Skip to main content

How Well Can High-Throughput Screening Tests Results Predict Whether Chemicals Cause Cancer in Mice and Rats?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 1058 Accesses

Part of the book series: International Series in Operations Research & Management Science ((ISOR,volume 270))

Abstract

Over the past half century, an enduring intellectual and technical challenge for risk analysts, statisticians, toxicologists, and experts in artificial intelligence, machine-learning and bioinformatics has been to predict in vivo biological responses to realistic exposures, with demonstrably useful accuracy and confidence, from in vitro and chemical structure data. The common goal of many applied research efforts has been to devise and validate algorithms that give trustworthy predictions of whether and by how much realistic exposures to chemicals change probabilities of adverse health responses. This chapter examines recent, promising results suggesting that high-throughput screening (HTS) assay data can be used to predict in vivo classifications of rodent carcinogenicity for certain pesticides. Anticipating the focus on evaluation analytics for assessing the performance of systems, policies, and interventions in Chaps. 9 and 10, it also undertakes an independent reanalysis of the underlying data to determine how well this encouraging claim can be replicated and supported when the same data are analyzed using slightly different methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Benigni R, Zito R (2004) The second National Toxicology Program comparative exercise on the prediction of rodent carcinogenicity: definitive results. Mutat Res 566(1):49–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook et al (1999) Rodent Leydig cell tumorigenesis: a review of the physiology, pathology, mechanisms, and relevance to humans. Crit Rev Toxicol 29:169–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EPA (2011) http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=238403

  • Guyton KZ, Kyle AD, Aubrecht J, Cogliano VJ, Eastmond DA, Jackson M, Keshava N, Sandy MS, Sonawane B, Zhang L, Waters MD, Smith MT (2009) Improving prediction of chemical carcinogenicity by considering multiple mechanisms and applying toxicogenomic approaches. Mutat Res 681(2–3):230–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanahan D, Weinberg RA (2011) Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 144(5):646–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill et al (1998) Assessment of thyroid follicular cell tumors. EPA/630/R-97/002

    Google Scholar 

  • March Kirkland D, Aardema M, Henderson L, Müller L (2005) Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens I. Sensitivity, specificity and relative predictivity. Mutat Res 584(1–2):1–256. Erratum in: Mutat Res. 2005 Dec 7;588(1):70

    Google Scholar 

  • Maronpot RR (2009) Biological basis to differential susceptibility to hepatocarcinogenesis among mouse strains. Toxicol Pathol 22:11–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinstreuer NC, Dix DJ, Houck KA, Kavlock RJ, Knudsen TB, Martin MT, Paul KB, Reif DM, Crofton KM, Hamilton K, Hunter R, Shah I, Judson RS (2013) In vitro perturbations of targets in cancer hallmark processes predict rodent chemical carcinogenesis. Toxicol Sci 131(1):40–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight A, Bailey J, Balcombe J (2006) Animal carcinogenicity studies: 1. Poor human predictivity. Altern Lab Anim 34(1):19–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Patlewicz G, Rodford R, Walker JD (2003) Quantitative structure-activity relationships for predicting mutagenicity and carcinogenicity. Environ Toxicol Chem 22(8):1885–1893

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder RD, Pearl GS, Mandakas G, Choy WN, Goodsaid F, Rosenblum IY (2004) Assessment of the sensitivity of the computational programs DEREK, TOPKAT, and MCASE in the prediction of the genotoxicity of pharmaceutical molecules. Environ Mol Mutagen 43(3):143–158. Erratum in: Environ Mol Mutagen. 2006 Apr;47(3):225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valerio LG Jr, Arvidson KB, Chanderbhan RF, Contrera JF (2007) Prediction of rodent carcinogenic potential of naturally occurring chemicals in the human diet using high-throughput QSAR predictive modeling. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 222(1):1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valerio LG Jr, Arvidson KB, Busta E, Minnier BL, Kruhlak NL, Benz RD (2010) Testing computational toxicology models with phytochemicals. Mol Nutr Food Res 54(2):186–194. https://doi.org/10.1002/mnfr.200900259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walmsley RM, Billinton N (2011) How accurate is in vitro prediction of carcinogenicity? Br J Pharmacol 162(6):1250–1258

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Cox Jr., L.A., Popken, D.A., Sun, R.X. (2018). How Well Can High-Throughput Screening Tests Results Predict Whether Chemicals Cause Cancer in Mice and Rats?. In: Causal Analytics for Applied Risk Analysis. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 270. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78242-3_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics