Cited by 154Computational Drug Discovery MethodsEnvironmental Toxicology and EcotoxicologyAnimal testing and alternatives

Big data in chemical toxicity research: The use of high-throughput screening assays to identify potential toxicants

Open access
Zhu, Hao, Zhang, Jun, Kim, Marlene T., Boison, Abena, Sedykh, Alexander, Moran, Kimberlee·2014·Chemical Research in Toxicology

Abstract

High-throughput screening (HTS) assays that measure the in vitro toxicity of environmental compounds have been widely applied as an alternative to in vivo animal tests of chemical toxicity. Current HTS studies provide the community with rich toxicology information that has the potential to be integrated into toxicity research. The available in vitro toxicity data is updated daily in structured formats (e.g., deposited into PubChem and other data-sharing web portals) or in an unstructured way (papers, laboratory reports, toxicity Web site updates, etc.). The information derived from the current toxicity data is so large and complex that it becomes difficult to process using available database management tools or traditional data processing applications. For this reason, it is necessary to develop a big data approach when conducting modern chemical toxicity research. In vitro data for a compound, obtained from meaningful bioassays, can be viewed as a response profile that gives detailed information about the compound's ability to affect relevant biological proteins/receptors. This information is critical for the evaluation of complex bioactivities (e.g., animal toxicities) and grows rapidly as big data in toxicology communities. This review focuses mainly on the existing structured in vitro data (e.g., PubChem data sets) as response profiles for compounds of environmental interest (e.g., potential human/animal toxicants). Potential modeling and mining tools to use the current big data pool in chemical toxicity research are also described.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/tx500145h

Cites

95 of 95 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. PubChem BioAssay, NCBI. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pcassay/ (accessed Dec 1, 2013).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhu, H., Zhang, J., Kim, M. T., Boison, A., Sedykh, A., & Moran, K.
Affiliations
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
  • Center for Forensic Science Research and Education , , ,
Corresponding author
Zhu, Hao
Venue
Chemical Research in Toxicology
Published
2014-09-07
Volume
27
Issue
10
Pages
1643-1651
ISSN
  • 0893-228X (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5010
OpenAlex
W2322262466
Cited by
154
References
95
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Chemical Research in Toxicology (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Colgate-Palmolive Company
  • National Institutes of Health (R15ES023148)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Environmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
Keywords
big data, chemical toxicity, high-throughput screening, in vitro toxicity testing, environmental toxins, PubChem, response profiles, toxicity modeling, alternatives to animal testing, data integration
MeSH terms
Animals, Biological Assay, Humans, Inorganic Chemicals, Organic Chemicals, Databases, Factual, Toxicity Tests, Toxicogenetics, High-Throughput Screening Assays

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review