Collaborative SAR Modeling and Prospective In Vitro Validation of Oxidative Stress Activation in Human HepG2 Cells

Abstract

Oxidative stress is the consequence of an abnormal increase of reactive oxygen species (ROS). ROS are generated mainly during the metabolism in both normal and pathological conditions as well as from exposure to xenobiotics. Xenobiotics can, on the one hand, disrupt molecular machinery involved in redox processes and, on the other hand, reduce the effectiveness of the antioxidant activity. Such dysregulation may lead to oxidative damage when combined with oxidative stress overpassing the cell capacity to detoxify ROS. In this work, a green fluorescent protein (GFP)-tagged nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2 (NRF2)-regulated sulfiredoxin reporter (Srxn1-GFP) was used to measure the antioxidant response of HepG2 cells to a large series of drug and drug-like compounds (2230 compounds). These compounds were then classified as positive or negative depending on cellular response and distributed among different modeling groups to establish structure-activity relationship (SAR) models. A selection of models was used to prospectively predict oxidative stress induced by a new set of compounds subsequently experimentally tested to validate the model predictions. Altogether, this exercise exemplifies the different challenges of developing SAR models of a phenotypic cellular readout, model combination, chemical space selection, and results interpretation.

Assessment of Drug-Induced Liver Injury through Cell Morphology and Gene Expression Analysis

Abstract

Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is a significant concern in drug development, often leading to drug withdrawal. Although many studies aim to identify biomarkers and gene/pathway signatures related to liver toxicity and aim to predict DILI compounds, this remains a challenge in drug discovery. With a strong development of high-content screening/imaging (HCS/HCI) for phenotypic screening, we explored the morphological cell perturbations induced by DILI compounds. In the first step, cell morphological signatures were associated with two datasets of DILI chemicals (DILIRank and eTox). The mechanisms of action were then analyzed for chemicals having transcriptomics data and sharing similar morphological perturbations. Signaling pathways associated with liver toxicity (cell cycle, cell growth, apoptosis, …) were then captured, and a hypothetical relation between cell morphological perturbations and gene deregulation was illustrated within our analysis. Finally, using the cell morphological signatures, machine learning approaches were developed to predict chemicals with a potential risk of DILI. Some models showed relevant performance with validation set balanced accuracies between 0.645 and 0.739. Overall, our findings demonstrate the utility of combining HCI with transcriptomics data to identify the morphological and gene expression signatures related to DILI chemicals. Moreover, our protocol could be extended to other toxicity end points, offering a promising avenue for comprehensive toxicity assessment in drug discovery.

Deconvoluting gene and environment interactions to develop an “epigenetic score meter” of disease

Abstract

Human health is determined both by genetics (G) and environment (E). This is clearly illustrated in groups of individuals who are exposed to the same environmental factor showing differential responses. A quantitative measure of the gene-environment interactions (GxE) effects has not been developed and in some instances, a clear consensus on the concept has not even been reached; for example, whether cancer is predominantly emerging from “bad luck” or “bad lifestyle” is still debated. In this article, we provide a panel of examples of GxE interaction as drivers of pathogenesis. We highlight how epigenetic regulations can represent a common connecting aspect of the molecular bases. Our argument converges on the concept that the GxE is recorded in the cellular epigenome, which might represent the key to deconvolute these multidimensional intricated layers of regulation. Developing a key to decode this epigenetic information would provide quantitative measures of disease risk. Analogously to the epigenetic clock introduced to estimate biological age, we provocatively propose the theoretical concept of an “epigenetic score-meter” to estimate disease risk.

REACH out-numbered! The future of REACH and animal numbers

Abstract

The EU’s REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) Regulation requires animal testing only as a last resort. However, our study (Knight et al., 2023) in this issue reveals that approximately 2.9 million animals have been used for REACH testing for reproductive toxicity, developmental toxicity, and repeated-dose toxicity alone as of December 2022. Currently, additional tests requiring about 1.3 million more animals are in the works. As compliance checks continue, more animal tests are anticipated. According to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), 75% of read-across methods have been rejected during compliance checks. Here, we estimate that 0.6 to 3.2 million animals have been used for other endpoints, likely at the lower end of this range. The ongoing discussion about the grouping of 4,500 regis-tered petrochemicals can still have a major impact on these numbers. The 2022 amendment of REACH is estimated to add 3.6 to 7.0 million animals. This information comes as the European Parliament is set to consider changes to REACH that could further increase animal testing. Two proposals currently under discussion would likely necessitate new animal testing: extending the requirement for a chemical safety assessment (CSA) to Annex VII substances could add 1.6 to 2.6 million animals, and the registration of polymers adds a challenge comparable to the petrochemical discussion. These findings high-light the importance of understanding the current state of REACH animal testing for the upcoming debate on REACH revisions as an opportunity to focus on reducing animal use.

G × E interactions as a basis for toxicological uncertainty

Abstract

To transfer toxicological findings from model systems, e.g. animals, to humans, standardized safety factors are applied to account for intra-species and inter-species variabilities. An alternative approach would be to measure and model the actual compound-specific uncertainties. This biological concept assumes that all observed toxicities depend not only on the exposure situation (environment = E), but also on the genetic (G) background of the model (G × E). As a quantitative discipline, toxicology needs to move beyond merely qualitative G × E concepts. Research programs are required that determine the major biological variabilities affecting toxicity and categorize their relative weights and contributions. In a complementary approach, detailed case studies need to explore the role of genetic backgrounds in the adverse effects of defined chemicals. In addition, current understanding of the selection and propagation of adverse outcome pathways (AOP) in different biological environments is very limited. To improve understanding, a particular focus is required on modulatory and counter-regulatory steps. For quantitative approaches to address uncertainties, the concept of “genetic” influence needs a more precise definition. What is usually meant by this term in the context of G × E are the protein functions encoded by the genes. Besides the gene sequence, the regulation of the gene expression and function should also be accounted for. The widened concept of past and present “gene expression” influences is summarized here as Ge. Also, the concept of “environment” needs some re-consideration in situations where exposure timing (Et) is pivotal: prolonged or repeated exposure to the insult (chemical, physical, life style) affects Ge. This implies that it changes the model system. The interaction of Ge with Et might be denoted as Ge × Et. We provide here general explanations and specific examples for this concept and show how it could be applied in the context of New Approach Methodologies (NAM).