Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T09:17:23.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - De-risking developmental toxicity-mediated drug attrition in the pharmaceutical industry

from I - SPECIFIC AREAS 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

INTRODUCTION: THE BUSINESS NEED FOR IN VITRO TESTS

Each year, the pharmaceutical industry synthesizes thousands of novel chemical entities with an array of biological activities; however, only a small fraction will make it to market due to poor efficacy or toxicity concerns. Although the drug candidate attrition rate will always be high, the key determinant of its economic consequence is whether it occurs early or late in product development. This point is particularly poignant with respect to developmental toxicity because the first indication of teratogenicity is at the time of the regulatory compliant embryo/fetal toxicity study, which is generally conducted relatively late in drug development, at the transition from Phase II to Phase III. So even though it has been estimated that only about 7 percent of pharmaceutical attrition is due to reproductive and developmental toxicity concerns (about 3.5 percent to developmental toxicity alone), the significant investment of time and money to this point makes such failures catastrophic. Thus, a key challenge is the early identification and management of developmental toxicity risks prior to the conduct of pivotal in vivo embryo/fetal toxicity studies. For the purposes of this chapter, there are three aspects to meeting this challenge. The first is the assessment of the inherent risk of the therapeutic target. How important is the target during embryogenesis and what are the consequences of modulating its activity?

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

Kola, I, Landis, J . Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates?Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2004;3(8):711–715.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lander, ES, Linton, LM, Birren, B, et al. Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature. 2001;409(6822):860–921.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Venter, JC, Adams, MD, Myers, EW, et al. The sequence of the human genome. Science. 2001;291(5507):1304–1351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hopkins, AL, Groom, CR. The druggable genome. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2002;1(9):727–730.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Overington, JP, Al-Lazikani, B, Hopkins, AL. How many drug targets are there?Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2006;5(12):993–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakharkar, MK, Sakharkar, KR. Targetability of human disease genes. Curr Drug Discov Technol. 2007;4(1):48–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Claverie, JM. Gene number. What if there are only 30,000 human genes?Science. 2001;291(5507):1255–1257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hurtt, ME, Streck, RD, Kumpf, SW, et al. Fetal map: A gene expression database for predicting potential involvement in developmental toxicity for all druggable genes. Birth Defects Res Pt A. 2007;29:352.Google Scholar
Foote, RH, Carney, EW. The rabbit as a model for reproductive and developmental toxicity studies. Reprod Toxicol. 2000;14(6):477–493.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, S. Transgenic knockouts as part of high-throughput, evidence-based target selection and validation strategies. Drug Discov Today. 2001;6(12):628–636.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zambrowicz, BP, Sands, AT. Knockouts model the 100 best-selling drugs – Will they model the next 100?Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2003;2(1):38–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Engle, SJ. Beasts in the Genomic Jungle: Use of Model Organisms in Drug Development. https://www.nyas.org/_membership/memberlogin.asp?redirect_location=http://www.nyas.org/ebriefreps/main.asp?intSubSectionID%3D5257. Accessed May 1, 2009|.
Ozolinš, TRS, Fisher, TS, Nadeau, DM, et al. Defects in embryonic development of EGLN1/PHD2 knockdown transgenic mice are associated with the induction of Igfbp in the placenta. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2009;390:372–376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lois, C, Hong, EJ, Pease, S, et al. Germline transmission and tissue-specific expression of transgenes delivered by lentiviral vectors. Science. 2002;295(5556):868–872.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dann, CT, Alvarado, AL, Hammer, RE, et al. Heritable and stable gene knockdown in rats. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006;103(30):11246–11251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ni, YG, Miledi, R. Blockage of 5HT2C serotonin receptors by fluoxetine (Prozac). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1997;94(5):2036–2040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apsel, B, Blair, JA, Gonzalez, B, et al. Targeted polypharmacology: Discovery of dual inhibitors of tyrosine and phosphoinositide kinases. Nat Chem Biol. 2008;4(11):691–699.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hopkins, AL. Network pharmacology: The next paradigm in drug discovery. Nat Chem Biol. 2008;4(11):682–690.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daston, GP. The theoretical and empirical case for in vitro developmental toxicity screens, and potential applications. Teratology. 1996;53(6):339–344.3.0.CO;2-V>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arena, VC, Sussman, NB, Mazumdar, S, et al. The utility of structure-activity relationship (SAR) models for prediction and covariate selection in developmental toxicity: Comparative analysis of logistic regression and decision tree models. SAR QSAR Environ Res. 2004;15(1):1–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greene, N. Computer systems for the prediction of toxicity: an update. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2002;54(3):417–431.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Julien, E, Willhite, CC, Richard, AM, et al. Challenges in constructing statistically based structure-activity relationship models for developmental toxicity. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2004;70(12):902–911.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
,CompuDrug. HazardExpert Pro. http://www.compudrug.com/print.php?id=46. Accessed May 1, 2009.
,LHASA. DEREK for Windows. http://www.lhasalimited.org/index.php?cat=2&sub_cat=64. Accessed May 1, 2009.
,Accelrys. TOPKAT Training. http://accelrys.com/services/training/life-science/topkat.html. Accessed May 1, 2009.
,MultiCASE I. CASETOX. http://www.multicase.com/products/prod03.htm. Accessed May 1, 2009.
Schardein, JL. Chemically induced birth defects. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scialli, AR. A clinical guide to reproductive and developmental toxicology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1992.Google Scholar
Shepard, T. Catalogue of teratogenic agents. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1992.Google Scholar
Brannen, KC, Panzica-Kelly, JM, Charlap, JH, Augustine-Rauch, KA. Zebrafish: A nonmammalian model of developmental toxicology. In: Hansen, DK, Abbott, BD, eds. Developmental Toxicology. Vol 27. New York: Informa Healthcare; 2008:215–241.Google Scholar
Chapin, R, Augustine-Rauch, K, Beyer, B, et al. State of the art in developmental toxicity screening methods and a way forward: A meeting report addressing embryonic stem cells, whole embryo culture, and zebrafish. Birth Defects Res B Dev Reprod Toxicol. 2008;83(4):446–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genschow, E, Spielmann, H, Scholz, G, et al. The ECVAM international validation study on in vitro embryotoxicity tests: Results of the definitive phase and evaluation of prediction models. European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods. Altern Lab Anim. 2002;30(2):151–176.Google ScholarPubMed
Flick, B, Klug, S. Whole embryo culture: An important tool in developmental toxicology today. Curr Pharm Des. 2006;12(12):1467–1488.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ozolinš, TR. Use of mammalian in vitro systems, including stem cells, in developmental toxicity testing. In: Hansen, DK, Abbot, BD, eds. Developmental Toxicology. Vol 27. 3rd ed. New York: Informa Healthcare; 2008:171–213.Google Scholar
Daston, GP, Baines, D, Elmore, E, et al. Evaluation of chick embryo neural retinal cell culture as a screen for developmental toxicants. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1995;26(2):203–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daston, GP, Baines, D, Yonker, JE. Chick embryo neural retina cell culture as a screen for developmental toxicity. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1991;109(2):352–366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Juchau, MR, Faustman-Watts, E. Pharmacokinetic considerations in the maternal-placental-fetal unit. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1983;26(2):379–390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nau, H, Scott, WJ, Jr. Weak acids may act as teratogens by accumulating in the basic milieu of the early mammalian embryo. Nature. 1986;323(6085):276–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Juchau, MR, Boutelet-Bochan, H, Huang, Y. Cytochrome-P450-dependent biotransformation of xenobiotics in human and rodent embryonic tissues. Drug Metab Rev. 1998;30(3):541–568.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coecke, S, Ahr, H, Blaauboer, BJ, et al. Metabolism: A bottleneck in in vitro toxicological test development. The report and recommendations of ECVAM workshop 54. Altern Lab Anim. 2006;34(1):49–84.Google ScholarPubMed
Ozolinš, TRS, Thomson, JJ. Use of WEC in pharmaceutical screening/testing. HESI (Health and Environmental Sciences Institute) Workshop on Alternative Assays for Developmental Toxicity Testing [http://www.hesiglobal.org/Committees/TechnicalCommittees/DART/HESIAltAssayPresentations.htm. Accessed May 1 2009.
Bremer, S, Pellizzer, C, Coecke, S, et al. Detection of the embryotoxic potential of cyclophosphamide by using a combined system of metabolic competent cells and embryonic stem cells. Altern Lab Anim. 2002;30(1):77–85.Google ScholarPubMed
Oglesby, , Ebron, MT, Beyer, PE, et al. Co-culture of rat embryos and hepatocytes: In vitro detection of a proteratogen. Teratog Carcinog Mutagen. 1986;6(2):129–138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ozolins, TR, Oglesby, , Wiley, MJ, et al. In vitro murine embryotoxicity of cyclophosphamide in embryos co-cultured with maternal hepatocytes: development and application of a murine embryo-hepatocyte co-culture model. Toxicology. 1995;102(3):259–274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piersma, AH, Aerts, , Verhoef, A, et al. Biotransformation of cyclophosphamide in post-implantation rat embryo culture using maternal hepatocytes in co-culture. Pharmacol Toxicol. 1991;69(1):47–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenaway, JC, Fantel, AG, Shepard, TH, et al. The in vitro teratogenicity of cyclophosphamide in rat embryos. Teratology. 1982;25(3):335–343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Busquet, F, Nagel, R, Landenberg, F, et al. Development of a new screening assay to identify proteratogenic substances using zebrafish Danio rerio embryo combined with an exogenous mammalian metabolic activation system (mDarT). Toxicol Sci. 2008;104(1):177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davila, JC, Cezar, GG, Thiede, M, et al. Use and application of stem cells in toxicology. Toxicol Sci. 2004;79(2):214–223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laschinski, G, Vogel, R, Spielmann, H. Cytotoxicity test using blastocyst-derived euploid embryonal stem cells: A new approach to in vitro teratogenesis screening. Reprod Toxicol. 1991;5(1):57–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newall, DR, Beedles, KE. The stem-cell test: An in vitro assay for teratogenic potential. Results of a blind trial with 25 compounds. Toxicol In Vitro. 1996;10:229–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guan, K, Rohwedel, J, Wobus, AM. Embryonic stem cell differentiation models: Cardiogenesis, myogenesis, neurogenesis, epithelial and vascular smooth muscle cell differentiation in vitro. Cytotechnology. 1999;30(1–3):211–226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scholz, G, Spielmann, H. Embryonic Stem Cell Test (EST). INVITTOX protocol 113. http://ecvam-dbalm.jrc.ec.europa.eu/. Accessed May 1, 2009.
New, DA. Whole-embryo culture and the study of mammalian embryos during organogenesis. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 1978;53(1):81–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozolinš, TR, Hales, BF. Oxidative stress regulates the expression and activity of transcription factor activator protein-1 in rat conceptus. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1997;280(2):1085–1093.Google ScholarPubMed
Sadler, TW, Horton, WE, Warner, CW. Whole embryo culture: A screening technique for teratogens?Teratog Carcinog Mutagen. 1982;2(3–4):243–253.3.0.CO;2-U>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spézia, F. Embryotoxicity testing using a whole embryo culture (W.E.C.) procedure. INVITTOX protocol 68. http://ecvam-dbalm.jrc.ec.europa.eu/. Accessed May 1, 2009.
Yang, L, Ho, NY, Alshut, R, et al. Zebrafish embryos as models for embryotoxic and teratological effects of chemicals. Reprod Toxicol. 2009;28(2):245–253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marguerie, A. DanioLabs model and Pfizer data. HESI (Health and Environmental Sciences Institute) Workshop on Alternative Assays for Developmental Toxicity Testing. http://www.hesiglobal.org/Committees/TechnicalCommittees/DART/HESIAltAssay Presentations.htm. Accessed May 1, 2009.
Seng, WL. Zebrafish: A predictive model for developmental toxicity. HESI (Health and Environmental Sciences Institute) Workshop on Alternative Assays for Developmental Toxicity Testing Retrieved. http://www.hesiglobal.org/Committees/TechnicalCommittees/DART/HESIAltAssayPresentations.htm. Accessed May 1, 2009.
Brown, NA, Fabro, S. Quantitation of rat embryonic development in vitro: A morphological scoring system. Teratology. 1981;24(1):65–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maele-Fabry, G, Delhaise, F, Picard, JJ. Evolution of the developmental scores of sixteen morphological features in mouse embryos displaying 0 to 30 somites. Int J Dev Biol. 1992;36(1):161–167.Google Scholar
Pitt, JA, Carney, EW. Development of a morphologically-based scoring system for postimplantation New Zealand White rabbit embryos. Teratology. 1999;59(2):88–101.3.0.CO;2-7>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carney, EW, Tornesi, B, Keller, C, et al. Refinement of a morphological scoring system for postimplantation rabbit conceptuses. Birth Defects Res B Dev Reprod Toxicol. 2007;80(3):213–222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hou, T, Wang, J. Structure-ADME relationship: Still a long way to go?Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2008;4(6):759–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, NA. Selection of test chemicals for the ECVAM international validation study on in vitro embryotoxicity tests. European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods. Altern Lab Anim. 2002;30(2):177–198.Google ScholarPubMed
Spielmann, H, Seiler, A, Bremer, S, et al. The practical application of three validated in vitro embryotoxicity tests. The report and recommendations of an ECVAM/ZEBET workshop (ECVAM workshop 57). Altern Lab Anim. 2006;34(5):527–538.Google Scholar
Spielmann, H. Predicting the risk of developmental toxicity from in vitro assays. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2005;207(Suppl 2):375–380.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwetz, BA, Harris MW. Developmental toxicology: status of the field and contribution of the National Toxicology Program. Environ Health Perspect. Apr 1993;100: 269–282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapin, R, Stedman, D, Paquette, J, et al. Struggles for equivalence: in vitro developmental toxicity model evolution in pharmaceuticals in 2006. Toxicol In Vitro. 2007;21(8):1545–1551.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitlow, S, Burgin, H, Clemann, N.The embryonic stem cell test for the early selection of pharmaceutical compounds. ALTEX. 2007;24(1):3–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paquette, JA, Kumpf, SW, Streck, RD, et al. Assessment of the Embryonic Stem Cell Test and application and use in the pharmaceutical industry. Birth Defects Res B Dev Reprod Toxicol. 2008;83(2):104–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nagel, R. DarT: The embryo test with the Zebrafish Danio rerio – A general model in ecotoxicology and toxicology. ALTEX. 2002;19(Suppl 1):38–48.Google ScholarPubMed
Venkataraman, S, Stevenson, P, Yang, Y, et al. EMAGE – Edinburgh Mouse Atlas of Gene Expression: 2008 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008;36(Database issue):D860–865.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
,The Virtual Embryo Project (v-Embryo). National Center for Computational Toxicology (NCCT). http://www.epa.gov/ncct/v-Embryo/. Accessed May 1, 2009.
Collins, FS, Rossant, J, Wurst, W. A mouse for all reasons. Cell. Jan 12 2007;128(1):9–13.Google ScholarPubMed
zur Nieden, NI, Kempka, G, Ahr, HJ. Molecular multiple endpoint embryonic stem cell test – a possible approach to test for the teratogenic potential of compounds. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. Feb 1 2004;194(3):257–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
zur Nieden, NI, Ruf, LJ, Kempka, G, et al. Molecular markers in embryonic stem cells. Toxicol In Vitro. 2001;15(4–5):455–461.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seiler, A, Visan, A, Pohl, I, et al. Improving the embryonic stem cell test (EST) by establishing molecular endpoints of tissue specific development using murine embryonic stem cells (D3 cells)]. ALTEX. 2002;19(Suppl 1):55–63.Google Scholar
Seiler, A, Visan, A, Buesen, R, et al. Improvement of an in vitro stem cell assay for developmental toxicity: The use of molecular endpoints in the embryonic stem cell test. Reprod Toxicol. 2004;18(2):231–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, YH, Wang, YH, Yu, TH, et al. Transgenic zebrafish line with over-expression of Hedgehog on the skin: A useful tool to screen Hedgehog-inhibiting compounds. Transgenic Res. 2009; 18(6):855–864.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paparella, M, Kolossov, E, Fleischmann, BK, et al. The use of quantitative image analysis in the assessment of in vitro embryotoxicity endpoints based on a novel embryonic stem cell clone with endoderm-related GFP expression. Toxicol In Vitro. 2002;16(5):589–597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walmod, PS, Gravemann, U, Nau, H, et al. Discriminative power of an assay for automated in vitro screening of teratogens. Toxicol In Vitro. 2004;18(4):511–525.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adler, S, Lindqvist, J, Uddenberg, K, et al. Testing potential developmental toxicants with a cytotoxicity assay based on human embryonic stem cells. Altern Lab Anim. 2008;36(2):129–140.Google ScholarPubMed
,Anonymous. Cellartis Enters into a Research Collaboration with Pfizer to Develop a Screening System for Detection of Human Toxicity. http://www.drugs.com/news/cellartis-enters-into-research-collaboration-pfizer-develop-screening-detection-human-toxicity-7760.html. Accessed May 1, 2009.
,NRC. Scientific Frontiers in Developmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000.Google Scholar
,NRC. Toxicity Testing in the twenty-first Century: A Vision and a Strategy. Washington, DC: National Research Council of the National Academies; 2007.Google Scholar
Hareng, L, Pellizzer, C, Bremer, S, et al. The integrated project ReProTect: A novel approach in reproductive toxicity hazard assessment. Reprod Toxicol. 2005;20(3):441–452.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
New, DA, Brent, RL. Effect of yolk-sac antibody on rat embryos grown in culture. J Embryol Exp Morphol. 1972;27(3):543–553.Google 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
×