Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29917034›Full record

ReviewMolecular omics2018

Developments in toxicogenomics: understanding and predicting compound-induced toxicity from gene expression data.

Benjamin Alexander-Dann, Lavinia Lorena Pruteanu, Erin Oerton, Nitin Sharma, Ioana Berindan-Neagoe, Dezső Módos, Andreas Bender

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular omics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Systems bioengineering approaches for developmental toxicology.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2023
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

7 authors.

Benjamin Alexander-DannUniversity of Cambridge, Centre for Molecular Informatics, Department of Chemistry, Lensfield Road, Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK. dm729@cam.ac.uk ab454@cam.ac.uk.
Lavinia Lorena Pruteanu
Erin Oerton
Nitin Sharma
Ioana Berindan-Neagoe
Dezső Módos
Andreas Bender

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council 1501561
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The toxicogenomics field aims to understand and predict toxicity by using 'omics' data in order to study systems-level responses to compound treatments. In recent years there has been a rapid increase in publicly available toxicological and 'omics' data, particularly gene expression data, and a corresponding development of methods for its analysis. In this review, we summarize recent progress relating to the analysis of RNA-Seq and microarray data, review relevant databases, and highlight recent applications of toxicogenomics data for understanding and predicting compound toxicity. These include the analysis of differentially expressed genes and their enrichment, signature matching, methods based on interaction networks, and the analysis of co-expression networks. In the future, these state-of-the-art methods will likely be combined with new technologies, such as whole human body models, to produce a comprehensive systems-level understanding of toxicity that reduces the necessity of in vivo toxicity assessment in animal models.

Indexed as

ToxicogeneticsAnimalsDatabases, GeneticDrug DiscoveryGene Expression ProfilingGene Expression RegulationGene Regulatory NetworksHumansPharmacogenomic TestingSystems BiologyToxicity Tests

Identifiers

PMID29917034
PMCPMC6080592

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.