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

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.

Informations de copyright

Published by Elsevier B.V.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no conflict of interest. This manuscript has been reviewed by the Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure (CCTE), ORD, USEPA and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents reflect the views of the Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement for use.