Carcinogenicity prediction and battery selection procedure: an in-depth analysis of cyclamate and its major metabolite cyclohexylamine.

Molecular toxicology Pub Date : 1987-01-01
Y Y Haimes, V Chankong, J Pet-Edwards, H R Rosenkranz
{"title":"Carcinogenicity prediction and battery selection procedure: an in-depth analysis of cyclamate and its major metabolite cyclohexylamine.","authors":"Y Y Haimes,&nbsp;V Chankong,&nbsp;J Pet-Edwards,&nbsp;H R Rosenkranz","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The carcinogenicity prediction and battery selection (CPBS) method can be used to predict the probable carcinogenicity of a chemical based on the results of a battery of short-term assays. The method uses Bayesian statistics and the estimated performance characteristics of the assays (i.e., sensitivity and specificity). For routine use, the prior probability of carcinogenicity (or of noncarcinogenicity) is assumed to be unknown and is assigned a nondiscriminatory value of 0.5, i.e., the chemical is assumed to have an equal probability of being a carcinogen or a noncarcinogen, which implies that the expert's intuition regarding the chemical's potential as a carcinogen, based on structural features, known metabolic transformation, or potential electrophilicity, is not taken into consideration. In the present study, it is shown with cyclamate and its metabolite cyclohexlamine that when a battery of assays is used, assigning values to the prior probability between 0.1 and 0.9 has no significant effect on the predicted carcinogenicity. In the view of the fact that the performance of short-term tests is calibrated against known carcinogens and noncarcinogens, and since in the available data bases there is a preponderance of carcinogens, it may be argued that the estimation of sensitivities may be biased toward elevated values. It is shown, however, that when a battery of assays is used, assigning decreased values to the sensitivity does not result in significant effects on the predicted activity of the two test chemicals. Frequently, in the compilation of short-term results within a single assay, different laboratories may report varying results. Heretofore the \"consensus result\" was derived by majority rule. Because the variability in results may have biological significance, and in view of the fact that for a widely used sweetner one might be even more risk-adverse, a modification of Bayes's formula was derived to take these differences into consideration when calculating the probable carcinogenicity of cyclamate and its major metabolite.</p>","PeriodicalId":77750,"journal":{"name":"Molecular toxicology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1987-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Molecular toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The carcinogenicity prediction and battery selection (CPBS) method can be used to predict the probable carcinogenicity of a chemical based on the results of a battery of short-term assays. The method uses Bayesian statistics and the estimated performance characteristics of the assays (i.e., sensitivity and specificity). For routine use, the prior probability of carcinogenicity (or of noncarcinogenicity) is assumed to be unknown and is assigned a nondiscriminatory value of 0.5, i.e., the chemical is assumed to have an equal probability of being a carcinogen or a noncarcinogen, which implies that the expert's intuition regarding the chemical's potential as a carcinogen, based on structural features, known metabolic transformation, or potential electrophilicity, is not taken into consideration. In the present study, it is shown with cyclamate and its metabolite cyclohexlamine that when a battery of assays is used, assigning values to the prior probability between 0.1 and 0.9 has no significant effect on the predicted carcinogenicity. In the view of the fact that the performance of short-term tests is calibrated against known carcinogens and noncarcinogens, and since in the available data bases there is a preponderance of carcinogens, it may be argued that the estimation of sensitivities may be biased toward elevated values. It is shown, however, that when a battery of assays is used, assigning decreased values to the sensitivity does not result in significant effects on the predicted activity of the two test chemicals. Frequently, in the compilation of short-term results within a single assay, different laboratories may report varying results. Heretofore the "consensus result" was derived by majority rule. Because the variability in results may have biological significance, and in view of the fact that for a widely used sweetner one might be even more risk-adverse, a modification of Bayes's formula was derived to take these differences into consideration when calculating the probable carcinogenicity of cyclamate and its major metabolite.

致癌性预测和电池选择程序:深入分析环己胺及其主要代谢物环己胺。
致癌性预测和电池选择(CPBS)方法可用于根据一系列短期试验的结果预测化学品的可能致癌性。该方法使用贝叶斯统计和检测的估计性能特征(即灵敏度和特异性)。常规使用,致癌性的先验概率(或noncarcinogenicity)被认为是未知的和被分配一个一视同仁的值为0.5,也就是说,假设化学致癌物的概率是相同的或noncarcinogen,这意味着专家关于化学的直觉的潜在致癌物质,根据结构特点,已知的代谢转化,或潜在的亲电性,不考虑。在本研究中,环己胺及其代谢物环己胺表明,当使用一系列测定时,将先验概率赋值在0.1和0.9之间,对预测的致癌性没有显著影响。鉴于短期测试的表现是根据已知的致癌物和非致癌物进行校准的,而且由于在现有的数据库中,致癌物占多数,因此可能有人认为,对敏感性的估计可能偏向于较高的值。然而,结果表明,当使用一组测定法时,对灵敏度赋值降低并不会对两种测试化学品的预测活性产生显著影响。通常,在编制单一化验的短期结果时,不同的实验室可能报告不同的结果。在此之前,“协商一致的结果”是根据多数决定原则得出的。由于结果的差异可能具有生物学意义,并且考虑到对于一种广泛使用的甜味剂,可能存在更大的风险,因此在计算环己基氨基磺酸及其主要代谢物的可能致癌性时,对贝叶斯公式进行了修改,将这些差异考虑在内。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信