Abstract
In this chapter a five-step strategy is described that provides comparative evaluations of the effects of biologically active substances. These evaluations constitute an integral part of the determination of the risks for the human population to exposure to these substances. The strategy is based on the concept of biological impact quantification for which novel computational methodologies have been developed in the past few years; these methodologies are reviewed in this chapter. The effects of the active substances are then described in terms of networks containing the biological mechanisms involved in the response to the exposure. As a consequence, the biological impact assessment represents a systems-wide metric of network-based perturbed biological mechanisms. The implementation of the strategy involves the generation of transcriptomics data following the exposure experiment and their evaluation in the context of causal network models. After the five-step strategy for biological impact quantification has been described in some detail, its application in a concrete case of a mouse smoking-cessation experiment is presented. The results show how mechanistic insights into the potential toxic effects of exposure to active substances can benefit the safety assessment.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2004) The critical path initiative. http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/CriticalPathInitiative/
Committee on Toxicity Testing and Assessment of Environmental Agents, National Research Council (2007) Toxicity testing in the 21st century: a vision and a strategy. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11970
Krewski D, Westphal M, Andersen ME et al (2014) A framework for the next generation of risk science. Environ Health Perspect 122(8):796–805. doi:10.1289/ehp.1307260
Waters MD, Fostel JM (2004) Toxicogenomics and systems toxicology: aims and prospects. Nat Rev Genet 5(12):936–948
Hoeng J, Deehan R, Pratt D et al (2012) A network-based approach to quantifying the impact of biologically active substances. Drug Discov Today 17(9-10):413–418, doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2011.11.008 S1359-6446(11)00425-9 [pii]
Barabasi A-L, Oltvai ZN (2004) Network biology: understanding the cell's functional organization. Nat Rev Genet 5(2):101–113
Kitano H (2002) Systems biology: a brief overview. Science 295(5560):1662–1664
Del Sol A, Balling R, Hood L et al (2010) Diseases as network perturbations. Curr Opin Biotechnol 21(4):566–571
Barabási A-L, Gulbahce N, Loscalzo J (2011) Network medicine: a network-based approach to human disease. Nat Rev Genet 12(1):56–68
Berger SI, Iyengar R (2009) Network analyses in systems pharmacology. Bioinformatics 25(19):2466–2472
Chindelevitch L, Ziemek D, Enayetallah A et al (2012) Causal reasoning on biological networks: interpreting transcriptional changes. Bioinformatics 28(8):1114–1121. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/bts090
Kramer A, Green J, Pollard J Jr et al (2014) Causal analysis approaches in ingenuity pathway analysis. Bioinformatics 30(4):523–530. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btt703
Catlett NL, Bargnesi AJ, Ungerer S et al (2013) Reverse causal reasoning: applying qualitative causal knowledge to the interpretation of high-throughput data. BMC Bioinformatics 14(1):340
Sewer A, Hoeng J, Deehan R et al. Systems biology approaches for compound testing. Data Min Drug Discov 291–316
Hoeng J, Talikka M, Martin F et al (2014) Case study: the role of mechanistic network models in systems toxicology. Drug Discov Today 19(2):183–192. doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2013.07.023
Miller GW (2014) Improving reproducibility in toxicology. Toxicol Sci 139(1):001–003
Selventa The openBEL portal. http://www.openbel.org/
Martin F, Thomson TM, Sewer A et al (2012) Assessment of network perturbation amplitudes by applying high-throughput data to causal biological networks. BMC Syst Biol 6:54. doi:10.1186/1752-0509-6-54
Mitrea C, Taghavi Z, Bokanizad B et al (2013) Methods and approaches in the topology-based analysis of biological pathways. Frontiers Physiol 4
Martin F, Sewer A, Talikka M et al (2014) Quantification of biological network perturbations for mechanistic insight and diagnostics using two-layer causal models. BMC Bioinformatics 15(1):238
The Core R team (2012) R: a language and environment for statistical computing
Gentleman RC, Carey VJ, Bates DM et al (2004) Bioconductor: open software development for computational biology and bioinformatics. Genome Biol 5(10):R80
Gentleman R, Lang DT (2007) Statistical analyses and reproducible research. J Comput Graph Stat 16(1)
Xie Y (2014) Knitr: a comprehensive tool for reproducible research in R. Implement Reprod Res 1:20
Liu Z, Pounds S (2014) An R package that automatically collects and archives details for reproducible computing. BMC Bioinformatics 15(1):138
Rhrissorrakrai K, Belcastro V, Bilal E et al (2014) Understanding the limits of animal models as predictors of human biology: lessons learned from the sbv IMPROVER Species Translation Challenge. Bioinformatics 31(4):471–483, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu611
Wikipedia. The three Rs (animals). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Rs_(animals)
Commission TE (2009) Alternative testing strategies – progress report 2009 – replacing, reducing and refining use of animals in research. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg
Edwards SW, Preston RJ (2008) Systems biology and mode of action based risk assessment. Toxicol Sci 106(2):312–318. doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfn190
Russell WMS, Burch RL, Hume CW (1959) The principles of humane experimental technique
Pleil JD, Sheldon LS (2011) Adapting concepts from systems biology to develop systems exposure event networks for exposure science research. Biomarkers 16(2):99–105
Rustici G, Kolesnikov N, Brandizi M et al (2013) ArrayExpress update—trends in database growth and links to data analysis tools. Nucleic Acids Res 41(D1):D987–D990
Barrett T, Wilhite SE, Ledoux P et al (2013) NCBI GEO: archive for functional genomics data sets—update. Nucleic Acids Res 41(D1):D991–D995
Allison DB, Cui X, Page GP et al (2006) Microarray data analysis: from disarray to consolidation and consensus. Nat Rev Genet 7(1):55–65
Shi L, Shi L, Reid LH et al (2006) The MicroArray Quality Control (MAQC) project shows inter-and intraplatform reproducibility of gene expression measurements. Nat Biotechnol 24(9):1151–1161
Yang YH, Speed T (2002) Design issues for cDNA microarray experiments. Nat Rev Genet 3(8):579–588
Churchill GA (2002) Fundamentals of experimental design for cDNA microarrays. Nat Genet 32:490–495
Lockhart DJ, Winzeler EA (2000) Genomics, gene expression and DNA arrays. Nature 405(6788):827–836
Ozsolak F, Milos PM (2010) RNA sequencing: advances, challenges and opportunities. Nat Rev Genet 12(2):87–98
Nuwaysir EF, Bittner M, Trent J et al (1999) Microarrays and toxicology: the advent of toxicogenomics. Mol Carcinog 24(3):153–159
Cox J, Mann M (2011) Quantitative, high-resolution proteomics for data-driven systems biology. Annu Rev Biochem 80:273–299
Irizarry RA, Hobbs B, Collin F et al (2003) Exploration, normalization, and summaries of high density oligonucleotide array probe level data. Biostatistics 4(2):249–264
Ringnér M (2008) What is principal component analysis? Nat Biotechnol 26(3):303–304
Smyth GK (2004) Linear models and empirical Bayes methods for assessing differential expression in microarray experiments. Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol 3(1)
Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc B 57(1):289–300
Suárez E, Burguete A, Mclachlan GJ (2009) Microarray data analysis for differential expression: a tutorial. P R Health Sci J 28(2)
Gershon D (2005) DNA microarrays: more than gene expression. Nature 437(7062):1195–1198
Hermida L, Poussin C, Stadler MB et al (2013) Confero: an integrated contrast data and gene set platform for computational analysis and biological interpretation of omics data. BMC Genomics 14(1):514
Surowiecki J (2005) The wisdom of crowds. Random House LLC, London
Ansari S, Binder J, Boue S et al (2013) On crowd-verification of biological networks. Bioinform Biol Insights 7:307
Westra JW, Schlage WK, Frushour BP et al (2011) Construction of a computable cell proliferation network focused on non-diseased lung cells. BMC Syst Biol 5(1):105
Schlage WK, Westra JW, Gebel S et al (2011) A computable cellular stress network model for non-diseased pulmonary and cardiovascular tissue. BMC Syst Biol 5(1):168
Gebel S, Lichtner RB, Frushour B et al (2013) Construction of a computable network model for DNA damage, autophagy, cell death, and senescence. Bioinform Biol Insights 7:97
Westra JW, Schlage WK, Hengstermann A et al (2013) A modular cell-type focused inflammatory process network model for non-diseased pulmonary tissue. Bioinform Biol Insights 7:167
De León H, Boué S, Schlage WK et al (2014) A vascular biology network model focused on inflammatory processes to investigate atherogenesis and plaque instability. J Transl Med 12(1):185
Boué S, Talikka M, Westra JW et al (2014) Causal Biological Network (CBN) database: a comprehensive platform of causal biological network models focused on the pulmonary and vascular systems. Submitted
The SBVImprover project team. The SBVImprover Bionet platform. http://bionet.sbvimprover.com
Belcastro V, Poussin C, Gebel S et al (2013) Systematic verification of upstream regulators of a computable cellular proliferation network model on non-diseased lung cells using a dedicated dataset. Bioinform Biol Insights 7:217
Liao JC, Boscolo R, Yang Y-L et al (2003) Network component analysis: reconstruction of regulatory signals in biological systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100(26):15522–15527
Thomson TM, Sewer A, Martin F et al (2013) Quantitative assessment of biological impact using transcriptomic data and mechanistic network models. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 272(3):863–878. doi:10.1016/j.taap.2013.07.007
Tarca AL, Lauria M, Unger M et al (2013) Strengths and limitations of microarray-based phenotype prediction: lessons learned from the improver diagnostic signature challenge. Bioinformatics 29(22):2892–2899
Kiyosawa N, Manabe S, Yamoto T et al (2010) Practical application of toxicogenomics for profiling toxicant-induced biological perturbations. Int J Mol Sci 11(9):3397–3412. doi:10.3390/ijms11093397
Vasilyev DM, Thomson TM, Frushour BP et al (2014) An algorithm for score aggregation over causal biological networks based on random walk sampling. BMC Res Notes 7(1):516
Gonzalez-Suarez I, Sewer A, Walker P et al (2014) Systems biology approach for evaluating the biological impact of environmental toxicants in vitro. Chem Res Toxicol. doi:10.1021/tx400405s
Khatri P, Sirota M, Butte AJ (2012) Ten years of pathway analysis: current approaches and outstanding challenges. PLoS Comput Biol 8(2), e1002375. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002375
Phillips B, Veljkovic E, Peck MJ et al (2014) A 7-month cigarette smoke inhalation study in C57BL/6 mice demonstrates reduced lung inflammation and emphysema following smoking cessation or aerosol exposure from a prototypic modified risk tobacco product
Canada H (1999) Determination of "Tar" and nicotine in sidestream tobacco smoke. Health Canada Test Method T-115
Kogel U, Schlage WK, Martin F et al (2014) A 28-day rat inhalation study with an integrated molecular toxicology endpoint demonstrates reduced exposure effects for a prototypic modified risk tobacco product compared with conventional cigarettes. Food Chem Toxicol 68:204–217
Iskandar AR, Martin F, Talikka M et al (2013) Systems approaches evaluating the perturbation of xenobiotic metabolism in response to cigarette smoke exposure in nasal and bronchial tissues. BioMed Res Int 2013:512086
Meyer P, Hoeng J, Rice JJ et al (2012) Industrial methodology for process verification in research (IMPROVER): toward systems biology verification. Bioinformatics 28(9):1193–1201
Mathis C, Poussin C, Weisensee D et al (2013) Human bronchial epithelial cells exposed in vitro to cigarette smoke at the air-liquid interface resemble bronchial epithelium from human smokers. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol 304(7):L489–L503
Poussin C, Gallitz I, Schlage WK et al (2014) Mechanism of an indirect effect of aqueous cigarette smoke extract on the adhesion of monocytic cells to endothelial cells in an in vitro assay revealed by transcriptomics analysis. Toxicol In Vitro 28(5):896–908
Boué S, De León H, Schlage WK et al (2013) Cigarette smoke induces molecular responses in respiratory tissues of ApoE−/− mice that are progressively deactivated upon cessation. Toxicology 314(1):112–124
Xiang Y, Kogel U, Gebel S et al (2014) Discovery of emphysema relevant molecular networks from an A/J mouse inhalation study using reverse engineering and forward simulation (REFS™). Gene Regul Syst Biol 8:45
Luettich K, Xiang Y, Iskandar A et al (2014) Systems toxicology approaches enable mechanistic comparison of spontaneous and cigarette smoke-related lung tumor development in the A/J mouse model. Interdiscip Toxicol 7(2):73–84
Poussin C, Mathis C, Alexopoulos LG et al (2014) The species translation challenge—a systems biology perspective on human and rat bronchial epithelial cells. Scientific Data 1
Talikka M, Kostadinova R, Xiang Y et al (2014) The response of human nasal and bronchial organotypic tissue cultures to repeated whole cigarette smoke exposure. Int J Toxicol. doi:10.1177/1091581814551647
Schlage WK, Iskandar AR, Kostadinova R et al (2014) In vitro systems toxicology approach to investigate the effects of repeated cigarette smoke exposure on human buccal and gingival organotypic epithelial tissue cultures. Toxicol Mech Methods 24(7):470–487
Castillo-Davis CI, Hartl DL (2003) GeneMerge—post-genomic analysis, data mining, and hypothesis testing. Bioinformatics 19(7):891–892
Subramanian A, Tamayo P, Mootha VK et al (2005) Gene set enrichment analysis: a knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102(43):15545–15550
Efron B, Tibshirani R (2007) On testing the significance of sets of genes. Ann Appl Stat 1(1):107–129
Tomfohr J, Lu J, Kepler TB (2005) Pathway level analysis of gene expression using singular value decomposition. BMC Bioinformatics 6(1):225
Lee E, Chuang H-Y, Kim J-W et al (2008) Inferring pathway activity toward precise disease classification. PLoS Comput Biol 4(11), e1000217
Tarca AL, Draghici S, Khatri P et al (2009) A novel signaling pathway impact analysis. Bioinformatics 25(1):75–82
Shojaie A, Michailidis G (2009) Analysis of gene sets based on the underlying regulatory network. J Comput Biol 16(3):407–426
Komurov K, Dursun S, Erdin S et al (2012) NetWalker: a contextual network analysis tool for functional genomics. BMC Genomics 13(1):282
Rapaport F, Zinovyev A, Dutreix M et al (2007) Classification of microarray data using gene networks. BMC Bioinformatics 8(1):35
Ackermann M, Strimmer K (2009) A general modular framework for gene set enrichment analysis. BMC Bioinformatics 10(1):47
Lefebvre C, Rajbhandari P, Alvarez MJ et al (2010) A human B-cell interactome identifies MYB and FOXM1 as master regulators of proliferation in germinal centers. Mol Syst Biol 6(1)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this protocol
Cite this protocol
Sewer, A., Martin, F., Schlage, W.K., Hoeng, J., Peitsch, M.C. (2015). Quantifying the Biological Impact of Active Substances Using Causal Network Models. In: Hoeng, J., Peitsch, M. (eds) Computational Systems Toxicology. Methods in Pharmacology and Toxicology. Humana Press, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2778-4_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2778-4_10
Publisher Name: Humana Press, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-2777-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-2778-4
eBook Packages: Springer Protocols