Protein biomarkers for in vitro testing of toxicology

André Schrattenholz1, Vukić Šoškić, Rainer Schöpf

  • 1ProteoSys AG, Carl-Zeiss-Str.51, D-55129 Mainz, Germany. andre.schrattenholz@proteosys.com

Mutation Research
|March 13, 2012
PubMed

Insights

The 21st-century toxicology aims to replace animal testing with human in vitro systems to identify toxicity pathways. This approach utilizes systems biology and omics technologies for improved human risk assessment and compound screening.

Area of Science:

  • Toxicology and Systems Biology
  • Biomarker Discovery
  • Computational Toxicology

Background:

  • The "toxicology in the 21st century" movement seeks to replace traditional animal testing with human in vitro methods.
  • This shift aims to provide mechanistic insights for human risk assessment and high-throughput screening of chemical compounds, particularly relevant for pharmaceutical development and REACH legislation.
  • Systems biology offers a framework to integrate multi-omics data (transcriptomics, proteomics, epigenomics, metabonomics) for toxicological studies.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To explore the integration of systems biology approaches for toxicological research.
  • To identify challenges and strategies for utilizing multi-omics data in toxicology.
  • To advance the development of human-relevant in vitro toxicity testing and risk assessment.

Main Methods:

  • Utilizing transcriptomics, proteomics, epigenomics, and metabonomics to analyze toxicological models.
  • Applying systems biology principles for data integration and interpretation.
  • Developing sophisticated strategies for time-resolved quantitative differential analysis of protein biomarkers.

Main Results:

  • Significant challenges exist in data generation, statistical analysis, bioinformatic integration, and in silico modeling for multi-omics toxicological data.
  • Post-translational modifications greatly increase molecular species complexity.
  • Rapid cellular responses and wide dynamic ranges in protein concentrations necessitate advanced analytical techniques.

Conclusions:

  • Integrating multi-omics data within a systems biology framework is crucial for advancing predictive toxicology.
  • Further development is needed in statistical methods and data integration, especially for metabonomics and mass spectrometry-based functional data.
  • The ultimate goal is to establish robust in vitro human systems for accurate toxicity pathway identification and risk assessment.

Related Concept Videos

Toxicity Testing in Animals01:23

Toxicity Testing in Animals

Toxicity tests in animals are grounded on two main assumptions: first, the effects observed in laboratory animals can be extrapolated to humans, especially when adjusted for body surface area; second, high-dose exposure in animals is essential to identify potential human hazards from lower doses. This is based on the quantal dose-response concept, which faces the challenge of extrapolating results from relatively few test animals to much larger human populations. For example, a 0.01% incidence...
Bioactivation and Tissue Toxicity01:25

Bioactivation and Tissue Toxicity

Bioactivation is a metabolic process that transforms less reactive substances into highly reactive metabolites, initiating tissue toxicity. This transformation can lead to various toxic effects, including carcinogenesis and teratogenesis. Reactive metabolites are classified into two main types: electrophiles and free radicals.Electrophiles are electron-deficient species and are produced primarily by the enzyme cytochrome P-450 during the metabolism of compounds containing carbon, nitrogen, or...
Mutagenicity and Carcinogenicity01:25

Mutagenicity and Carcinogenicity

Mutagenicity and carcinogenicity refer to the ability of drugs to cause genetic defects and induce cancer, respectively. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies agents into four groups based on their carcinogenic potential. Group 1 agents are known human carcinogens; group 2A agents are probably carcinogenic to humans; group 3 agents lack data to support their role in carcinogenesis; and group 4 includes agents for which data support that they are not likely to be...