High Throughput Genotoxicity Profiling of the US EPA ToxCast TM Chemical Library S Little 1, AW Knight 2, L Birrell 2, G Akerman 3, N McCarroll 3, D Dix.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Regulatory Acceptance of Alternative Methods- Pharmaceuticals in the U.S. A. Jacobs 11/07 (not an official opinion)
Advertisements

Perspectives from EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program
Analysis of High-Throughput Screening Data C371 Fall 2004.
Lessons Learned from Measuring Cell Response by Quantitative Automated Microscopy FDA Workshop, Potency Measurements for Cellular and Gene Therapy Products,
UNEP Advisory Group Meeting Geneva, Switzerland December 12, 2014
Evaluation of a potential mutagenic MOA based on analysis of the weight of evidence and using the modified Hill criteria Martha M. Moore, Ph.D. Director,
We processed six samples in triplicate using 11 different array platforms at one or two laboratories. we obtained measures of array signal variability.
Development of an Institutional Knowledge-base at FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition Kirk B. Arvidson 1, Annette McCarthy 1, Chihae Yang.
Priority-setting for the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program: Pesticide Active Ingredients Penelope A. Fenner-Crisp Office of Pesticide Programs U.S.
CONFERENCE ON “ FOOD ADDITIVES : SAFETY IN USE AND CONSUMER CONCERNS“ JOMO KENYATTA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY NAIROBI, 24 JUNE 2014.
McKim Workshop on Strategic Approaches for Reducing Data Redundancy in Cancer Assessment Jay R. Niemelä Technical University of Denmark National Food Institute.
S TRUCTURAL B IOINFORMATICS. A subset of Bioinformatics concerned with the of biological structures - proteins, DNA, RNA, ligands etc. It is the first.
Office of Research and Development National Center for Computational Toxicology April 6, 2010 Exposure-Based Chemical Prioritization Workshop: Exploring.
Chemical Genetics – Biol503
What Do Toxicologists Do?
Discussion Our current results suggest that it is possible to identify susceptibility regions using this methodology. The presented method takes advantage.
Introduction of Cancer Molecular Epidemiology Zuo-Feng Zhang, MD, PhD University of California Los Angeles.
+ Drug Development and Review Process. + Objectives Learn the processes involved in drug discovery and development Define the phases involved in FDA drug.
Re-Examination of the Design of Early Clinical Trials for Molecularly Targeted Drugs Richard Simon, D.Sc. National Cancer Institute linus.nci.nih.gov/brb.
Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods.
Food and Drug Administration Preclinical safety data for “first in human” (FIH) clinical trials in healthy volunteer subjects Oncology Drug Advisory Committee.
Bioinformatics Ayesha M. Khan Spring Phylogenetic software PHYLIP l 2.
June 16-19, USEPA Cancer Guidelines: Mode of Carcinogenic Action 1 ICABR – Impacts of the Bioeconomy on Agricultural Sustainability, the Environment.
Luděk Bláha, PřF MU, RECETOX BIOMARKERS AND TOXICITY MECHANISMS 13 – BIOMARKERS Summary and final notes.
Criteria for Screens— Review of the EDSTAC Recommendations Presentation to the EDMVS July 23, 2002.
A substance used in the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of a disease or as a component of a medication A substance used in the diagnosis, treatment,
Chapter 13. The Impact of Genomics on Antimicrobial Drug Discovery and Toxicology CBBL - Young-sik Sohn-
28/05/12 Questions (Rispondete alle domande che seguono usando il colore rosso per il testo) Tossicologia - Rubbiani Maristella.
Office of Research and Development National Center for Computational Toxicology Keith Houck, PhD ISRPT 2009 Endocrine Workshop 9-10 Sept 2009 What Can.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration Notice: Archived Document The content in this document is provided on the FDA’s website for reference purposes only.
EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF ADDING THE RECLAIMING FUTURES APPROACH TO JUVENILE TREATMENT DRUG COURTS: RECLAIMING FUTURES/JUVENILE DRUG COURT EVALUATION Josephine.
Exploratory IND Studies
Forging Partnerships on Emerging Contaminants November 2, 2005 John Vandenberg Associate Director for Health National Center for Environmental Assessment.
The US Tox21 Collaboration: Advances Made and Lessons Learned
Drug Discovery Process Massimiliano Beltramo, PhD.
Function first: a powerful approach to post-genomic drug discovery Stephen F. Betz, Susan M. Baxter and Jacquelyn S. Fetrow GeneFormatics Presented by.
Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master text styles –Second level Third level –Fourth level »Fifth level Office of Research and Development.
Lecture 10 – DNA Mutation Based on Chapter 07 Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education Inc.
FDA Case Studies Pediatric Oncology Subcommittee March 4, 2003.
MAIN TOXICITY TESTING. TESTING STRATEGIES A number of different types of data are used in order to establish the safety of chemical substances for use.
The Use of Predictive Biomarkers in Clinical Trial Design Richard Simon, D.Sc. Chief, Biometric Research Branch National Cancer Institute
The New Drug Development Process (www. fda. gov/cder/handbook/develop
The FDA: Basic Facts It takes 12 to 15 years to develop a single drug Only 1 in 10,000 potential medications makes it completely through the process Only.
Background on Furan in Foods Nega Beru, Ph.D. Director, Division of Plant Product Safety Office of Plant and Dairy Foods Center for Food and Applied Nutrition.
Using Predictive Classifiers in the Design of Phase III Clinical Trials Richard Simon, D.Sc. Chief, Biometric Research Branch National Cancer Institute.
Kamala Pant, M.S. BioReliance Study Director/Principal Scientist
Privacy Symposium / HIPAA Summit
Public Health and Risk Assessment (2nd of 10 Lectures on Toxicologic Epidemiology) Michael H. Dong MPH, DrPA, PhD  readings.
Office of Research and Development National Center for Computational Toxicology Amy Wang National Center for Computational Toxicology The views expressed.
ANALYSIS OF GENE EXPRESSION DATA. Gene expression data is a high-throughput data type (like DNA and protein sequences) that requires bioinformatic pattern.
An Overview of the Objectives, Approach, and Components of ComET™ Mr. Paul Price The LifeLine Group All slides and material Copyright protected.
“Journey of a Drug” From Test Tube TO Prescribing Physician.
MODELS FOR SUCCESS: AN INTEGRATED APPROACH FOR JUVENILE DRUG COURT Reclaiming Futures/Juvenile Drug Court Evaluation Southwest Institute for Research on.
The Future of Chemical Toxicity Testing in the U.S.
QSAR in CANCER ASSESSMENT PURPOSE and AGENDA Gilman Veith Duluth MN May 19-21, 2010.
Shows tendency for mergers. These big companies may be shrinking – much research is now outsourced to low cost countries like Latvia, India, China and.
신기술 접목에 의한 신약개발의 발전전망과 전략 LGCI 생명과학 기술원. Confidential LGCI Life Science R&D 새 시대 – Post Genomic Era Genome count ‘The genomes of various species including.
A substance used in the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of a disease or as a component of a medication recognized or defined by the U.S. Food, Drug,
Small Molecules that Enhance the Pharmacological Effects of Oligonucleotides Melissa Porter 1, Bing Yang 1, Canhong Cao 1, Xin Ming 1, Emily Hull-Ryde.
for Human Pharmaceuticals Kyung-Chul Choi D.V.M., Ph.D.
Multi-purpose center for adult education in clean environment
Drug Discovery &Development
Statistical Methods for Model Evaluation – Moving Beyond the Comparison of Matched Observations and Output for Model Grid Cells Kristen M. Foley1, Jenise.
APPLICATIONS OF BIOINFORMATICS IN DRUG DISCOVERY
Susan Makris U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development
Multidimensional Drug Profiling By Automated Microscopy
Benjamin Wooden, Nicolas Goossens, Yujin Hoshida, Scott L. Friedman 
IND Review Process Seoul National University
Imaging in Systems Biology
RSESS March 18, 2008 Robert Osterberg
Presentation transcript:

High Throughput Genotoxicity Profiling of the US EPA ToxCast TM Chemical Library S Little 1, AW Knight 2, L Birrell 2, G Akerman 3, N McCarroll 3, D Dix 1, K Houck 1, R Judson 1, R Kavlock 1, M Martin 1, A Richard 1, C Yang 4, RM Walmsley 2 1 National Center for Computational Toxicology, Office of Research & Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 2 Gentronix Ltd., CTF Building, 46 Grafton Street, Manchester, UK, 3 Health Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW (MC 7509P), Washington, DC, 4 Office of Food Additive Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, U. S. Food and Drug Administration, College Park, Maryland Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation by EPA for use. This work was reviewed by EPA and approved for publication but does not necessarily reflect official Agency policy. INTRODUCTION METHODS CONCLUSIONS Assay StatisticsThe number of positive results for genotoxicity was similar between the 3 assays, averaging just over 10%. Whereas the GreenScreen HC, CellCiphr p53 and CellSensor p53 assays produced similar numbers of positive results (32, 27 and 36 respectively), the overlap between data sets was reasonably small. The number of positive GreenScreen HC results that were common to CellCiphr p53 and CellSensor p53 assays were 6 and 9, respectively. There were 11 CellCipher p53 positive assay results that were common to CellSensor p53. The historical Ames test data had 46 positive results for 108 tested compounds. Correlation with rodent bioassay The HTS assays have a lower number of true positive results compared to the Ames assay due to lower sensitivity, a tradeoff for the advantage of screening large numbers of compounds with low sample concentration requirements. The Ames assay predicts a greater percentage of true positives (higher sensitivity), but it also produces a larger percentage of false positives (or smaller percentage of correct negatives), i.e. lower specificity. Conversely the HTS assays demonstrated high specificity, consistently over 88%, and hence produce a low number of what may be construed as false positive results. Overall strategic learning The present analysis suggests that HTS genotoxicity assays could be used as an in vitro screen for potentially genotoxic compounds. As one part of a weight-of-evidence assessment, the data could be applied to judge the likelihood of a compound’s potential adverse effect for humans, to help determine the mode of action for carcinogenicity, to enhance the process of prioritization by selecting compounds for further study. REFERENCES A key aim of the ToxCast TM project 1 is to investigate the use of modern high- throughput screening (HTS) assays to provide a biologically informed basis for predicting toxicity and prioritizing chemicals for further testing. The purpose of this study is to evaluate recently developed HTS methodologies from Gentronix Ltd., Cellumen Inc., and Invitrogen Corp., the latter performed by the National Institutes of Health Chemical Genomics Center (NCGC), in the context of the particular chemical space and larger aims of the ToxCast TM project. These assays each indicate different aspects of the cellular response to a genotoxic challenge, which can lead to DNA damage, mis-repair and mutations and, ultimately, to tumorigenesis and carcinogenesis. The Gentronix ‘GreenScreen HC’ assay 2 uses a human lymphoblastoid TK6 cell line genetically modified to include a green fluorescent protein (GFP) reporter for the human GADD45a gene. The Cellumen ‘CellCiphr’ cytotoxicity profile panel 3 includes fluorescent probes for 10 cellular responses including DNA damage in human HepG2 cells as measured by p53 activation using fluorescent anti-p53 antibody. The Invitrogen ‘CellSensor’ assay 4 uses a beta-lactamase reporter gene under the control of a p53 response elements stable integrated in HCT-116 cells and measured via fluorescent resonance energy transfer (FRET). These HTS assays represent two gene targets in their endpoints, p53 and GADD45a in a p53 competent cell line. P53 is known to act as a ‘gate keeper’ to ensure genetic and cellular integrity during the cell cycle. GADD45a (growth arrest and DNA damage) mediates the cell’s response to genotoxic stress. The HTS assay results were combined with the ToxCast TM Phase I compound data set. This set consists of 320 primarily pesticidal active compounds for which hazard assessment toxicological data, including multisite tumorigenicity data, are available from the US EPA Office of Pesticide Programs. HTS assay results are also compared with historical mutagenicity (Ames) data available for a subset of the test compounds. The purpose of these HTS assays is not to replace the use of Ames tests, but to increase testing efficiency for early screening of larger sets of chemicals of interest. (1) EPA ToxCast, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Center for Computational Toxicology ToxCast Project, Accessed January (2) Knight A.W., Birrell L., Walmsley R.M., Development and validation of a higher throughput screening approach to genotoxicity testing using the GADD45a-GFP GreenScreen HC assay. J. Biomol. Scr. 14, (3) Vernetti, L., W. Irwin, K.A. Giuliano, A. Gough, P. Johnston and D.L. Taylor, Cellular Systems Biology Applied to Pre-Clinical Safety Testing: A Case Study of CellCiphr Cytotoxicity Profiling, in Drug Efficacy, Safety and Biologics Discovery: Emerging Technologies and Tools, J.J. Xu and S. Ekins, Editors. Wiley and Sons (ISBN: ).Cellular Systems Biology Applied to Pre-Clinical Safety Testing: A Case Study of CellCiphr Cytotoxicity Profiling, in Drug Efficacy, Safety and Biologics Discovery: Emerging Technologies and Tools (4)Invitrogen, CellSensor™ p53RE-bla HCT-116 Cell-based Assay Protocol. Accessed January AssayGenotoxicityCytotoxicity Number% % GreenScreen HC CellCiphr p CellSensor p GreenScreen +GreenScreen - Rodent Rodent Cellciphr +Cellciphr - Rodent +850 Rodent CellSensor +CellSensor - Rodent Rodent Ames +Ames - Rodent +14 Rodent Concordance with Multiple Site Rodent Tumorigenicity Data Summary of HTS predicted positive assay data Replicate Sample Reproducibility HTS Methods Comparison GreenScreen HC CellCiphr p53 CellSensor p Overlap of HTS predicted positive genotoxicity assay data (for replicate compounds randomly distributed in the compound library)