A decision tree–based integrated testing strategy for tailor-made carcinogenicity evaluation of test substances using genotoxicity test results and chemical spaces

Genotoxicity evaluation has been widely used to estimate the carcinogenicity of test substances during safety evaluation. However, the latest strategies using genotoxicity tests give more weight to sensitivity; therefore, their accuracy has been very low. For precise carcinogenicity evaluation, we attempted to establish an integrated testing strategy for the tailor-made carcinogenicity evaluation of test materials, considering the relationships among genotoxicity test results (Ames, in vitro mammalian genotoxicity and in vivo micronucleus), carcinogenicity test results and chemical properties (molecular weight, logKow and 179 organic functional groups). By analyzing the toxicological information and chemical properties of 230 chemicals, including 184 carcinogens in the Carcinogenicity Genotoxicity eXperience database, a decision tree for carcinogenicity evaluation was optimised statistically. A decision forest model was generated using a machine-learning method-random forest-which comprises thousands of decision trees. As a result, balanced accuracies in cross-validation of the optimised decision tree and decision forest model, considering chemical space (71.5% and 75.5%, respectively), were higher than balanced accuracy of an example regulatory decision tree (54.1%). Moreover, the statistical optimisation of tree-based models revealed significant organic functional groups that would cause false prediction in standard genotoxicity tests and non-genotoxic carcinogenicity (e.g., organic amide and thioamide, saturated heterocyclic fragment and aryl halide). In vitro genotoxicity tests were the most important parameters in all models, even when in silico parameters were integrated. Although external validation is required, the findings of the integrated testing strategies established herein will contribute to precise carcinogenicity evaluation and to determine new mechanistic hypotheses of carcinogenicity.

[1]  R. Stoll,et al.  Oxymetholone : III . Evaluation in the p 53 + /-Transgenic Mouse Model * , 2007 .

[2]  David Kirkland,et al.  A core in vitro genotoxicity battery comprising the Ames test plus the in vitro micronucleus test is sufficient to detect rodent carcinogens and in vivo genotoxins. , 2011, Mutation research.

[3]  Masayuki Yamane,et al.  A genome-wide mutation analysis method enabling high-throughput identification of chemical mutagen signatures , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[4]  Masayuki Mishima,et al.  Integrated approach to testing and assessment for predicting rodent genotoxic carcinogenicity , 2016, Journal of applied toxicology : JAT.

[5]  Petra S Kern,et al.  Integrating non-animal test information into an adaptive testing strategy - skin sensitization proof of concept case. , 2011, ALTEX.

[6]  T. Matsuda,et al.  Application of the DNA adductome approach to assess the DNA-damaging capability of in vitro micronucleus test-positive compounds. , 2011, Mutation research.

[7]  M. Dourson,et al.  Update: Mode of action (MOA) for liver tumors induced by oral exposure to 1,4‐dioxane , 2017, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[8]  O. Morita,et al.  Genome resequencing analysis of Salmonella typhimurium LT‐2 strains TA98 and TA100 for the establishment of a next‐generation sequencing‐based mutagenicity assay , 2017, Journal of applied toxicology : JAT.

[9]  S. Moolgavkar,et al.  Two-event models for carcinogenesis: incidence curves for childhood and adult tumors☆ , 1979 .

[10]  U. Nilsson,et al.  LC-MS/MS screening strategy for unknown adducts to N-terminal valine in hemoglobin applied to smokers and nonsmokers. , 2014, Chemical research in toxicology.

[11]  O. Ozdemir,et al.  Genotoxicity testing: progress and prospects for the next decade , 2017, Expert opinion on drug metabolism & toxicology.

[12]  David Kirkland,et al.  Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens III. Appropriate follow-up testing in vivo. , 2005, Mutation research.

[13]  Robert Combes,et al.  Integrated Decision-tree Testing Strategies for Acute Systemic Toxicity and Toxicokinetics with Respect to the Requirements of the EU REACH Legislation , 2008, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[14]  Alexander Tropsha,et al.  Best Practices for QSAR Model Development, Validation, and Exploitation , 2010, Molecular informatics.

[15]  B. van Ravenzwaay,et al.  Investigations on cell proliferation and enzyme induction in male rat kidney and female mouse liver caused by tetrahydrofuran. , 2002, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[16]  A. Mally,et al.  Exposure assessment of process-related contaminants in food by biomarker monitoring , 2018, Archives of Toxicology.

[17]  Robert Combes,et al.  An Integrated Decision-tree Testing Strategy for Eye Irritation with Respect to the Requirements of the EU REACH Legislation , 2008, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[18]  Robert Combes,et al.  An Integrated Decision-tree Testing Strategy for Repeat Dose Toxicity with Respect to the Requirements of the EU REACH Legislation , 2008, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[19]  Sebastian Hoffmann,et al.  Integrated Testing Strategy (ITS) - Opportunities to better use existing data and guide future testing in toxicology. , 2010, ALTEX.

[20]  Silke Gabbert,et al.  Towards optimization of chemical testing under REACH: a Bayesian network approach to Integrated Testing Strategies. , 2010, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[21]  M. Metzler.  Metabolism of stilbene estrogens and steroidal estrogens in relation to carcinogenicity , 1984, Archives of Toxicology.

[22]  Lutz Müller,et al.  Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens II. Further analysis of mammalian cell results, relative predictivity and tumour profiles. , 2006, Mutation research.

[23]  J. Vijg,et al.  High-throughput sequencing in mutation detection: A new generation of genotoxicity tests? , 2015, Mutation research.

[24]  C. Bolognesi,et al.  Scientific opinion on genotoxicity testing strategies applicable to food and 3 feed safety assessment , 2011 .

[25]  Paolo Vineis,et al.  Third version: response to reviewers , 2010 .

[26]  P. Mahadevan,et al.  An overview , 2007, Journal of Biosciences.

[27]  J. Durda,et al.  Carcinogenicity and mode of action evaluation for alpha-hexachlorocyclohexane: Implications for human health risk assessment. , 2016, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[28]  E. Mcconnell,et al.  Mode of action analysis for liver tumors from oral 1,4-dioxane exposures and evidence-based dose response assessment. , 2014, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[29]  W. M. Peden.  Regulatory Forum* , 2016, Toxicologic pathology.

[30]  E. Cavalieri,et al.  Catechol Quinones of Estrogens in the Initiation of Breast, Prostate, and Other Human Cancers , 2006, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[31]  M. Hirota,et al.  Development of an artificial neural network model for risk assessment of skin sensitization using human cell line activation test, direct peptide reactivity assay, KeratinoSens™ and in silico structure alert parameter , 2018, Journal of applied toxicology : JAT.

[32]  J. Dearden,et al.  How not to develop a quantitative structure–activity or structure–property relationship (QSAR/QSPR) , 2009, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

[33]  T. Shirai,et al.  Discrimination of Carcinogens by Hepatic Transcript Profiling in Rats Following 28-day Administration , 2009, Cancer informatics.

[34]  Judy Strickland,et al.  Bayesian integrated testing strategy (ITS) for skin sensitization potency assessment: a decision support system for quantitative weight of evidence and adaptive testing strategy , 2015, Archives of Toxicology.

[35]  Yuri Dancik,et al.  Bayesian integrated testing strategy to assess skin sensitization potency: from theory to practice , 2013, Journal of applied toxicology : JAT.

[36]  P. Armitage,et al.  The age distribution of cancer and a multi-stage theory of carcinogenesis , 1954, British Journal of Cancer.

[37]  Mode of action and human relevance of THF-induced mouse liver tumors. , 2017, Toxicology letters.

[38]  Paolo Vineis,et al.  Models of carcinogenesis: an overview. , 2010, Carcinogenesis.

[39]  Yurika Fujita,et al.  In silico prediction of chromosome damage: comparison of three (Q)SAR models , 2018, Mutagenesis.

[40]  Lutz Müller,et al.  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. , 2005, Mutation research.

[41]  Osamu Morita,et al.  Discriminating between adaptive and carcinogenic liver hypertrophy in rat studies using logistic ridge regression analysis of toxicogenomic data: The mode of action and predictive models , 2017, Toxicology and applied pharmacology.

[42]  Jun-ichi Takeshita,et al.  Discriminative models using molecular descriptors for predicting increased serum ALT levels in repeated-dose toxicity studies of rats , 2017 .

[43]  M. Yamada,et al.  Mutation assay using single-molecule real-time (SMRTTM) sequencing technology , 2015, Genes and Environment.

[44]  K. Wakabayashi,et al.  Possible enhancing activity of diacylglycerol on 4-nitroquinoline 1-oxide induced carcinogenesis of the tongue in human c-Ha-ras proto-oncogene transgenic rats. , 2007, Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association.

[45]  Tsuneo Hashizume,et al.  Evaluation of the sensitivity and specificity of in vivo erythrocyte micronucleus and transgenic rodent gene mutation tests to detect rodent carcinogens. , 2016, Mutation research. Genetic toxicology and environmental mutagenesis.