3.9 Article

Early Safety Assessment Using Cellular Systems Biology Yields Insights into Mechanisms of Action

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMOLECULAR SCREENING
卷 15, 期 7, 页码 783-797

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1087057110376413

关键词

cellular systems biology; toxic response; biomarker relationships; high-content screening; safety risk index

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The integration of high-content screening (HCS) readers with organ-specific cell models, panels of functional biomarkers, and advanced informatics is a powerful approach to identifying the toxic liabilities of compounds early in the development process and forms the basis of early safety assessment. This cellular systems biology (CSB (TM)) approach (CellCiphr (R) profile) has been used to integrate rodent and human cellular hepatic models with panels of functional biomarkers measured at multiple time points to profile both the potency and specificity of the cellular toxicological response. These profiles also provide initial insights on the mechanism of the toxic response. The authors describe here mechanistic assay profiles designed to further dissect the toxic mechanisms of action and elucidate subtle effects apparent in subpopulations of cells. They measured 8 key mechanisms of toxicity with multiple biomarker feature measurements made simultaneously in populations of living primary hepatocytes and HepG2 cells. Mining the cell population response from these mechanistic profiles revealed the concentration dependence and nature of the heterogeneity of the response, as well as relationships between the functional responses. These more detailed mechanistic profiles define differences in compound activities that are not apparent in the average population response. Because cells and tissues encounter wide ranges of drug doses in space and time, these mechanistic profiles build on the CellCiphr (R) profile and better reflect the complexity of the response in vivo. (Journal of Biomolecular Screening 2010:783-797)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据