Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38043774›Full record

ArticleToxicology2024

Exploring the effects of experimental parameters and data modeling approaches on in vitro transcriptomic point-of-departure estimates.

Joshua A Harrill, Logan J Everett, Derik E Haggard, Joseph L Bundy, Clinton M Willis, Imran Shah, Katie Paul Friedman, Danilo Basili, Alistair Middleton, Richard S Judson

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Toxicology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Analytical choices drive toxicogenomic potency estimates: a systematic evaluation of transcriptomic points of departure.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2026
    Article
  2. Systematic comparison of temporal hepatotoxicant-induced gene network responses across 3 liver test systems.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Advancing systemic toxicity risk assessment: Evaluation of a NAM-based toolbox approach.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Signature analysis of high-throughput transcriptomics screening data for mechanistic inference and chemical grouping.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2024
    Article
  13. 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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Joshua A HarrillCenter for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Logan J EverettCenter for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Derik E HaggardCenter for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA; Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE), USA.
Joseph L BundyCenter for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Clinton M WillisCenter for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA; Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU), USA.
Imran ShahCenter for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Katie Paul FriedmanCenter for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Danilo BasiliUnilever Safety and Environmental Assurance Centre (SEAC), Colworth Science Park, Sharnbrook, Bedfordshire MK44 1LQ, UK.
Alistair MiddletonUnilever Safety and Environmental Assurance Centre (SEAC), Colworth Science Park, Sharnbrook, Bedfordshire MK44 1LQ, UK.
Richard S JudsonCenter for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA. Electronic address: judson.richard@epa.gov.
Research Triangle Park Foundation · USEnvironmental Protection Agency · USOak Ridge Associated Universities · USUnilever (United Kingdom) · GBUniversity of Bedfordshire · GB

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multiple new approach methods (NAMs) are being developed to rapidly screen large numbers of chemicals to aid in hazard evaluation and risk assessments. High-throughput transcriptomics (HTTr) in human cell lines has been proposed as a first-tier screening approach for determining the types of bioactivity a chemical can cause (activation of specific targets vs. generalized cell stress) and for calculating transcriptional points of departure (tPODs) based on changes in gene expression. In the present study, we examine a range of computational methods to calculate tPODs from HTTr data, using six data sets in which MCF7 cells cultured in two different media formulations were treated with a panel of 44 chemicals for 3 different exposure durations (6, 12, 24 hr). The tPOD calculation methods use data at the level of individual genes and gene set signatures, and compare data processed using the ToxCast Pipeline 2 (tcplfit2), BMDExpress and PLIER (Pathway Level Information ExtractoR). Methods were evaluated by comparing to in vitro PODs from a validated set of high-throughput screening (HTS) assays for a set of estrogenic compounds. Key findings include: (1) for a given chemical and set of experimental conditions, tPODs calculated by different methods can vary by several orders of magnitude; (2) tPODs are at least as sensitive to computational methods as to experimental conditions; (3) in comparison to an external reference set of PODs, some methods give generally higher values, principally PLIER and BMDExpress; and (4) the tPODs from HTTr in this one cell type are mostly higher than the overall PODs from a broad battery of targeted in vitro ToxCast assays, reflecting the need to test chemicals in multiple cell types and readout technologies for in vitro hazard screening.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingTranscriptomeCell LineEstrogensHigh-Throughput Screening AssaysHumansRisk AssessmentEstrogensIn vitroNew Approach Methods (NAMs)Point of DepartureTranscriptomics

Identifiers

PMID38043774
PMCPMC11917498
OpenAlexW4389269873

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.