World Journal of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Open Access

Drug safety; Systems toxicology; Toxicology methods; Omics technologies; Computational modeling; Drug development

Introduction

Drug development is a complex and time-consuming process that involves rigorous evaluation of a compound’s efficacy and safety. While substantial efforts have been directed towards assessing drug efficacy, ensuring drug safety is equally crucial to prevent adverse effects and protect public health. In recent years, the field of toxicology has witnessed significant advancements, particularly in the emergence of systems toxicology methods. These innovative approaches are revolutionizing the way pharmaceutical companies and regulatory agencies evaluate the safety of drugs, enabling a more comprehensive understanding of their potential toxic effects at the molecular level. This article explores the concept of systems toxicology and how it contributes to enhancing drug safety. Traditional toxicology primarily relied on animal testing to predict potential adverse effects of a drug candidate. However, animal models are not always reliable due to species differences and varying drug responses. Furthermore, they often fail to provide insights into the underlying mechanisms responsible for drug toxicity, limiting their ability to predict human outcomes accurately. With advancements in technology and high-throughput screening methods, systems toxicology has emerged as a promising alternative. This discipline combines systems biology, computational modeling, and omics technologies (e.g., genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics) to provide a holistic view of the drug’s effects on biological systems. By analyzing drug responses at multiple levels of biological organization, from molecules to tissues and organs, systems toxicology enhances our understanding of toxicity pathways and enables a more accurate prediction of drug safety profiles [1-5].

Methodology

Omics technologies: Systems toxicology heavily relies on omics technologies to analyze changes in various biological molecules. Genomics provides insights into genetic variations that might influence drug responses, while transcriptomics reveals alterations in gene expression patterns upon drug exposure. Proteomics and metabolomics offer valuable information about changes in protein and metabolite levels, respectively, further contributing to the understanding of druginduced cellular responses.

Computational modeling: Computational models play a pivotal role in systems toxicology by integrating data from various omics technologies. These models simulate the intricate interactions between biological molecules and pathways, providing a comprehensive view of the drug’s effects. Such models enable researchers to predict the potential toxicity of a drug candidate under different conditions, facilitating risk assessment and mitigation strategies.

In vitro and in silico methods: In vitro experiments using human cell lines and organoids have gained popularity in systems toxicology. These models better mimic human physiology and allow researchers to assess the impact of drugs on specific cell types or organs. In silico methods, such as quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) modeling, help predict a drug’s toxic potential based on its chemical structure and known toxicological data.

Early identification of toxicity: Systems toxicology enables the detection of potential drug toxicity early in the drug development process, allowing researchers to make informed decisions about drug candidates before investing significant resources.

Mechanistic insights: Unlike traditional toxicology, systems toxicology provides mechanistic insights into the cellular and molecular events underlying drug-induced toxicity. This understanding aids in the development of targeted interventions to minimize adverse effects.

Reducing animal testing: By relying on in vitro and computational methods, systems toxicology reduces the need for animal testing, aligning with the principles of the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement).

Personalized medicine: Systems toxicology facilitates the identification of genetic factors that might influence an individual’s response to a drug, paving the way for personalized medicine approaches tailored to patients’ unique characteristics.

Challenges and future directions: Despite its numerous advantages, systems toxicology still faces some challenges. Integrating and interpreting large-scale omics data require sophisticated computational tools and expertise. Additionally, the complexity of biological systems and the interplay of various pathways demand further refinement of computational models. In the future, advancements in artificial intelligence and machine learning may enable more accurate predictions of drug toxicity. Collaborations between academia, industry, and regulatory agencies will be crucial in standardizing methods and sharing data to build comprehensive toxicity databases [6-10].

Discussion

Systems toxicology methods represent a significant advancement in the field of drug safety assessment, offering a more comprehensive and mechanistic understanding of potential toxic effects. The integration of systems biology, omics technologies, and computational modeling enables researchers to explore drug-induced toxicity at multiple biological levels, enhancing our ability to predict adverse effects accurately. This section discusses the implications and future prospects of systems toxicology in drug development and regulatory decision-making. Traditional toxicology often identified adverse effects without fully understanding the underlying mechanisms. In contrast, systems toxicology provides detailed mechanistic insights into the cellular and molecular events that contribute to drug toxicity. This knowledge allows researchers to identify specific pathways or targets responsible for adverse effects, enabling the development of safer drugs with reduced toxic potential. By understanding the molecular basis of toxicity, researchers can design targeted interventions or modify drug structures to minimize harmful effects. One of the major advantages of systems toxicology is its ability to detect potential toxicity at an early stage of drug development. By integrating data from various omics technologies and computational modeling, researchers can identify signals of toxicity before advancing to expensive and time-consuming preclinical and clinical studies. Early identification of toxic effects allows pharmaceutical companies to prioritize drug candidates with a more favorable safety profile, thereby saving resources and expediting the drug development process. Systems toxicology methods promote the use of in vitro and computational models, reducing the reliance on animal testing. This shift aligns with the principles of the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement) in animal research. By using human cell lines and organoids, researchers can better mimic human physiology and accurately predict drug responses in humans. This approach not only reduces the ethical concerns associated with animal experimentation but also provides more relevant data for human risk assessment as systems toxicology explores the influence of genetic variations on drug responses, it opens avenues for personalized medicine. Identifying genetic factors that affect individual drug sensitivity allows for tailored treatment strategies that consider patients’ unique characteristics. By integrating genomic data into drug safety assessments, healthcare providers can prescribe medications that are more likely to be effective and well-tolerated, improving patient outcomes and reducing the risk of adverse reactions. To fully harness the potential of systems toxicology, collaborative efforts among academia, industry, and regulatory agencies are crucial. Sharing data, developing standardized protocols, and establishing comprehensive toxicity databases will enhance the reliability and reproducibility of systems toxicology methods. Moreover, continuous advancements in computational tools, such as artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms, will improve the accuracy of predictive models, further strengthening the utility of systems toxicology in drug safety assessment [11-17].

Conclusion

Systems toxicology methods represent a paradigm shift in drug safety assessment, offering a holistic and mechanistic understanding of drug-induced toxicity. By combining various omics technologies, computational modeling, and in vitro experiments, researchers can make informed decisions about drug candidates, reducing the risk of adverse effects and ultimately improving patient safety. As the field continues to evolve, the integration of systems toxicology into drug development processes promises to pave the way for safer and more effective medications in the future. The integration of systems biology, omics technologies, and computational modeling allows for early identification of toxicity, reduced reliance on animal testing, and personalized medicine approaches. By addressing the challenges and promoting collaborations, systems toxicology holds the promise of revolutionizing drug development processes and ensuring the safer and more effective medicines of the future. As this field continues to evolve, its impact on public health and patient well-being will be transformative.

1. Bellin M, Casini S, Davis RP, D'aniello C, Haas J,et al. (2013) Isogenic human pluripotent stem cell pairs reveal the role of a KCNH2 mutation in long-QT syndrome. EMBO J32: 3161-3175.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

2. Burridge PW, Keller G, Gold JD, Wu JC (2012) Production of de novo cardiomyocytes: Human pluripotent stem cell differentiation and direct reprogramming. Cell Stem Cell10:16-28.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

3. Cao N, Liu Z, Chen Z, Wang J, Chen T,et al. (2011) Ascorbic acid enhances the cardiac differentiation of induced pluripotent stem cells through promoting the proliferation of cardiac progenitor cells. Cell Res22:219-236.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

4. Carvajal-Vergara X, Sevilla A, D’Souza SL, Ang YS, Schaniel C,et al. (2010) Patient-specific induced pluripotent stem-cell-derived models of LEOPARD syndrome. Nature465:808-812.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

5. Casimiro MC, Knollmann BC, Ebert SN, Vary Jr JC, Greene AE, et al. (2001) Targeted disruption of the Kcnq1 gene produces a mouse model of Jervell and Lange–Nielsen syndrome. Proc Natl Acad Sci 98:2526-2531.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

6. Qazvini FF, Samadi N, Saffari M, Razavi ANE, Shirkoohi R (2019) Fibroblast growth factor-10 and epithelialmesenchymal transition in colorectal cancer. EXCLI J 18:530-539.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

7. Matsuda Y, Ueda J, Ishiwata T (2012) Fibroblast growth factor receptor 2: expression, roles, and potential as a novel molecular target for colorectal cancer. Patholog Res Int 12:768.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

8. Korc M, Friesel R (2009) The role of fibroblast growth factors in tumor growth. Curr Cancer Drug Targets 9:639-651.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

9. Garcia AP, Barderas R, Torres S, Varas PH, Teixido J, et al. (2013) FGFR4 Role in epithelial-mesenchymal transition and its therapeutic value in colorectal cancer. PLoS One 8:63695.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

10. García AM, Redondo M (2019) Targeting receptor kinases in colorectal cancer. Cancers 11: 433.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

11. Goel G (2018) Evolution of regorafenib from bench to bedside in colorectal cancer: Is it an attractive option or merely a “me too” drug?. Cancer Manag Res 10:425-437.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

12. Federico P, Abbott DF, Briellmann RS, Harvey AS, Jackson GD (2005) Functional MRI of the pre-ictal state. Brain 128:1811-1817.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

13. Suzuki Y, Miyajima M, Ohta K, Yoshida N, Okumura M, et al. (2015) A triphasic change of cardiac autonomic nervous system during electroconvulsive therapy. J ECT 31:186-191.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

14. Mormann F, Kreuz T, Rieke C, Andrzejak RG, Kraskovet A, et al. (2005) On the predictability of epileptic seizures. Clin Neurophysiol 116:569-587.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

15. Bandarabadi M, Rasekhi J, Teixeira CA, Karami MR, Dourado A (2015) On the proper selection of preictal period for seizure prediction. Epilepsy Behav 46:158-166.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

16. Valderrama M, Alvarado C, Nikolopoulos S, Martinerie J, Adam C, et al. (2012) Identifying an increased risk of epileptic seizures using a multi-feature EEG-ECG classification. Biomed Sign 7:237-244.

Google Scholar, Crossref

17. Teixeira CA, Direito B, Bandarabadi M, Le Van Quyen M, Valderrama M, et al. (2014) Epileptic seizure predictors based on computational intelligence techniques: a comparative study with 278 patients. Comput Methods Programs in Biomed 114:324-336.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref