Cited by 415Animal testing and alternativesCarcinogens and Genotoxicity AssessmentEnvironmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology

Integration of Dosimetry, Exposure, and High-Throughput Screening Data in Chemical Toxicity Assessment

Wetmore, Barbara A., Wambaugh, John F., Ferguson, Stephen S., Sochaski, Mark A., Rotroff, Daniel M., Freeman, Kimberly, Clewell, Harvey J., Dix, David J. +8 more·2012·Toxicological Sciences

Abstract

High-throughput in vitro toxicity screening can provide an efficient way to identify potential biological targets for chemicals. However, relying on nominal assay concentrations may misrepresent potential in vivo effects of these chemicals due to differences in bioavailability, clearance, and exposure. Hepatic metabolic clearance and plasma protein binding were experimentally measured for 239 ToxCast Phase I chemicals. The experimental data were used in a population-based in vitro-to-in vivo extrapolation model to estimate the daily human oral dose, called the oral equivalent dose, necessary to produce steady-state in vivo blood concentrations equivalent to in vitro AC(50) (concentration at 50% of maximum activity) or lowest effective concentration values across more than 500 in vitro assays. The estimated steady-state oral equivalent doses associated with the in vitro assays were compared with chronic aggregate human oral exposure estimates to assess whether in vitro bioactivity would be expected at the dose-equivalent level of human exposure. A total of 18 (9.9%) chemicals for which human oral exposure estimates were available had oral equivalent doses at levels equal to or less than the highest estimated U.S. population exposures. Ranking the chemicals by nominal assay concentrations would have resulted in different chemicals being prioritized. The in vitro assay endpoints with oral equivalent doses lower than the human exposure estimates included cell growth kinetics, cytokine and cytochrome P450 expression, and cytochrome P450 inhibition. The incorporation of dosimetry and exposure provide necessary context for interpretation of in vitro toxicity screening data and are important considerations in determining chemical testing priorities.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/toxsci/kfr254

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • In vitro assays in ToxCast were not predictive of complex in vivo endpoint.

    “Since in vitro assays in ToxCast were not predictive of such complex endpoint,95”

    From QSAR without borders (2020) · cites this paper as [95]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wetmore, B. A., Wambaugh, J. F., Ferguson, S. S., Sochaski, M. A., Rotroff, D. M., Freeman, K., Clewell, H. J., Dix, D. J., Andersen, M. E., Houck, K. A., Allen, B., Judson, R. S., Singh, R., Kavlock, R. J., Richard, A. M., & Thomas, R. S.
Affiliations
  • The Hamner Institutes for Health Sciences (US)
  • Environmental Protection Agency (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Venue
Toxicological Sciences
Published
2011-09-26
Volume
125
Issue
1
Pages
157-174
ISSN
  • 1096-0929 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-6080
OpenAlex
W2147334256
Cited by
415
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 23
FWCI
33.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Toxicological Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Carcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Environmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
Keywords
in vitro-in vivo extrapolation, dosimetry, chemical toxicity assessment, ToxCast, plasma protein binding, chemical prioritization, cytochrome P450 inhibition, cell growth kinetics
MeSH terms
Animals, Biological Availability, Blood Proteins, Chromatography, High Pressure Liquid, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Erythrocytes, Humans, Metabolic Clearance Rate, Models, Biological, Permeability, Protein Binding, Mass Spectrometry, Toxicity Tests, Caco-2 Cells, Computational Biology, Hepatocytes, Small Molecule Libraries, 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