ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2004
Overview of an interlaboratory collaboration on evaluating the effects of model hepatotoxicants on hepatic gene expression.
Article in Environmental health perspectives, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrative biological analysis for neuropsychopharmacology.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2014Review
- Identification and categorization of liver toxicity markers induced by a related pair of drugs.International journal of molecular sciences · 2011Article
- Practical application of toxicogenomics for profiling toxicant-induced biological perturbations.International journal of molecular sciences · 2010Review
- Use of transcriptomics in understanding mechanisms of drug-induced toxicity.Pharmacogenomics · 2010Review
- Intrinsic disorder in nuclear hormone receptors.Journal of proteome research · 2008Article
- Review of the literature examining the correlation among DNA microarray technologies.Environmental and molecular mutagenesis · 2007Review
- The hepatic transcriptome in human liver disease.Comparative hepatology · 2006Article
- Gene expression analysis of the hepatotoxicant methapyrilene in primary rat hepatocytes: an interlaboratory study.Environmental health perspectives · 2006Article
- Recent applications of DNA microarray technology to toxicology and ecotoxicology.Environmental health perspectives · 2006Review
- Protocols for the assurance of microarray data quality and process control.Nucleic acids research · 2005Article
- Guidelines for the routine application of the peptide hits technique.Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2005Article
- Three microarray platforms: an analysis of their concordance in profiling gene expression.BMC genomics · 2005Article
- Toxicogenomics in risk assessment: communicating the challenges.Environmental health perspectives · 2004Article
- Toxicogenomics in risk assessment: an overview of an HESI collaborative research program.Environmental health perspectives · 2004Review
- Quantitative PCR deconstruction of discrepancies between results reported by different hybridization platforms.Environmental health perspectives · 2004Article
- Clofibrate-induced gene expression changes in rat liver: a cross-laboratory analysis using membrane cDNA arrays.Environmental health perspectives · 2004Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
DNA microarrays and related tools offer promise for identification of pathways involved in toxic responses to xenobiotics. To be useful for risk assessment, experimental data must be challenged for reliability and interlaboratory reproducibility. Toward this goal, the Hepatotoxicity Working Group of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI) Technical Committee on Application of Genomics to Mechanism-Based Risk Assessment evaluated and compared biological and gene expression responses in rats exposed to two model hepatotoxins--clofibrate and methapyrilene. This collaborative effort provided an unprecedented opportunity for the working group to evaluate and compare multiple biological, genomic, and toxicological parameters across different laboratories and microarray platforms. Many of the results from this collaboration are presented in accompanying articles in this mini-monograph, whereas others have been published previously. (Italic)In vivo(/Italic) studies for both compounds were conducted in two laboratories using a standard experimental protocol, and RNA samples were distributed to 16 laboratories for analysis on six microarray platforms. Histopathology, clinical chemistry, and organ weight changes were consistent with reported effects. Gene expression results demonstrated reasonable agreement between laboratories and across platforms. Discrepancies in expression profiles of some individual genes were largely due to platform differences and approaches to data analysis rather than to biological or interlaboratory variability. Despite these discrepancies there was overall agreement in the biological pathways affected by these compounds, demonstrating that transcriptional profiling is reproducible between laboratories and can reliably identify affected pathways necessary to provide mechanistic insight. This effort represents an important first step toward the use of transcriptional profiling in risk assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.