Differential reconstructed gene interaction networks for deriving toxicity threshold in chemical risk assessment

BackgroundPathway alterations reflected as changes in gene expression regulation and gene interaction can result from cellular exposure to toxicants. Such information is often used to elucidate toxicological modes of action. From a risk assessment perspective, alterations in biological pathways are a rich resource for setting toxicant thresholds, which may be more sensitive and mechanism-informed than traditional toxicity endpoints. Here we developed a novel differential networks (DNs) approach to connect pathway perturbation with toxicity threshold setting.MethodsOur DNs approach consists of 6 steps: time-series gene expression data collection, identification of altered genes, gene interaction network reconstruction, differential edge inference, mapping of genes with differential edges to pathways, and establishment of causal relationships between chemical concentration and perturbed pathways. A one-sample Gaussian process model and a linear regression model were used to identify genes that exhibited significant profile changes across an entire time course and between treatments, respectively. Interaction networks of differentially expressed (DE) genes were reconstructed for different treatments using a state space model and then compared to infer differential edges/interactions. DE genes possessing differential edges were mapped to biological pathways in databases such as KEGG pathways.ResultsUsing the DNs approach, we analyzed a time-series Escherichia coli live cell gene expression dataset consisting of 4 treatments (control, 10, 100, 1000 mg/L naphthenic acids, NAs) and 18 time points. Through comparison of reconstructed networks and construction of differential networks, 80 genes were identified as DE genes with a significant number of differential edges, and 22 KEGG pathways were altered in a concentration-dependent manner. Some of these pathways were perturbed to a degree as high as 70% even at the lowest exposure concentration, implying a high sensitivity of our DNs approach.ConclusionsFindings from this proof-of-concept study suggest that our approach has a great potential in providing a novel and sensitive tool for threshold setting in chemical risk assessment. In future work, we plan to analyze more time-series datasets with a full spectrum of concentrations and sufficient replications per treatment. The pathway alteration-derived thresholds will also be compared with those derived from apical endpoints such as cell growth rate.

[1]  Melvin E. Andersen,et al.  Temporal concordance between apical and transcriptional points of departure for chemical risk assessment. , 2013, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[2]  Lawrence V. Tannenbaum,et al.  Is NexGen really the next generation of risk assessment? , 2012, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[3]  Vincent Fromion,et al.  BasyLiCA: a tool for automatic processing of a Bacterial Live Cell Array , 2012, Bioinform..

[4]  F. Collins,et al.  Transforming Environmental Health Protection , 2008, Science.

[5]  Zheng Li,et al.  Using a state-space model with hidden variables to infer transcription factor activities , 2006, Bioinform..

[6]  Peter D. Karp,et al.  The EcoCyc Database , 2002, Nucleic Acids Res..

[7]  Shimon Ulitzur,et al.  Identification and Quantification of Toxic Chemicals by Use of Escherichia coli Carryinglux Genes Fused to Stress Promoters , 1998, Applied and Environmental Microbiology.

[8]  April Z Gu,et al.  A new Transcriptional Effect Level Index (TELI) for toxicogenomics-based toxicity assessment. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[9]  Bruce C Allen,et al.  BMDExpress: a software tool for the benchmark dose analyses of genomic data , 2007, BMC Genomics.

[10]  U. Alon,et al.  A comprehensive library of fluorescent transcriptional reporters for Escherichia coli , 2006, Nature Methods.

[11]  Melvin E. Andersen,et al.  Integrating pathway-based transcriptomic data into quantitative chemical risk assessment: a five chemical case study. , 2012, Mutation research.

[12]  Richard A Currie,et al.  Toxicogenomics: the challenges and opportunities to identify biomarkers, signatures and thresholds to support mode-of-action. , 2012, Mutation research.

[13]  Melvin E. Andersen,et al.  Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: Defining New Risk Assessment Approaches Based on Perturbation of Intracellular Toxicity Pathways , 2011, PloS one.

[14]  Shimshon Belkin,et al.  Microbial sensor cell arrays. , 2012, Current opinion in biotechnology.

[15]  Chaoyang Zhang,et al.  Performance evaluation of the time-delayed dynamic Bayesian network approach to inferring gene regulatory networks from time series microarray data , 2010, BCB '10.

[16]  Steven K. Gibb Toxicity testing in the 21st century: a vision and a strategy. , 2008, Reproductive toxicology.

[17]  Peter D. Karp,et al.  A systematic comparison of the MetaCyc and KEGG pathway databases , 2013, BMC Bioinformatics.

[18]  A. Ehrenreich DNA microarray technology for the microbiologist: an overview , 2006, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology.

[19]  Shimshon Belkin,et al.  Microbial whole‐cell arrays , 2008, Microbial biotechnology.

[20]  Chaoyang Zhang,et al.  State Space Model with hidden variables for reconstruction of gene regulatory networks , 2011, BMC Systems Biology.

[21]  Zoubin Ghahramani,et al.  Modeling T-cell activation using gene expression profiling and state-space models , 2004, Bioinform..

[22]  Xiaowei Zhang,et al.  Toxicogenomic mechanisms of 6-HO-BDE-47, 6-MeO-BDE-47, and BDE-47 in E. coli. , 2012, Environmental science & technology.

[23]  Stephen W. Edwards,et al.  Systems biology and mode of action based risk assessment. , 2008, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[24]  Stephen W. Edwards,et al.  Advancing the Next Generation of Health Risk Assessment , 2012, Environmental health perspectives.

[25]  Peter D. Karp,et al.  The Pathway Tools software , 2002, ISMB.

[26]  Harvey J Clewell,et al.  A method to integrate benchmark dose estimates with genomic data to assess the functional effects of chemical exposure. , 2007, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[27]  Julio Collado-Vides,et al.  RegulonDB v8.0: omics data sets, evolutionary conservation, regulatory phrases, cross-validated gold standards and more , 2012, Nucleic Acids Res..

[28]  Hiroshi Yamazaki,et al.  Metabolic activation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and aryl and heterocyclic amines by human cytochromes P450 2A13 and 2A6. , 2013, Chemical research in toxicology.

[29]  Erik Kristiansson,et al.  BMC Bioinformatics BioMed Central Methodology article Weighted analysis of general microarray experiments , 2007 .

[30]  Neil D. Lawrence,et al.  A Simple Approach to Ranking Differentially Expressed Gene Expression Time Courses through Gaussian Process Regression , 2011, BMC Bioinformatics.

[31]  Marc Pallardy,et al.  A molecular and phenotypic integrative approach to identify a no-effect dose level for antiandrogen-induced testicular toxicity. , 2011, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[32]  Trey Ideker,et al.  Cytoscape 2.8: new features for data integration and network visualization , 2010, Bioinform..

[33]  Pablo Tamayo,et al.  Gene set enrichment analysis: A knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[34]  Xiaowei Zhang,et al.  Assessing the toxicity of naphthenic acids using a microbial genome wide live cell reporter array system. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.