ToxDB: pathway-level interpretation of drug-treatment data

Motivation: Extensive drug treatment gene expression data have been generated in order to identify biomarkers that are predictive for toxicity or to classify compounds. However, such patterns are often highly variable across compounds and lack robustness. We and others have previously shown that supervised expression patterns based on pathway concepts rather than unsupervised patterns are more robust and can be used to assess toxicity for entire classes of drugs more reliably. Results: We have developed a database, ToxDB, for the analysis of the functional consequences of drug treatment at the pathway level. We have collected 2694 pathway concepts and computed numerical response scores of these pathways for 437 drugs and chemicals and 7464 different experimental conditions. ToxDB provides functionalities for exploring these pathway responses by offering tools for visualization and differential analysis allowing for comparisons of different treatment parameters and for linking this data with toxicity annotation and chemical information. Database URL: http://toxdb.molgen.mpg.de

[1]  Nigel Greene,et al.  Developing structure-activity relationships for the prediction of hepatotoxicity. , 2010, Chemical research in toxicology.

[2]  A. Kamburov,et al.  Human Embryonic Stem Cell Derived Hepatocyte-Like Cells as a Tool for In Vitro Hazard Assessment of Chemical Carcinogenicity , 2011, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[3]  Andrew M. Gross,et al.  Network-based stratification of tumor mutations , 2013, Nature Methods.

[4]  Ralf Herwig,et al.  The ConsensusPathDB interaction database: 2013 update , 2012, Nucleic Acids Res..

[5]  M. Fielden,et al.  Development of a large-scale chemogenomics database to improve drug candidate selection and to understand mechanisms of chemical toxicity and action. , 2005, Journal of biotechnology.

[6]  Hiroshi Yamada,et al.  Open TG-GATEs: a large-scale toxicogenomics database , 2014, Nucleic Acids Res..

[7]  Paul A Clemons,et al.  The Connectivity Map: Using Gene-Expression Signatures to Connect Small Molecules, Genes, and Disease , 2006, Science.

[8]  Chris T. A. Evelo,et al.  diXa: a data infrastructure for chemical safety assessment , 2014, Bioinform..

[9]  Raffaella Corvi,et al.  The carcinoGENOMICS project: critical selection of model compounds for the development of omics-based in vitro carcinogenicity screening assays. , 2008, Mutation research.

[10]  David Venet,et al.  Most Random Gene Expression Signatures Are Significantly Associated with Breast Cancer Outcome , 2011, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[11]  R. Myers,et al.  Evolving gene/transcript definitions significantly alter the interpretation of GeneChip data , 2005, Nucleic acids research.

[12]  Weida Tong,et al.  FDA-approved drug labeling for the study of drug-induced liver injury. , 2011, Drug discovery today.

[13]  Daniel R. Zerbino,et al.  Ensembl 2016 , 2015, Nucleic Acids Res..

[14]  H. Yamada,et al.  The Japanese toxicogenomics project: application of toxicogenomics. , 2010, Molecular nutrition & food research.