Cargando…

Physiological fidelity or model parsimony? The relative performance of reverse-toxicokinetic modeling approaches

BACKGROUND: Physiologically-based toxicokinetic (PBTK) models are often developed to facilitate in vitro to in vivo extrapolation (IVIVE) using a top-down, compartmental approach, favoring architectural simplicity over physiological fidelity despite the lack of general guidelines relating model desi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rowland, Michael A., Perkins, Edward J., Mayo, Michael L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5346271/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28284215
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12918-017-0407-3
_version_ 1782513856915963904
author Rowland, Michael A.
Perkins, Edward J.
Mayo, Michael L.
author_facet Rowland, Michael A.
Perkins, Edward J.
Mayo, Michael L.
author_sort Rowland, Michael A.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Physiologically-based toxicokinetic (PBTK) models are often developed to facilitate in vitro to in vivo extrapolation (IVIVE) using a top-down, compartmental approach, favoring architectural simplicity over physiological fidelity despite the lack of general guidelines relating model design to dynamical predictions. Here we explore the impact of design choice (high vs. low fidelity) on chemical distribution throughout an animal’s organ system. RESULTS: We contrast transient dynamics and steady states of three previously proposed PBTK models of varying complexity in response to chemical exposure. The steady states for each model were determined analytically to predict exposure conditions from tissue measurements. Steady state whole-body concentrations differ between models, despite identical environmental conditions, which originates from varying levels of physiological fidelity captured by the models. These differences affect the relative predictive accuracy of the inverted models used in exposure reconstruction to link effects-based exposure data with whole-organism response thresholds obtained from in vitro assay measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate how disregarding physiological fideltiy in favor of simpler models affects the internal dynamics and steady state estimates for chemical accumulation within tissues, which, in turn, poses significant challenges for the exposure reconstruction efforts that underlie many IVIVE methods. Developing standardized systems-level models for ecological organisms would not only ensure predictive consistency among future modeling studies, but also ensure pragmatic extrapolation of in vivo effects from in vitro data or modeling exposure-response relationships. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12918-017-0407-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5346271
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53462712017-03-14 Physiological fidelity or model parsimony? The relative performance of reverse-toxicokinetic modeling approaches Rowland, Michael A. Perkins, Edward J. Mayo, Michael L. BMC Syst Biol Research Article BACKGROUND: Physiologically-based toxicokinetic (PBTK) models are often developed to facilitate in vitro to in vivo extrapolation (IVIVE) using a top-down, compartmental approach, favoring architectural simplicity over physiological fidelity despite the lack of general guidelines relating model design to dynamical predictions. Here we explore the impact of design choice (high vs. low fidelity) on chemical distribution throughout an animal’s organ system. RESULTS: We contrast transient dynamics and steady states of three previously proposed PBTK models of varying complexity in response to chemical exposure. The steady states for each model were determined analytically to predict exposure conditions from tissue measurements. Steady state whole-body concentrations differ between models, despite identical environmental conditions, which originates from varying levels of physiological fidelity captured by the models. These differences affect the relative predictive accuracy of the inverted models used in exposure reconstruction to link effects-based exposure data with whole-organism response thresholds obtained from in vitro assay measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate how disregarding physiological fideltiy in favor of simpler models affects the internal dynamics and steady state estimates for chemical accumulation within tissues, which, in turn, poses significant challenges for the exposure reconstruction efforts that underlie many IVIVE methods. Developing standardized systems-level models for ecological organisms would not only ensure predictive consistency among future modeling studies, but also ensure pragmatic extrapolation of in vivo effects from in vitro data or modeling exposure-response relationships. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12918-017-0407-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-03-11 /pmc/articles/PMC5346271/ /pubmed/28284215 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12918-017-0407-3 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Rowland, Michael A.
Perkins, Edward J.
Mayo, Michael L.
Physiological fidelity or model parsimony? The relative performance of reverse-toxicokinetic modeling approaches
title Physiological fidelity or model parsimony? The relative performance of reverse-toxicokinetic modeling approaches
title_full Physiological fidelity or model parsimony? The relative performance of reverse-toxicokinetic modeling approaches
title_fullStr Physiological fidelity or model parsimony? The relative performance of reverse-toxicokinetic modeling approaches
title_full_unstemmed Physiological fidelity or model parsimony? The relative performance of reverse-toxicokinetic modeling approaches
title_short Physiological fidelity or model parsimony? The relative performance of reverse-toxicokinetic modeling approaches
title_sort physiological fidelity or model parsimony? the relative performance of reverse-toxicokinetic modeling approaches
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5346271/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28284215
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12918-017-0407-3
work_keys_str_mv AT rowlandmichaela physiologicalfidelityormodelparsimonytherelativeperformanceofreversetoxicokineticmodelingapproaches
AT perkinsedwardj physiologicalfidelityormodelparsimonytherelativeperformanceofreversetoxicokineticmodelingapproaches
AT mayomichaell physiologicalfidelityormodelparsimonytherelativeperformanceofreversetoxicokineticmodelingapproaches