4.5 Review

The current status of biomarkers for predicting toxicity

Journal

EXPERT OPINION ON DRUG METABOLISM & TOXICOLOGY
Volume 9, Issue 11, Pages 1391-1408

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1517/17425255.2013.827170

Keywords

kidney injury; liver; predictive; qualification; testis toxicity

Funding

  1. Superfund Research Program (NIH/NIEHS) [P42ES013660, T32ES007272-17]
  2. National Institutes of Health-Outstanding New Environmental Scientist Award [ES017543]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: There are significant rates of attrition in drug development. A number of compounds fail to progress past preclinical development due to limited tools that accurately monitor toxicity in preclinical studies and in the clinic. Research has focused on improving tools for the detection of organ-specific toxicity through the identification and characterization of biomarkers of toxicity. Areas covered: This article reviews what we know about emerging biomarkers in toxicology, with a focus on the 2012 Northeast Society of Toxicology meeting titled 'Translational Biomarkers in Toxicology.' The areas covered in this meeting are summarized and include biomarkers of testicular injury and dysfunction, emerging biomarkers of kidney injury and translation of emerging biomarkers from preclinical species to human populations. The authors also provide a discussion about the biomarker qualification process and possible improvements to this process. Expert opinion: There is currently a gap between the scientific work in the development and qualification of novel biomarkers for nonclinical drug safety assessment and how these biomarkers are actually used in drug safety assessment. A clear and efficient path to regulatory acceptance is needed so that breakthroughs in the biomarker toolkit for nonclinical drug safety assessment can be utilized to aid in the drug development process.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available