4.8 Article

Prediction of human population responses to toxic compounds by a collaborative competition

Journal

NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY
Volume 33, Issue 9, Pages 933-+

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/nbt.3299

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. US National Institutes of Health (NIH)
  2. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) [Y2-ES-7020-01]
  3. US Environmental Protection Agency [STAR RD83516601, RD83382501]
  4. NIH [R01CA161608, R01HG006292, 5R01CA152301, 1R01CA172211]
  5. European Molecular Biology Laboratory Interdisciplinary Post-Docs (EMBL EIPOD)
  6. Marie Curie Actions (COFUND)
  7. MRC [G0902104] Funding Source: UKRI
  8. Medical Research Council [G0902104] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The ability to computationally predict the effects of toxic compounds on humans could help address the deficiencies of current chemical safety testing. Here, we report the results from a community-based DREAM challenge to predict toxicities of environmental compounds with potential adverse health effects for human populations. We measured the cytotoxicity of 156 compounds in 884 lymphoblastoid cell lines for which genotype and transcriptional data are available as part of the Tox21 1000 Genomes Project. The challenge participants developed algorithms to predict interindividual variability of toxic response from genomic profiles and population-level cytotoxicity data from structural attributes of the compounds. 179 submitted predictions were evaluated against an experimental data set to which participants were blinded. Individual cytotoxicity predictions were better than random, with modest correlations (Pearson's r < 0.28), consistent with complex trait genomic prediction. In contrast, predictions of population-level response to different compounds were higher (r < 0.66). The results highlight the possibility of predicting health risks associated with unknown compounds, although risk estimation accuracy remains suboptimal.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available