Toxicology: Open Access
Open Access

Toxicology is the scientific discipline concerned with the study of the adverse effects of chemical, physical, or biological agents on living organisms. Exposure to toxic substances can lead to a wide range of health problems, including acute toxicity, carcinogenesis, neurotoxicity, and reproductive disorders. Biomarkers of toxicity, defined as measurable indicators of biological processes, pathogenic processes, or responses to an exposure, have emerged as valuable tools for assessing toxicity, elucidating underlying mechanisms, and guiding risk assessment and management strategies [1-3].

Methodology

Types of biomarkers

Biomarkers of toxicity can be classified into various categories based on their nature, including biochemical, molecular, cellular, and imaging biomarkers. Biochemical biomarkers, such as enzyme activities, protein levels, and metabolite concentrations, provide direct measures of cellular or tissue damage resulting from toxic insult. Molecular biomarkers, including DNA adducts, gene expression profiles, and microRNAs, offer insights into the molecular mechanisms underlying toxicity and can serve as early indicators of adverse effects. Cellular biomarkers, such as apoptosis markers and oxidative stress indicators, reflect changes at the cellular level in response to toxic insult. Imaging biomarkers, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) scans, enable non-invasive visualization and quantification of structural and functional changes in tissues or organs following exposure to toxicants [4-7].

Mechanisms of biomarker action

Biomarkers of toxicity operate through various mechanisms, reflecting the diverse pathways and processes involved in the response to toxic insult. Biochemical biomarkers may indicate disruption of cellular homeostasis, oxidative stress, inflammation, or specific organ damage. Molecular biomarkers can provide insights into altered gene expression, epigenetic modifications, DNA damage, or activation of signaling pathways associated with toxicity. Cellular biomarkers may reflect apoptosis, necrosis, autophagy, or other cellular responses to toxic insult. Imaging biomarkers offer visual representation of anatomical, physiological, or metabolic changes induced by toxicants in living organisms [8-10].

Applications of biomarkers

Biomarkers of toxicity find broad applications across different domains of toxicology, including environmental toxicology, occupational toxicology, clinical toxicology, and drug development. In environmental toxicology, biomarkers are used to assess the impact of pollutants on ecosystems and wildlife populations. In occupational toxicology, biomarkers help evaluate occupational exposures and assess workers' health risks. In clinical toxicology, biomarkers aid in the diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring of toxicant-induced diseases or syndromes. In drug development, biomarkers serve as surrogate endpoints for evaluating drug safety and efficacy in preclinical and clinical studies.

Challenges and future directions

Despite their potential benefits, biomarkers of toxicity face several challenges, including variability in biomarker responses, lack of standardization, and limited predictive power. Addressing these challenges requires concerted efforts to validate biomarkers, establish reference ranges, and integrate multi-dimensional data from omics technologies. Future directions for biomarker research include the development of novel biomarkers, such as exposome-based biomarkers and organ-on-a-chip models, and the application of artificial intelligence and machine learning techniques for data analysis and interpretation.

Conclusion

Biomarkers of toxicity represent valuable tools for assessing and understanding the adverse effects of toxic substances on living organisms. By providing insights into mechanisms, early detection, and monitoring of toxicity, biomarkers play a critical role in advancing toxicology research and informing risk assessment and management strategies. Continued efforts to validate biomarkers, standardize methodologies, and integrate multi-omics data are essential for enhancing the utility and reliability of biomarkers in toxicology.

1. Matsuishi T, Nagano M, Araki Y, Tanaka Y, Iwasaki M, et al. (2008) Scale properties of the Japanese version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): a study of infant and school children in community samples. Brain Dev 30: 410-415.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

2. Fulkerson JA, Story M, Mellin A, Leffert N, Neumark-Sztainer D, et al. (2006) Family dinner meal frequency and adolescent development: relationships with developmental assets and high-risk behaviors. J Adolesc Health 39: 337-345.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

3. Eisenberg ME, Olson RE, Neumark-Sztainer D, Story M, Bearinger LH (2004) Correlations between family meals and psychosocial well-being among adolescents. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 158: 792-796.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

4. Sugiyama S, Okuda M, Sasaki S, Kunitsugu I, Hobara T (2012) Breakfast habits among adolescents and their association with daily energy and fish, vegetable, and fruit intake: a community-based cross-sectional study. Environ Health Prev Med 17: 408-414.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

5. Kusano-Tsunoh A, Nakatsuka H, Satoh H, Shimizu H, Sato S, et al. (2001) Effects of family-togetherness on the food selection by primary and junior high school students: family-togetherness means better food. Tohoku J Exp Med 194: 121-127.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

6. Burgess-Champoux TL, Larson N, Neumark-Sztainer D, Hannan PJ, Story M (2009) Are family meal patterns associated with overall diet quality during the transition from early to middle adolescence? J Nutr Educ Behav 41: 79-86.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

7. Larson NI, Neumark-Sztainer D, Hannan PJ, Story M (2007) Family meals during adolescence is associated with higher diet quality and healthful meal patterns during young adulthood. J Am Diet Assoc 107: 1502-1510.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

8. Fulkson JA, Kubik MY, Story M, Lytle L, Arcan C (2009) Are there nutritional and other benefits associated with family meals among at-risk youth? J Adolesc Health 45: 389-395.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

9. Smith A (2013) Effects of chewing gum on stress and health: a replication and investigation of dose-response. Stress Health 29: 172-174.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

10. Sasaki-Otomaru A, Sakuma Y, Ohtake M, Kanoya Y, Sato C (2014) Effect of twenty-eight-day gum chewing on the levels of stress in elementary school children (in Japanese). JMA 23: 10-17.

Crossref