Toxicogenomics and cancer susceptibility: advances with next-generation sequencing.

The aim of this review is to comprehensively summarize the recent achievements in the field of toxicogenomics and cancer research regarding genetic-environmental interactions in carcinogenesis and detection of genetic aberrations in cancer genomes by next-generation sequencing technology. Cancer is primarily a genetic disease in which genetic factors and environmental stimuli interact to cause genetic and epigenetic aberrations in human cells. Mutations in the germline act as either high-penetrance alleles that strongly increase the risk of cancer development, or as low-penetrance alleles that mildly change an individual's susceptibility to cancer. Somatic mutations, resulting from either DNA damage induced by exposure to environmental mutagens or from spontaneous errors in DNA replication or repair are involved in the development or progression of the cancer. Induced or spontaneous changes in the epigenome may also drive carcinogenesis. Advances in next-generation sequencing technology provide us opportunities to accurately, economically, and rapidly identify genetic variants, somatic mutations, gene expression profiles, and epigenetic alterations with single-base resolution. Whole genome sequencing, whole exome sequencing, and RNA sequencing of paired cancer and adjacent normal tissue present a comprehensive picture of the cancer genome. These new findings should benefit public health by providing insights in understanding cancer biology, and in improving cancer diagnosis and therapy.

The fragility of omics risk and benefit perceptions.

How do individuals judge the risks and benefits of toxicogenomics, an emerging field of research which is completely unfamiliar to them? The hypothesis is that individuals' perceptions of the risks and benefits of toxicogenomics are fragile and can by influenced by different issues and context framings as a technology. The researchers expected that the effects on risk and benefit judgements would differ between lay individuals and experts in toxicogenomics. A 2×2×2 experiment that encompassed three factors was conducted. The first factor, issue framing incorporated the field of application for the technology (therapy vs. diagnosis setting). The second factor, context framing included organisations and institutions that would profit from the technology (companies vs. regulatory agencies) and the third factor encompasses the quality of individuals' level of knowledge, for example lay vs. expert knowledge. Research results suggest the differential power of framing effects. It seems that the clues provided by context frames - but not by issue frames - are able to influence the ways in which lay people and experts process information. The findings are interpreted in the line of the fuzzy trace theory that predicts reliance on fuzzy gist representations formed by stereotypes on a wide range of judgement problem including risk and benefit perceptions.

The state-of-the-art in predictive toxicogenomics.

Predictive toxicogenomics, ie, the acquisition of advanced knowledge of the safety profile of a compound using genomic biomarkers, is a technology that provides much optimism for improving early drug discovery decisions. Toxicogenomics creates an opportunity to shift attrition to earlier stages in drug development to a point where course-corrective action can be taken with relatively lower financial costs, thus improving the efficiency of the drug development process. This review will survey the current state-of-the-art in toxicogenomics for predicting toxicity, both in vivo and in vitro, with emphasis on the use of classification algorithms and the importance of toxicogenomic databases for biomarker discovery and validation.

Toxicogenomics in the pharmaceutical industry: hollow promises or real benefit?

Almost 10 years ago, microarray technology was established as a new powerful tool for large-scale analysis of gene expression. Soon thereafter the new technology was discovered by toxicologists for the purpose of deciphering the molecular events underlying toxicity, and the term "Toxicogenomics" appeared in scientific literature. Ever since, the toxicology community was fascinated by the multiplicity of sophisticated possibilities toxicogenomics seems to offer: genome-wide analysis of toxicant-induced expression profiles may provide a means for prediction of toxicity prior to classical toxicological endpoints such as histopathology or clinical chemistry. Some researchers even speculated of the classical methods being superfluous before long. It was assumed that by using toxicogenomics it would be possible to classify compounds early in drug development and consequently save animals, time, and money in pre-clinical toxicity studies. Moreover, it seemed within reach to unravel the molecular mechanisms underlying toxicity. The feasibility of bridging data derived from in vitro and in vivo systems, identifying new biomarkers, and comparing toxicological responses "across-species" was also excessively praised. After several years of intensive application of microarray technology in the field of toxicology, not only by the pharmaceutical industry, it is now time to survey its achievements and to question how many of these wishes and promises have really come true.