Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42707020›Full record

ArticleToxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology2026

Analytical choices drive toxicogenomic potency estimates: a systematic evaluation of transcriptomic points of departure.

Imke B Bruns, Dayna R Schultz, Emmanuel Demuynck, Friedel Dewulf, Ioannis Theologidis, Steven J Kunnen, Lukas S Wijaya, Ilias Frydas, Nafsika Papaioannou, Elisavet Renieri and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

18 authors.

Imke B BrunsDivision of Drug Discovery and Safety, Leiden Academic Centre for Drug Research, Leiden University, Leiden, 2333 CC, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9681-6693
Dayna R SchultzEnvironmental Engineering Laboratory, Department of Chemical Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, 54124, Greece.
Emmanuel DemuynckScientific Direction of Chemical and Physical Health Risks, Sciensano, Brussels, 1050, Belgium.
Friedel DewulfBlue Growth Research Lab, Ghent University, Oostende, 8400, Belgium.
Ioannis TheologidisLaboratory of Toxicological Control of Pesticides, Scientific Directorate of Pesticides' Control & Phytopharmacy, Benaki Phytopathological Institute, Athens, 14561, Greece.
Steven J KunnenDivision of Drug Discovery and Safety, Leiden Academic Centre for Drug Research, Leiden University, Leiden, 2333 CC, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9549-1719
Lukas S WijayaDivision of Drug Discovery and Safety, Leiden Academic Centre for Drug Research, Leiden University, Leiden, 2333 CC, the Netherlands.
Ilias FrydasEnvironmental Engineering Laboratory, Department of Chemical Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, 54124, Greece.
Nafsika PapaioannouEnvironmental Engineering Laboratory, Department of Chemical Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, 54124, Greece.
Elisavet RenieriEnvironmental Engineering Laboratory, Department of Chemical Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, 54124, Greece.
Thanasis PapageorgiouEnvironmental Engineering Laboratory, Department of Chemical Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, 54124, Greece.
Dimosthenis SarigiannisEnvironmental Engineering Laboratory, Department of Chemical Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, 54124, Greece.
Kyriaki MacheraLaboratory of Toxicological Control of Pesticides, Scientific Directorate of Pesticides' Control & Phytopharmacy, Benaki Phytopathological Institute, Athens, 14561, Greece.
Birgit MertensScientific Direction of Chemical and Physical Health Risks, Sciensano, Brussels, 1050, Belgium.
Jana AsselmanBlue Growth Research Lab, Ghent University, Oostende, 8400, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-0185-6516
Carsten WeissInstitute of Biological and Chemical Systems-Biological Information Processing, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, 76344, Germany.
Bob van de WaterDivision of Drug Discovery and Safety, Leiden Academic Centre for Drug Research, Leiden University, Leiden, 2333 CC, the Netherlands.
Giulia CallegaroDivision of Drug Discovery and Safety, Leiden Academic Centre for Drug Research, Leiden University, Leiden, 2333 CC, the Netherlands.

Funding

European Union's Horizon Europe Partnership for the Assessment of Risks for Chemicals 101057014
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Omics technologies are increasingly integrated into next-generation risk assessment, yet quantitative toxicogenomics outcomes remain highly dependent on analytical choices, motivating a systematic evaluation of how bioinformatics workflows influence hazard characterization and transcriptomic Points of Departure (tPOD). Here, we applied 5 independent transcriptomics pipelines to a shared dataset of RPTEC/TERT1 kidney cells exposed to cisplatin across multiple concentrations and time points, comparing effects of pre-processing, benchmark concentration modeling, and pathway-based interpretation strategies. Across workflows, substantial variability was observed in gene-level benchmark concentrations (BMCs). This variability was associated with differences in normalization, filtering, and modeling software, although the present design does not isolate the contribution of individual workflow choices. Despite this variability, convergence increased at later time points as transcriptional responses strengthened, with 24 h consistently identified as the most sensitive time point at the gene level. Aggregation of gene-level BMCs into pathway-based metrics reduced variability but did not eliminate it, with pathway definition emerging as a major determinant of tPOD estimates. Notably, distinct pathway resources showed minimal gene overlap, and smaller, biologically coherent gene sets (e.g. co-expression modules and biomarker panels) produced lower and less dispersed BMCs compared with broader pathway annotations. Furthermore, direct modeling of pathway activity scores yielded systematically different tPODs relative to median-based aggregation, with method-dependent conservativeness influenced by pathway coverage and response strength. Overall, our findings demonstrate that both analytical workflow design and pathway selection critically shape toxicogenomic-derived potency estimates, highlighting the need for harmonized, transparent methodologies to enable robust application of transcriptomics in chemical safety assessment and regulatory decision-making.

Indexed as

CisplatinGene Expression ProfilingToxicogeneticsTranscriptomeAnimalsCell LineComputational BiologyDose-Response Relationship, DrugHumansRisk AssessmentWorkflowCisplatinbenchmark concentrationin vitro transcriptomicsnext generation risk assessmenttranscriptomic point of departureworkflow variability

Identifiers

PMID42707020
PMCPMC13623630

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.