold, DL, Holder, DJ, et al. Diagnosis of drug-induced renal tubular toxicity using global gene expression profiles. J Transl Med. 2007;5:47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foster, WR, Chen, SJ, He, A, et al. A retrospective analysis of toxicogenomics in the safety assessment of drug candidates. Toxicol Pathol. 2007;35(5):621–635.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hultin-Rosenberg, L, Jagannathan, S, Nilsson, KC, et al. Predictive models of hepatotoxicity using gene expression data from primary rat hepatocytes. Xenobiotica. 2006;36(10–11):1122–1139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fielden, MR, Eynon, BP, Natsoulis, G, et al. A gene expression signature that predicts the future onset of drug-induced renal tubular toxicity. Toxicol Pathol. 2005;33(6):675–683.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, EJ, Snyder, RD, Fielden, MR, et al. Validation of putative genomic biomarkers of nephrotoxicity in rats. Toxicology 2008;246(2–3):91–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuehn, EW, Hirt, MN, John, AK, et al. Kidney injury molecule 1 (Kim1) is a novel ciliary molecule and interactor of polycystin 2. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2007;364(4):861–866.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rokushima, M, Fujisawa, K, Furukawa, N, et al. Transcriptomic analysis of nephrotoxicity induced by cephaloridine, a representative cephalosporin antibiotic. Chem Res Toxicol. 2008;21(6):1186–1196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rockett, JC, Burczynski, ME, Fornace, AJ, et al. Surrogate tissue analysis: Monitoring toxicant exposure and health status of inaccessible tissues through the analysis of accessible tissues and cells. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2004;194(2):189–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bushel, PR, Heinloth, AN, Li, J, et al. Blood gene expression signatures predict exposure levels. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007;104(46):18211–18216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yu, X, Griffith, WC, Hanspers, K, et al. A system-based approach to interpret dose- and time-dependent microarray data: Quantitative integration of gene ontology analysis for risk assessment. Toxicol Sci. 2006;92(2):347–348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fasulo, LM, Schomaker, SJ, Ryan, AM, et al. Comparison of biochemical analysis to gene expression and laser scanning cytometry for the assessment of rat hepatic cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzyme induction. Toxicol. Sci. (suppl.) 2009;108:56.Google Scholar
Bammler, T, et al. Members of the Toxicogenomics Research Consortium. Standardizing global gene expression analysis between laboratories and across platformsNat Methods. 2005;2(5):351–356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waters, KM, Tan, R, Opresko, LK, et al. Cellular dichotomy between anchorage-­independent growth responses to bFGF and TPA reflects molecular switch in commitment to carcinogenesis. Mol Carcinog. 2009; 48(11):1059–1069.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burgoon, LD, Zacharewski, TR. Automated quantitative dose-response modeling and point of departure determination for large toxicogenomic and high-throughput screening data sets. Toxicol Sci. 2008;104(2):412–418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mattes, WB. Cross-species comparative toxicogenomics as an aid to safety assessment. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2006; 2(6):859–874.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lu, B, Nelms, L, Floyd, G, et al. Using correlation analysis and hierarchical clustering to discriminate genes associated with hepatic vasculitis from subsequent hepatic inflammation. Toxicol. Sci. (suppl.) 2004;78:412.Google Scholar
Jolly, RA, Ciurlionis, R, Morfitt, D, et al. Microvesicular steatosis induced by a short chain fatty acid: effects on mitochondrial function and correlation with gene expression. Toxicol Pathol. 2004;32(Suppl. 2),19–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beyer, RP, Fry, RC, Lasarev, MR, et al. Multicenter study of acetaminophen hepatotoxicity reveals the importance of biological endpoints in genomic analyses. Toxicol Sci. 2007;99(1):326–337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
N'Jai, A, Boverhof, DR, Dere, E, et al. Comparative temporal toxicogenomic analysis of TCDD- and TCDF-mediated hepatic effects in immature female C57BL/6 mice. Toxicol Sci. 2008;103(2):285–297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ganter, B, Zidek, N, Hewitt, PR, et al. Pathway analysis tools and toxicogenomics reference databases for risk, Pharmacogenomics. 2008;9(1):35–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Michal, G. Biochemical Pathways: An Altlas of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 1998.Google Scholar
Kanehisa, M, Araki, M, Goto, S, et al. KEGG for linking genomes to life and the environment. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008;36,D480–D484.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rual, JF, et al. Towards a proteome-scale map of the human protein–protein interaction network. Nature. 437, 1173–1178.CrossRef
Stelzl, U, Worm, U, Lalowski, M, et al. A human protein–protein interaction network: A resource for annotating the proteome. Cell. 2005;122(6):957–968.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gavin A, C, et al. Proteome survey reveals modularity of the yeast cell machinery. Nature. 2006;440,631–636.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stuart, JM, Segal, E, Koller, D, et al . A gene-coexpression network for global discovery of conserved genetic modules. Science. 2003;302,249–255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Obayashi, T, Hayashi, S, Shibaoka, M, et al. COXPRESdb: A database of coexpressed gene networks in mammals. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008;36:D77–D82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhu, Jun, et al. Integrating large-scale functional genomic data to dissect the complexity of yeast regulatory networks, Nat Genet. 2008;40,854–861.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friedman, N, et al. Using Bayesian networks to analyze expression data. J. Comput Biol. 2000;7:601–620.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Werhli, AV, et al. Comparative evaluation of reverse engineering gene regulatory networks with relevance networks, graphical gaussian models and bayesian networks. Bioinformatics. 2006;22:2523–2531.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Margolin, A, et al. ARACNE: An algorithm for the reconstruction of gene regulatory networks in a mammalian cellular context. BMC Bioinformat. 2006;7(Suppl 1):S7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bader, GD, Cary, MP, Sander, C. Pathguide: A pathway resource list., Nucleic Acids Res. 2006;34(Database issue):D504–D506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Searfoss, GH, Jordan, WH, Calligaro, , et al. Adipsin, a biomarker of gastrointestinal toxicity mediated by a functional gamma-secretase inhibitor. J Biol Chem. 2003;278(46):46107–46116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brittan, M, Wright, NA. Gastrointestinal stem cells. J Pathol. 2002;197(4):492–509.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Symposium on Toxicity Pathway-Based Risk Assessment: Preparing for Paradigm Change, The National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, May 11–13, 2009. Retrieved from http://dels.nas.edu/best/risk_analysis/symposium.shtml.
Ippolito, JE, Xu, J, Jain, S, et al. An integrated functional genomics and metabolomics approach for defining poor prognosis in human neuroendocrine cancers. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102(28):9901–9906.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yen, HC, Oberley, TD. Vichitbandha S, et al. The protective role of manganese superoxide dismutase against adriamycin-induced acute cardiac toxicity in transgenic mice. J Clin Invest.1996;98(5):1253–1260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Masutani, J.Oxidative stress and redox imbalance in acetaminophen toxicity. Pharmocogenom J. 2001;1(3):165–166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kadiiska, MB, Gladen, BC, Baird, DD, et al. Biomarker of oxidative stress study: II. Are oxidation products of lipids, proteins and DNA markers of CCL4 poisoning. Free Radical Biol Med. 2005;38:698–710.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pang, H, Lin, A, Holford, M, et al. Pathway analysis using random forests classification and regression. Bioinformatics. 2006; 22(16):2028–2036.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Purow, B. Notch inhibitors as a new tool in the war on cancer: a pathway to watch. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2009;10(2):154–160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Demeterco, C, Itkin-Ansari, P, Tyrberg, B, et al. c-Myc controls proliferation versus differentiation in human pancreatic endocrine cells. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2002; 87(7):3475–3485.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacobs, A. An FDA perspective on the nonclinical use of the X-omics technologies and the safety of new drugs. Toxicol Lett. 2009;186(1):32–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×