Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24828355›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Evaluation of toxicogenomics approaches for assessing the risk of nongenotoxic carcinogenicity in rat liver.

Johannes Eichner, Clemens Wrzodek, Michael Römer, Heidrun Ellinger-Ziegelbauer, Andreas Zell

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. ToxCompl completion of the DrugMatrix toxicogenomics database: an integrated resource for hypothesis generation.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2026
    Article
  2. Identification of Time-Invariant Biomarkers for Non-Genotoxic Hepatocarcinogen Assessment.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Johannes EichnerCenter for Bioinformatics Tuebingen (ZBIT), University of Tuebingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Clemens WrzodekCenter for Bioinformatics Tuebingen (ZBIT), University of Tuebingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Michael RömerCenter for Bioinformatics Tuebingen (ZBIT), University of Tuebingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Heidrun Ellinger-ZiegelbauerGlobal Early Development, Bayer Pharma AG, Wuppertal, Germany.
Andreas ZellCenter for Bioinformatics Tuebingen (ZBIT), University of Tuebingen, Tübingen, Germany.
University of Tübingen · DEBayer (Germany) · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current gold-standard method for cancer safety assessment of drugs is a rodent two-year bioassay, which is associated with significant costs and requires testing a high number of animals over lifetime. Due to the absence of a comprehensive set of short-term assays predicting carcinogenicity, new approaches are currently being evaluated. One promising approach is toxicogenomics, which by virtue of genome-wide molecular profiling after compound treatment can lead to an increased mechanistic understanding, and potentially allow for the prediction of a carcinogenic potential via mathematical modeling. The latter typically involves the extraction of informative genes from omics datasets, which can be used to construct generalizable models allowing for the early classification of compounds with unknown carcinogenic potential. Here we formally describe and compare two novel methodologies for the reproducible extraction of characteristic mRNA signatures, which were employed to capture specific gene expression changes observed for nongenotoxic carcinogens. While the first method integrates multiple gene rankings, generated by diverse algorithms applied to data from different subsamplings of the training compounds, the second approach employs a statistical ratio for the identification of informative genes. Both methods were evaluated on a dataset obtained from the toxicogenomics database TG-GATEs to predict the outcome of a two-year bioassay based on profiles from 14-day treatments. Additionally, we applied our methods to datasets from previous studies and showed that the derived prediction models are on average more accurate than those built from the original signatures. The selected genes were mostly related to p53 signaling and to specific changes in anabolic processes or energy metabolism, which are typically observed in tumor cells. Among the genes most frequently incorporated into prediction models were Phlda3, Cdkn1a, Akr7a3, Ccng1 and Abcb4.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsTranscriptomeAnimalsApoptosis Regulatory ProteinsCarcinogenicity TestsCarcinogensCell Cycle ProteinsDatabases, FactualDrug Evaluation, PreclinicalGene Expression ProfilingLiverLiver NeoplasmsModels, GeneticRatsRiskRNA, MessengerApoptosis Regulatory ProteinsCarcinogensCell Cycle ProteinsRNA, MessengerTumor Suppressor Proteins

Identifiers

PMID24828355
PMCPMC4020844
OpenAlexW2087937395

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.