Application of Toxicogenomic Technology for the Improvement of Risk Assessment

  • Hwang, Myung-Sil (Division of Risk Assessment, Department of Risk Assessment Research, National Institute of Toxicological Research) ;
  • Yoon, Eun-Kyung (Division of Risk Assessment, Department of Risk Assessment Research, National Institute of Toxicological Research) ;
  • Kim, Ja-Young (Division of Risk Assessment, Department of Risk Assessment Research, National Institute of Toxicological Research) ;
  • Son, Bo-Kyung (Division of Risk Assessment, Department of Risk Assessment Research, National Institute of Toxicological Research) ;
  • Jang, Dong-Deuk (Division of Risk Assessment, Department of Risk Assessment Research, National Institute of Toxicological Research) ;
  • Yoo, Tae-Moo (Division of Risk Assessment, Department of Risk Assessment Research, National Institute of Toxicological Research)
  • Published : 2008.09.30

Abstract

Recently, there has been scientific discussion on the utility of -omics techniques such as genomics, proteomics, and metabolomics within toxicological research and mechanism-based risk assessment. Toxicogenomics is a novel approach integrating the expression analysis of genes (genomic) or proteins (proteomic) with traditional toxicological methods. Since 1999, the toxicogenomic approach has been extensively applied for regulatory purposes in order to understand the potential toxic mechanisms that result from chemical compound exposures. Therefore, this article's purpose was to consider the utility of toxicogenomic profiles for improved risk assessment, explore the current limitations in applying toxicogenomics to regulation, and finally, to rationalize possible avenues to resolve some of the major challenges. Based on many recent works, the significant impact toxicogenomic techniques would have on human health risk assessment is better identification of toxicity pathways or mode-of-actions (MOAs). In addition, the application of toxicogenomics in risk assessment and regulation has proven to be cost effective in terms of screening unknown toxicants prior to more extensive and costly experimental evaluation. However, to maximize the utility of these techniques in regulation, researchers and regulators must resolve many parallel challenges with regard to data collection, integration, and interpretation. Furthermore, standard guidance has to be prepared for researchers and assessors on the scientifically appropriate use of toxicogenomic profiles in risk assessment. The National Institute of Toxicological Research (NITR) looks forward to an ongoing role as leader in addressing the challenges associated with the scientifically sound use of toxicogenomics data in risk assessment.

References

  1. NRC (National Research Council). Science and judgment in risk assessment. Washington, DC; National Academy Press (1994)
  2. Aardema, M. J. & MacGregor, J. T. Toxicology and genetic toxicology in the new era of "toxicogenomics": impact of "-omics" technologies. Mutat Res 499: 13-25 (2002) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0027-5107(01)00292-5
  3. Iannaccone, P. M. Toxicogenomics: "the call of the wild chip". Environ Health Perspect 109:8-11 (2001) https://doi.org/10.2307/3434894
  4. Kultima, K. et al. Valproic acid teratogenicity: A toxicogenomics approach. Environ Health Perspect 112: 1225-1235 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.7034
  5. Maggioli, J. et al. Toxicogenomic analysis methods for predivtive toxicology. J of Pharmaco and Toxicol Methods 53:31-37 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vascn.2005.05.006
  6. Hansch, C. et al. The expanding role of quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR) in toxicology. Toxicol Lett 79:45-53 (1995) https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4274(95)03356-P
  7. Tong, W. et al. Assessment of prediction confidence and domain extrapolation of two structure-activity relationship models for predicting estrogen receptor binding activity. Environ Health Perspect 112:1249-1254 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.7125
  8. Nie, A. Y. et al. Predictive toxicogenomics approaches reveal underlying molecular mechanisms of nongenotoxic carcinogenicity. Mol Carcinog 45:914-933 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1002/mc.20205
  9. Hamadeh, H. K. et al. Gene expression analysis reveals chemical-specific profiles. Toxicol Sci 67:219-231 (2002b) https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/67.2.219
  10. Ulrich, R. & Friend, S. H. Toxicogenomics and drug discovery: will new technologies help us produce better drugs? Nat Rev Drug Discov 1:84-88 (2002) https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd710
  11. Fielden, M. R. et al. A gene expression signature that predicts the future onset of drug-induced renal tubular toxicity. Toxicol Pathol 33:675-683 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1080/01926230500321213
  12. Jiang, Y. et al. Diagnosis of drug-induced renal tubular toxicity using global gene expression profiles. J Trans Med 5:47-54 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5876-5-47
  13. Guerreiro, N. et al. Toxicogenomics in drug development. Toxicol Pathol 31:471-479 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1080/01926230390224656
  14. Uetrecht, J. Prediction of a new drug's potential to cause idiosyncratic reactions. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov Devel 4:55-59 (2001)
  15. Yang, Y., Blomme, E. A. G. & Waring, J. F. Toxicogenomics in drug discovery: from preclinical studies to clinical trials. Chem Biol Interact 150:71-85 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbi.2004.09.013
  16. EPA. Arsenic, inorganic. CASRN 7440-38-2. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Available: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0278.htm(1998b)
  17. International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC monographs on the evaluation of the carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans. Overall evaluations of carcinogenicity: An updating of IARC monographs Vol. 1-42, Supplement 7. Lyon, France: IARC Press. (1987)
  18. Boelsterli, U. A. Diclofenac-induced liver injury: a paradigm of idiosyncratic drug toxicity. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 192:307-322 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0041-008X(03)00368-5
  19. Masubuchi, Y., Nakayama, S. & Horie, T. Role of mitochondrial permeability transition in diclofenacinduced hepatocyte injury in rats. Hepatology 35:544-551 (2002) https://doi.org/10.1053/jhep.2002.31871
  20. Ulrich, R. G. et al. Metabolic, idiosyncratic toxicity of drugs: overview of the hepatic toxicity induced by the anxiolytic, panadiplon. Chem Biol Interact 134: 251-270 (2001) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2797(01)00161-2
  21. Smith, L. L. Key challenges for toxicologists in the 21st century. Trends Pharmacol Sci 22:281-285 (2001) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-6147(00)01714-4
  22. Fielden, M. R. & Zacharewski, T. R. Challenges and limitations of gene expression profiling in mechanistic and predictive toxicology. Toxicol Sci 60:6-10 (2001) https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/60.1.6
  23. FDA. Guidance for industry Pharmacogenomic data submissions. Washington, DC: Food and Drug Administration. Available: www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/ 6400fnl.pdf (2005)
  24. Salerno, R. A. & Lesko, L. J. Pharmacogenomic data: FDA voluntary and required submission guidance. Pharmacogenomics 5:503-505 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1517/14622416.5.5.503