Advertisement

Nucleic Acid Microarray Technology For Toxicology: Promise And Practicalities

Chapter
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 500)

Abstract

Much ongoing research in toxicology focuses on a hypothesis-driven mechanism of action approach aimed at understanding the molecular events mediating the actions of the chemicals of interest. Using this approach, investigators develop hypotheses based on observations, which may be derived from a host of resources but most frequently have been made within their own laboratories, or uncovered by others and reported in the scientific literature. Although the bulk of current understanding ofbiochemical toxicology emerged using studies based on observations derived in this way, this process, which is essentially based on existing information, may often limit the expansion knowledge. More simply expressed, one only finds that which one seeks. Without a clear understanding of the processes targeted by a specific toxin the problem of making observations that globally and accurately reflect the events mediating pathology which have been induced by the toxic agent is challenging. Recently, the development of high-throughput technologies for biochemical analysis of gene expression has led to innovative approaches in addressing the problem of making broad-based observations that more accurately reflect the entire spectrum of molecular lesions induced by specific toxins. These strategies include the use of new techniques in analysis of gene expression to convey information on alterations in mRNA levels, one of the earliest cellular signs initiated in response to a potential toxin. Prior to this time studies on toxicant-induced altered gene expression were limited to single, or small numbers of identified genes chosen by an investigator who reasoned, based on an existing observations, that levels of the proteins encoded by these genes were likely to be altered during toxic injury. Now, using cDNA or oligonucleotide genome-wide arrays, toxin-induced alterations in gene expression of thousands of genes can be examined simultaneously. Using these tools, molecular toxicologists can for the first time employ reasoned strategies to make observations, and then formulate hypotheses based on these observations.

Keywords

Nitric Oxide Human Microvascular Endothelial Cell Maladaptive Response Subacute Toxicity Toxic Injury 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    A. Brazma and J. Vilo, Gene expression data analysis, FEBS Lett. 480: 17–24 (2000).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Khan, M.L. Bittner, Y. Chen, P.S. Meltzer, J.M. Trent, DNA microarray technology: the anticipated impact on the study of human disease, Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 1423: M17–M28 (1999).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    K.M. Kurian, C.J. Watson and A.H. Wyllie, DNA chip technology, J. Pathol. 187: 267–271 (1999).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    P.C. Mann, Selected lesions of dioxin in laboratory rodents, Toxicol. Pathol. 25: 72–79 (1997).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    M.H. Sweeney and P. Mocarelli, Human health effects after exposure to 2,3,7,8-TCDD, Food Addit. Contam. 17: 3 03–316 (2000).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. Neubert, Reflections on the assessment of the toxicity of “dioxins” for humans, using data from experimental and epidemiological studies, Teratog. Carcinog. Mutagen. 17: 157–215 (1997–98).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Y.P. Dragan and D. Schrenk, Animal studies addressing the carcinogenicity of TCDD (or related compounds) with an emphasis on tumour promotion., Food Addit. Contam. 17: 289–302 (2000).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    L. Poellinger, Mechanistic aspects--the dioxin (aryl hydrocarbon) receptor, Food Addit. Contam. 17: 261–266 (2000).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    S.T. Okino and J.P. Whitlock, The aromatic hydrocarbon receptor, transcription, and endocrine aspects of dioxin action, Vitam., Horm. 59:241–264 (2000).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    P.A. Bertazzi, I. Bernucci, G. Brambilla, D. Consonni and A.C. Pesatori, The Seveso studies on early and long-term effects of dioxin exposure: a review, Environ. Health Perspect. S2: 625–633 (1998).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D.E. Heck, Nitric oxide biosynthesis and metabolism in keratinocytes: the functions and consequences of nitric oxide production in the skin, In: J.D. Laskin and D.L. Laskin (eds), Cellular and Molecular Biology of Nitric Oxide. pp. 293–308. New York: Marcel Dekker (1999).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    C.A. Harrington, C. Rosenow and J. Retief, Monitoring gene expression using DNA microarrays, Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 3: 285–291 (2000).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    G. Sherlock, Analysis of large-scale gene expression data, Curr Opin Immunol. 12: 201–205 (2000).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    C.B. Epstein and’ R.A. Butow, Microarray technology - enhanced versatility, persistent challenge, Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 11: 36–41 (2000).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    D.D. Bowtell Options available--from start to finish--for obtaining expression data by microarray, Nature Genet. 21S: 25–32 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    V.G. Cheung, M. Morley, F. Aguilar, A. Massimi, R. Kucherlapati and G. Childs, Making and reading microarrays, Nature Genet. 21S: 15–19 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    D. Ghosh, High throughput and global approaches to gene expression, Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screen 3: 411–420 (2000).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. Aach, W. Rindone and G.M. Church, Systematic management and analysis of yeast gene expression data, Genome Res. 10: 431–445 (2000).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    M.D. Kane, T.A. Jatkoe, C.R. Stumpf, J. Lu, J.D. Thomas and S.J. Madore, Assessment of the sensitivity and specificity of oligonucleotide (50mer) microarrays, Nucleic Acids Res. 28: 4552–4557 (2000).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. Schena, D. Shalon, R.W. Davis and P.O. Brown, Quantitative monitoring of gene expression patterns with a complementary DNA microarray, Science. 270: 467–470 (1995).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    J.J. Chen, R. Wu, P.C. Yang, J.Y. Huang, Y.P. Sher, M.H. Han, W.C. Kao, P.J. Lee, T.F. Chiu, F. Chang, Y.W. Chu, C.W. Wu and K. Peck, A proximal CCD imaging system for high-throughput detection of micro array-based assaysIF.F.E, Eng. Med Biol. Mag. 18:120–122 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    J.A. Ferguson, T.C. Boles, C.P. Adams and D.R. Walt, A fiber-optic DNA biosensor microarray for the analysis of gene expression, Nature Biotechnol. 14: 1681–1684 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    P.K. Kim and C.S. Deutschman, Inflammatory responses and mediators, Surg. Clin. North Am. 80: 885–894 (2000).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    D.K. Podolsky, Review article: healing after inflammatory injury--coordination of a regulatory peptide network, Pharmacol. Ther. 14S: 87–93 (2000).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    J.D. Laskin, D.E. Heck and D.L. Laskin, Multifunctional role of nitric oxide in inflammation, Trend. Endro. Metabol. 5: 377–382 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    G.W. Sullivan, I.J. Sarembock and J. Linden, The role of inflammation in vascular diseases, J. Leukoc. Biol. 67: 591–602 (2000).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    G. Ramadori and B. Christ, Cytokines and the hepatic acute-phase response, Semin. Liver Dis. 19: 141–155 (1999).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    R. Carmaciu, The adaption to environmental factors: hazard or programme, Rom. J. Physiol. 35: 247–252 (1998).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    T. Yamaguchi, H. Nishimura, T. Watanabe, S. Saito, M. Yabuki, K. Shiba, N. Isobe, F. Kishida, M. Kumano, F. Shono, H. Adachi and M. Matsuo, A research to develop a predicting system of mammalian subacute toxicity. I. Prediction of subacute toxicity using the biological parameters of acute toxicities, Chemosphere. 32: 979–998 (1996).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    C.R. Gardner, D.E. Heck, C. S. Yang, P.E. Thomas, X.J. Zhang, G.L. DeGeorge, J.D. Laskin and D.L. Laskin, Role of acetaminophen-induced hepatotoxicity in the rat, Hepatology 27: 748–754 (1998).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    D.E. Heck, L. Louis, M.A. Gallo and J.D. Laskin, Modulation of the development of pleutei by nitric oxide in the sea urchin, Arbacia punctulata, Biological Bulletin 199: 195–197 (2000).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    C.A. Afshari, E.F. Nuwaysir and J. C. Barrett, Application of complementary DNA microarray technology to carcinogen identification, toxicology, and drug safety evaluation, Cancer Res. 59: 4759–4760 (1999).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    M.J. Cunningham, S. Liang, S. Fuhrman, J.J. Seilhamer and R. Somogyi, Gene expression microarray data analysis for toxicology profiling, Ann N.Y. Acad. Sci. 919: 52–67 (2000).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    J.V. Leonard and A.A. Morris, Inborn errors of metabolism around time of birth, Lancet. 356: 583–587 (2000).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departments of Pharmacology and ToxicologyRutgers UniversityPiscatawayUSA
  2. 2.Departments of Environmental and Community MedicineUMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical SchoolPiscatawayUSA

Personalised recommendations