Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30329178›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental and molecular mutagenesis2018

Using a gene expression biomarker to identify DNA damage-inducing agents in microarray profiles.

J Christopher Corton, Andrew Williams, Carole L Yauk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental and molecular mutagenesis, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Application of HepaRG cells for genotoxicity assessment: a review.Journal of environmental science and health. Part C, Toxicology and carcinogenesis · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Evaluating adaptive stress response gene signatures using transcriptomics.Computational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Genetic toxicity assessment using liver cell models: past, present, and future.Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews · 2020
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

J Christopher CortonIntegrated Systems Toxicology Division, NHEERL, US-EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.ORCID 0000-0002-6197-2036
Andrew WilliamsEnvironmental Health Science and Research Bureau, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Carole L YaukEnvironmental Health Science and Research Bureau, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

EPAIntramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High-throughput transcriptomic technologies are increasingly being used to screen environmental chemicals in vitro to provide mechanistic context for regulatory testing. The TGx-DDI biomarker is a 64-gene expression profile generated from testing 28 model chemicals or treatments (13 that cause DNA damage and 15 that do not) in human TK6 cells. While the biomarker is very accurate at predicting DNA damage inducing (DDI) potential using the nearest shrunken centroid method, the broad utility of the biomarker using other computational methods is not fully known. Here, we determined the accuracy of the biomarker used with the Running Fisher test, a nonparametric correlation test. In TK6 cells, the methods could readily differentiate DDI and non-DDI compounds with balanced accuracies of 87-97%, depending on the threshold for determining DDI positives. The methods identified DDI agents in the metabolically competent hepatocyte cell line HepaRG (accuracy = 90%) but not in HepG2 cells or hepatocytes derived from embryonic stem cells (60 and 80%, respectively). DDI was also accurately classified when the gene expression changes were derived using the nCounter technology (accuracy = 89%). In addition, we found: (1) not all genes contributed equally to the correlations; (2) the minimal overlap in genes between the biomarker and the individual comparisons required for significant positive correlation was 10 genes, but usually was much higher; and (3) different sets of genes in the biomarker can by themselves contribute to the significant correlations. Overall, these results demonstrate the utility of the biomarker to accurately classify DDI agents. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 59:772-784, 2018. Published 2018. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Indexed as

Drug DiscoveryGene Expression ProfilingGenetic MarkersTranscriptomeCell LineComputational BiologyDNA DamageHepatocytesHumansMutagensReproducibility of ResultsGenetic MarkersMutagensbiomarkergene expression profilinggenotoxicityHepaRG cellsTK6 cellstoxicogenomics

Identifiers

PMID30329178
PMCPMC7875442

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.