Advertisement

How Well Can High-Throughput Screening Tests Results Predict Whether Chemicals Cause Cancer in Mice and Rats?

  • Louis Anthony Cox Jr.
  • Douglas A. Popken
  • Richard X. Sun
Chapter
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 270)

Abstract

Over the past half century, an enduring intellectual and technical challenge for risk analysts, statisticians, toxicologists, and experts in artificial intelligence, machine-learning and bioinformatics has been to predict in vivo biological responses to realistic exposures, with demonstrably useful accuracy and confidence, from in vitro and chemical structure data. The common goal of many applied research efforts has been to devise and validate algorithms that give trustworthy predictions of whether and by how much realistic exposures to chemicals change probabilities of adverse health responses. This chapter examines recent, promising results suggesting that high-throughput screening (HTS) assay data can be used to predict in vivo classifications of rodent carcinogenicity for certain pesticides. Anticipating the focus on evaluation analytics for assessing the performance of systems, policies, and interventions in Chaps.  9 and  10, it also undertakes an independent reanalysis of the underlying data to determine how well this encouraging claim can be replicated and supported when the same data are analyzed using slightly different methods.

References

  1. Benigni R, Zito R (2004) The second National Toxicology Program comparative exercise on the prediction of rodent carcinogenicity: definitive results. Mutat Res 566(1):49–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cook et al (1999) Rodent Leydig cell tumorigenesis: a review of the physiology, pathology, mechanisms, and relevance to humans. Crit Rev Toxicol 29:169–261 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Guyton KZ, Kyle AD, Aubrecht J, Cogliano VJ, Eastmond DA, Jackson M, Keshava N, Sandy MS, Sonawane B, Zhang L, Waters MD, Smith MT (2009) Improving prediction of chemical carcinogenicity by considering multiple mechanisms and applying toxicogenomic approaches. Mutat Res 681(2–3):230–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA (2011) Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 144(5):646–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hill et al (1998) Assessment of thyroid follicular cell tumors. EPA/630/R-97/002Google Scholar
  6. March Kirkland D, Aardema M, Henderson L, Müller L (2005) Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens I. Sensitivity, specificity and relative predictivity. Mutat Res 584(1–2):1–256. Erratum in: Mutat Res. 2005 Dec 7;588(1):70Google Scholar
  7. Maronpot RR (2009) Biological basis to differential susceptibility to hepatocarcinogenesis among mouse strains. Toxicol Pathol 22:11–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kleinstreuer NC, Dix DJ, Houck KA, Kavlock RJ, Knudsen TB, Martin MT, Paul KB, Reif DM, Crofton KM, Hamilton K, Hunter R, Shah I, Judson RS (2013) In vitro perturbations of targets in cancer hallmark processes predict rodent chemical carcinogenesis. Toxicol Sci 131(1):40–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Knight A, Bailey J, Balcombe J (2006) Animal carcinogenicity studies: 1. Poor human predictivity. Altern Lab Anim 34(1):19–27Google Scholar
  10. Patlewicz G, Rodford R, Walker JD (2003) Quantitative structure-activity relationships for predicting mutagenicity and carcinogenicity. Environ Toxicol Chem 22(8):1885–1893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Snyder RD, Pearl GS, Mandakas G, Choy WN, Goodsaid F, Rosenblum IY (2004) Assessment of the sensitivity of the computational programs DEREK, TOPKAT, and MCASE in the prediction of the genotoxicity of pharmaceutical molecules. Environ Mol Mutagen 43(3):143–158. Erratum in: Environ Mol Mutagen. 2006 Apr;47(3):225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Valerio LG Jr, Arvidson KB, Chanderbhan RF, Contrera JF (2007) Prediction of rodent carcinogenic potential of naturally occurring chemicals in the human diet using high-throughput QSAR predictive modeling. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 222(1):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Valerio LG Jr, Arvidson KB, Busta E, Minnier BL, Kruhlak NL, Benz RD (2010) Testing computational toxicology models with phytochemicals. Mol Nutr Food Res 54(2):186–194.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mnfr.200900259 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Walmsley RM, Billinton N (2011) How accurate is in vitro prediction of carcinogenicity? Br J Pharmacol 162(6):1250–1258CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Louis Anthony Cox Jr.
    • 1
  • Douglas A. Popken
    • 2
  • Richard X. Sun
    • 3
  1. 1.Cox AssociatesDenverUSA
  2. 2.Cox AssociatesLittletonUSA
  3. 3.Cox AssociatesEast BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations