4.7 Article

Expanding biological space coverage enhances the prediction of drug adverse effects in human using in vitro activity profiles

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 8, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-22046-w

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Intramural Research Programs of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [Y2-ES-7020-01]
  2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [Y3-HG-7026-03]
  3. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In vitro assay data have recently emerged as a potential alternative to traditional animal toxicity studies to aid in the prediction of adverse effects of chemicals on humans. Here we evaluate the data generated from a battery of quantitative high-throughput screening (qHTS) assays applied to a large and diverse collection of chemicals, including approved drugs, for their capacity in predicting human toxicity. Models were built with animal in vivo toxicity data, in vitro human cell-based assay data, as well as in combination with chemical structure and/or drug-target information to predict adverse effects observed for drugs in humans. Interestingly, we found that the models built with the human cell-based assay data performed close to those of the models based on animal in vivo toxicity data. Furthermore, expanding the biological space coverage of assays by including additional drug-target annotations was shown to significantly improve model performance. We identified a small set of targets, which, when added to the current suite of in vitro human cell-based assay data, result in models that greatly outperform those built with the existing animal toxicity data. Assays can be developed for this set of targets to screen compounds for construction of robust models for human toxicity prediction.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available