Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
In this issue of the Archives of Toxicology, Hans Westerhoff and colleagues present a comprehensive review on how systems biology tools can be applied to toxicology (Geenen et al. 2012; this issue). For decades, scientists in the field of toxicology have taken advantage of available mathematical models. Typical examples include physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models used to predict in vivo concentrations of xenobiotics and to identify the concentration ranges for in vitro testing that are relevant to the in vivo situation (Jonsson et al. 2001; Mielke et al. 2011; Heise et al. 2012). Moreover, quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) modelling has been successfully applied to predict, for example, mutagenic or irritating compounds (Lilienblum et al. 2008; Rupp et al. 2010; Dorn et al. 2008; Hengstler et al. 2006). Combinations of classical biostatistics, classification algorithms and modelling have also been applied to predict toxic pathways and patient prognosis from complex OMICS data (Ellinger-Ziegelbauer et al. 2008; Zellmer et al. 2010; Kammers et al. 2011; Hellwig et al. 2010). More recently, spatial-temporal modelling has been introduced to predict how tissues respond to toxic damage and how the damage and repair processes compromise the tissue function (Höhme et al. 2007, 2010).
However, with the advent of systems biology, a multitude of novel technologies also became available, and although many are quite promising, none have been sufficiently integrated into toxicological research. Therefore, the editors are happy that Hans Westerhoff and colleagues have contributed a review that can easily be described as a “Manual of systems biology for Toxicologists” (Geenen et al. 2012; this issue). For their focus, they have chosen a topic that is familiar to every toxicologist: glutathione metabolism.
When toxic metabolites exceed a threshold where glutathione synthesis cannot compensate, toxicity is a likely end point.. Hans Westerhoff and colleagues use this example to illustrate the currently available systems biology tools and how they can be used to predict critical disruption of the glutathione network. Examples are.
-
The use of equations that altogether result in ordinary differential equations (ODEs) to translate the biochemistry of reactions into mathematics
-
The simulation of a oxoprolinuria patient by perturbation of the Vmax of glutathione synthetase based on steady state analysis
-
Exploration of the impact of individual reactions on flux through the glutathione pathways by metabolic control analysis
-
Prediction of the expected levels of change in response to toxic effects by robustness analysis.
The review article of Westerhoff and colleagues illustrates that the ability to quantitatively simulate the occurrence of toxicity as a result of disturbed cellular defence systems remains no longer the elusive pot of gold at the end of the rainbow! The article comes highly recommended to everyone interested in systems biology tools for toxicological research.
References
Dorn SB, Degen GH, Bolt HM, van der Louw J, van Acker FA, van den Dobbelsteen DJ, Lommerse JP (2008) Some molecular descriptors for non-specific chromosomal genotoxicity based on hydrophobic interactions. Arch Toxicol 82(5):333–8. Erratum in: Arch Toxicol 82(5):339. den Dobbelsteen, Diels J [corrected to van den Dobbelsteen, Diels J]
Ellinger-Ziegelbauer H, Gmuender H, Bandenburg A, Ahr HJ (2008) Prediction of a carcinogenic potential of rat hepatocarcinogens using toxicogenomics analysis of short-term in vivo studies. Mutat Res 637(1–2):23–39
Geenen S, Taylor PN, Snoep JL, Wilson IDS, Kenna JG and Westerhoff HV (2012) Systems biology tools for toxicology. Arch Toxicol (this issue), Epub 2012. doi:10.1007/s00204-012-0857-8
Heise T, Schug M, Storm D, Ellinger-Ziegelbauer H, Ahr HJ, Hellwig B, Rahnenfuhrer J, Ghallab A, Guenther G, Sisnaiske J, Reif R, Godoy P, Mielke H, Gundert-Remy U, Lampen A, Oberemm A, Hengstler JG (2012) In vitro—in vivo correlation of gene expression alterations induced by liver carcinogens. Curr Med Chem 19(11):1721–1730
Hellwig B, Hengstler JG, Schmidt M, Gehrmann MC, Schormann W, Rahnenführer J (2010) Comparison of scores for bimodality of gene expression distributions and genome-wide evaluation of the prognostic relevance of high-scoring genes. BMC Bioinformatics 25(11):276
Hengstler JG, Foth H, Kahl R, Kramer PJ, Lilienblum W, Schulz T, Schweinfurth H (2006) The REACH concept and its impact on toxicological sciences. Toxicology 220(2–3):232–239
Hoehme S, Brulport M, Bauer A, Bedawy E, Schormann W, Hermes M, Puppe V, Gebhardt R, Zellmer S, Schwarz M, Bockamp E, Timmel T, Hengstler JG, Drasdo D (2010) Prediction and validation of cell alignment along microvessels as order principle to restore tissue architecture in liver regeneration. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(23):10371–10376
Höhme S, Hengstler JG, Brulport M, Schäfer M, Bauer A, Gebhardt R, Drasdo D (2007) Mathematical modelling of liver regeneration after intoxication with CCl(4). Chem Biol Interact 168(1):74–93
Jonsson F, Bois FY, Johanson G (2001) Assessing the reliability of PBPK models using data from methyl chloride-exposed, non-conjugating human subjects. Arch Toxicol 75(4):189–199
Kammers K, Lang M, Hengstler JG, Schmidt M, Rahnenführer J (2011) Survival models with preclustered gene groups as covariates. BMC Bioinformatics 16(12):478
Lilienblum W, Dekant W, Foth H, Gebel T, Hengstler JG, Kahl R, Kramer PJ, Schweinfurth H, Wollin KM (2008) Alternative methods to safety studies in experimental animals: role in the risk assessment of chemicals under the new European chemicals legislation (REACH). Arch Toxicol 82(4):211–236
Mielke H, Anger LT, Schug M, Hengstler JG, Stahlmann R, Gundert-Remy U (2011) A physiologically based toxicokinetic modelling approach to predict relevant concentrations for in vitro testing. Arch Toxicol 85(6):555–563
Rupp B, Appel KE, Gundert-Remy U (2010) Chronic oral LOAEL prediction by using a commercially available computational QSAR tool. Arch Toxicol 84(9):681–688
Zellmer S, Schmidt-Heck W, Godoy P, Weng H, Meyer C, Lehmann T, Sparna T, Schormann W, Hammad S, Kreutz C, Timmer J, von Weizsäcker F, Thürmann PA, Merfort I, Guthke R, Dooley S, Hengstler JG, Gebhardt R (2010) Transcription factors ETF, E2F, and SP-1 are involved in cytokine-independent proliferation of murine hepatocytes. Hepatology 52(6):2127–2136
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Marchan, R., Bolt, H.M. & Hengstler, J.G. Systems biology meets toxicology. Arch Toxicol 86, 1157–1158 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-012-0900-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-012-0900-9