1
Dose-Response Modeling: Past, Present, and Future
Rory B. Conolly, Sc.D.Center for Computational Systems Biology
& Human Health AssessmentCIIT Centers for Health Research
(919) 558-1330 - [email protected] - e-mail
SOT Risk Assessment Specialty Section, Wednesday, December 15, 2004
2
Outline
• Why do we care about dose response?
• Historical perspective– Brief, incomplete!
• Formaldehyde
• Future directions
3
Perspective
• This talk mostly deals with issues of cancer risk assessment, but I see no reason for any formal separation of the methodologies for cancer and non cancer dose-response assessments– PK
– Modes of action
– Tumors, reproductive failure, organ tox, etc.
4
Typical high dose rodent data – what do they tell us?
Res
pons
e
Dose
5
Not much!R
espo
nse
Dose
Interspecies
6
PossibilitiesR
espo
nse
Dose
Interspecies
7
PossibilitiesR
espo
nse
Dose
Interspecies
8
PossibilitiesR
espo
nse
Dose
Interspecies
9
PossibilitiesR
espo
nse
Dose
Interspecies
10
Benzene Decision of 1980
• U.S. Supreme Court says that exposure standards must be accompanied by a demonstration of “significant risk”– Impetus for modeling low-dose dose response
11
1984 Styrene PBPK model(TAP, 73:159-175, 1984)
A physiologically based description of the inhalation pharmacokinetics of styrene in rats and humans
John C. Ramseya and Melvin E. Andersenb
a Toxicology Research Laboratory, Dow Chemical USA, Midland, Michigan 48640, USAb Biochemical Toxicology Branch, Air Force Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory (AFAMRL/THB), Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio 45433, USA
12
Biologically motivated computational models(or)
Biologically based computational models
• Biology determines– The shape of the dose-response curve
– The qualitative and quantitative aspects of interspecies extrapolation
• Biological structure and associated behavior can be– described mathematically
– encoded in computer programs
– simulated
13
Experiments to understandmechanisms of toxicity andextrapolation issues
Computationalmodels
Riskassessment
Biologically-based computational models: Natural bridges between research and risk
assessment
14
Garbage in – garbage out
• Computational modeling and laboratory experiments must go hand-in-hand
15
Refining the description with research on pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics
(mode of action)R
espo
nse
Dose
Interspecies
16
Refining the description with research on pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics
(mode of action)R
espo
nse
Dose
Interspecies
17
Refining the description with research on pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics
(mode of action)R
espo
nse
Dose
Interspecies
18
Res
pons
e
Refining the description with research on pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics
(mode of action)
Dose
Interspecies
19
Formaldehyde nasal cancer in rats:
A good example of extrapolations across doses and species
20
21
Swenberg JA, Kerns WD, Mitchell RI, Gralla EJ, Pavkov KL
Cancer Research, 40:3398-3402 (1980)
Induction of squamous cell carcinomas of the rat nasal cavity by inhalation exposure to formaldehyde vapor.
1980 - First report of formaldehyde-induced tumors
22
Formaldehyde bioassay results
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
T
um
or R
espo
nse
(%)
0 0.7 2 6 10 15
Exposure Concentration (ppm)
Kerns et al., 1983
Monticello et al., 1990
23
Mechanistic Studies and Risk Assessments
24
What did we know in the early ’80’s?
• Formaldehyde is a carcinogen in rats and mice
• Human exposures roughly a factor of 10 of exposure levels that are carcinogenic to rodents.
25
1982 – Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) voted to ban urea-formaldehyde foam insulation.
26
Casanova-Schmitz M, Heck HD
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 70:121-32 (1983)
Effects of formaldehyde exposure on the extractability of DNA from proteins in the rat nasal mucosa.
1983 - Formaldehyde cross-links DNA with proteins - “DPX”
27
DPX
(FORMALDEHYDEIN AIR)
MUCUS
RESPIRATORYEPITHELIUM
CH2
CH2
CH2
28
Starr TB, Buck RD
Fundam Appl Toxicol 4:740-53 (1984)
The importance of delivered dose in estimating low-dose cancer risk from inhalation exposure to formaldehyde.
1984 - Risk Assessment Implications
29
1985 – No effect on blood levels
Heck, Hd’A, Casanova-Schmitz, M, Dodd, PD, Schachter, EN, Witek, TJ, and Tosun, T
Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 46:1. (1985)
Formaldehyde (C2HO) concentrations in the blood of humans and Fisher-344 rats exposed to C2HO under controlled conditions.
30
1987 – U.S. EPA cancer risk assessment
• Linearized multistage (LMS) model
– Low dose linear
– Dose input was inhaled ppm
– U.S. EPA declined to use DPX data
31
Summary: 1980’s
• Research– DPX – delivered dose
– Breathing rate protects the mouse (Barrow)
– Blood levels unchanged
• Regulatory actions– CPSC ban
– US EPA risk assessment
32
Key events during the ’90s
• Greater regulatory acceptance of mechanistic data for
risk assessment (U.S. EPA)
• Cell replication dose-response
• Better understanding of DPX (Casanova & Heck)
• Dose-response modeling of DPX (Conolly, Schlosser)
• Sophisticated nasal dosimetry modeling (Kimbell)
• Clonal growth models for cancer risk assessment
(Moolgavkar)
33
1991 – US EPA cancer risk assessment
• Linearized multistage (LMS) model– Low dose linear
– DPX used as measure of dose
34
Monticello TM, Miller FJ, Morgan KT
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 111:409-21 (1991)
Regional increases in rat nasal epithelial cell proliferation following acute and subchronic inhalation of formaldehyde.
1991, 1996 - regenerative cellular proliferation
35
Normal respiratory epithelium in the rat nose
36
Formaldehyde-exposed respiratory epitheliumin the rat nose (10+ ppm)
37
Dose-response for cell division rate
2.00E-04
3.00E-04
4.00E-04
5.00E-04
6.00E-04
7.00E-04
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ppm formaldehyde
(Raw data)
38
DPX submodel – simulation of rhesus monkey data
1 2 3 4 5 6 710
-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
PPM
DPX (pmol/mm
3)
DPX dose-response for Rhesus monkey
Vmax: 91.02. pmol/mm3/min
Km: 6.69 pmol/mm3 kf: 1.0878 1/min Tissue thickness ALWS: 0.5401 mm MT: 0.3120 mm NP: 0.2719 mm
39
Summary: Dose-response inputs to the clonal growth model
• Cell replication– J-shaped
• DPX– Low dose linear
40
CFD Simulation of Nasal Airflow(Kimbell et. al)
41
2-Stage clonal growth model(MVK model)
Normalcells (N)
Division
N)
Death/differentiation
(N)
Mutation(N )
Initiatedcells (I)
(I)
(I)
Mutation( )
Cancercell
Tumor
(delay)
42
Dose-response for cell division rate
2.00E-04
3.00E-04
4.00E-04
5.00E-04
6.00E-04
7.00E-04
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ppm formaldehyde
(Raw data)
2.0000E-04
2.5000E-04
3.0000E-04
3.5000E-04
4.0000E-04
4.5000E-04
5.0000E-04
5.5000E-04
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ppm formaldehyde
(Hockey stick transformation)
43
Simulation of tumor response in rats
44
CIIT clonal growth cancer risk assessment for formaldehyde
(late ’90’s)
• Risk assessment goal– Combine effects of cytotoxicity and mutagenicity to
predict the tumor response
45
1987 U.S. EPA
Tumor response
Inhaled ppm
Cancer model(LMS)
46
1991 U.S. EPA
Inhaled ppm
Tissue dose(DPX)
Cancer model(LMS)
Tumor response
47
1999 CIIT
Cell killing Cell proliferation
Mutagenicity(DPX)
Cancer model(Clonal growth)
Tumor response
Inhaled ppm
Tissue dose
CFD modeling
48
Formaldehyde: Computational fluid dynamics models of the nasal airways
F344 RatRhesus Monkey
Human
49
Human assessment
respiratory tracttumor data(control only)
cell replicationdose-response (rat)
site-specific flux intorespiratory tract epithelium
DPX dose-responseprediction (scale-upfrom rat and monkey)
mode of actiondose-responsesubmodels
cells at risk inrespiratory tract
single-path lungdosimetry model
cell replicationin control rats
human tumorincidence
CFD nasaldosimetry model
Inhaledformaldehyde
exposure scenario
2-STAGECLONALGROWTH MODEL
maximum likelihoodestimation of baselineparameter values
2-STAGECLONALGROWTHMODEL
50
Baseline calibration against human lung cancer data
51
DPX and direct mutation
• Direct mutation is assumed to be proportional to the amount of DPX:
• Is KMU big or small?
DPXKMUmutation ⋅=
52
Grid search
53
Optimal value of KMU is zero
54
Upper bound on KMU
55
Calculation of the value of KMU
• Grid search• Optimal value of KMU was zero
– Modeling implies that direct mutation is not a significant action of formaldehyde
• 95% upper confidence limit on KMU was estimated
56
Human risk modeling
Normalcells (N)
Division
N)
Death/differentiation
(N)
Mutation(N )
Initiatedcells (I)
(I)
(I)
Mutation( )
Cancercell
Tumor
(delay)
57
Final model: Hockey stick and 95% upper confidence limit on value of KMU
2.0000E-04
2.5000E-04
3.0000E-04
3.5000E-04
4.0000E-04
4.5000E-04
5.0000E-04
5.5000E-04
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 710
-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
PPM
DPX (pmol/mm
3)
DPX dose-response for Rhesus monkey
Vmax: 91.02. pmol/mm3/min
Km: 6.69 pmol/mm3 kf: 1.0878 1/min Tissue thickness ALWS: 0.5401 mm MT: 0.3120 mm NP: 0.2719 mm
95% UCL on KMU
58
Predicted human cancer risks(hockey stick-shaped dose-response for cell
replication; optimal value for KMU)
2.0000E-04
2.5000E-04
3.0000E-04
3.5000E-04
4.0000E-04
4.5000E-04
5.0000E-04
5.5000E-04
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 7
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
PPM
DPX (pmol/mm
3)
DPX dose-response for Rhesus monkey
Vmax: 91.02. pmol/mm3/min
Km: 6.69 pmol/mm3 kf: 1.0878 1/min Tissue thickness ALWS: 0.5401 mm MT: 0.3120 mm NP: 0.2719 mm
Optimal value of KMUKMU = 0.
59
“Negative risk” using raw dose-response for cell replication
2.00E-04
3.00E-04
4.00E-04
5.00E-04
6.00E-04
7.00E-04
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 710
-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
PPM
DPX (pmol/mm
3)
DPX dose-response for Rhesus monkey
Vmax: 91.02. pmol/mm3/min
Km: 6.69 pmol/mm3 kf: 1.0878 1/min Tissue thickness ALWS: 0.5401 mm MT: 0.3120 mm NP: 0.2719 mm
95% UCL on KMU
60
Make conservative choices when faced with uncertainty
• Use hockey stick-shaped cell replication
• Use a 95% upper bound on the dose-response for the directly mutagenic mode of action– Statistically optimal model has 0 (zero) slope
• Risk model predicts low-dose linear risk.
• Optimal, data based model predicts negative risk at low doses
61
Summary: CIIT Clonal Growth Assessment
• Either no additional risk or a much smaller level of risk than previous assessments
• Consistent with mechanistic database– Direct mutagenicity
– Cell replication
62
Summary: CIIT Clonal Growth Assessment
• International acceptance– Health Canada– WHO– MAK Commission (Germany)– Australia– U.S. EPA (??)
• Peer-review
63
IARC 2004
• Classified 1A based on nasopharyngeal cancer
• Myeloid leukemia data suggestive but not sufficient– Concern about mechanism
– British study negative
• Reclassification driven by epidemiology
• In my opinion inadequate consideration of regional dosimetry
64
nasopharynx
Anteriornose
Wholenose
65
IARC: hazard characterization vs. dose-response assessment
66
Formaldehyde summary
• Nasal SCC in rats
• Mechanistic studies
• Risk Assessments
• Implications of the data
• IARC
67
The future
68
Outline
• Long-range goal
• Systems in biological organization
• Molecular pathways
• Data
• Example– Computational modeling
– Modularity
69
Long-range goal
• A molecular-level understanding of dose- and time-response behaviors in laboratory animals and people.– Environmental risk assessment
– Drug development
– Public health
70
Levels of biological organization
Populations
Organisms
Tissues
Cells
Organelles
Molecules(systems)
(systems)
(systems)
(systems)
(systems)
Descriptive Mechanistic
71
Levels of biological organization
Populations
Organisms
Tissues
Cells
Organelles
Molecules(systems)
Today
72
Molecular pathways
73
Segment polarity genes in Drosophila
Albert & Othmer, J. Theor Biol. 223, 1 – 18, 2003
74
ATM curatedPathway fromPathway Assist®
75
Approach
• Initial pathway identification– Static map
• Existing data
• New data
• Computational modeling– Dynamic behavior
– Iterate with data collection
76
Initial pathway identification
• Use commercial software that can integrate data from a variety of sources (Pathway Assist)– Scan Pub Med abstracts to identify “facts”
– Create pathway maps
– Incorporate other, unpublished data
• Quality control– Curate pathways
77
Computational modeling
• To study the dynamic behavior of the pathway
• Analyze data– Are model predictions consistent with existing data?
• Make predictions– Suggest new experiments
– Ability to predict data before it is collected is a good test of the model
78
DNA damage and cell cycle checkpoints
(a) G1/S Checkpoint (b) G2/M Checkpoint (a) G1/S Checkpoint (b) G2/M Checkpoint
79
p21 time-course data and simulation
Experimental data
80
IR
Mu
tatio
n F
ract
ion
Ra
te
model calculated values
(Redpath et al, 2001)
Mutations dose-response and model prediction
81
Data
82
(Fat)
Liver
Rest of Body
Air-bloodinterface
Venousblood
Tissue dosimetry is the “front end” to a molecular pathway model
83
Gain-of-function and loss-of-function screens to study network structure
• Selectively alter behavior of the network– Loss-of-function
• SiRNA
– Gain-of-function
• full-length genes
• Look for concordance between lab studies and the behavior of the computational model– Mimic gain-of-function and loss-of-function changes in
the computer
84
Example
• Skin irritation
• MAPK, IL-1, and NF-B computational “modules”
• High throughput overexpression data to characterize IL-1 – MAPK interaction with respect to NF-B
85
Skin Irritation
Epidermis
Dermis
Dead cells
Blood vessels
(keratinocytes)
Nerve Ending
s(fibroblasts)
Chemical
Tissue damage
Tissue damage
A cascade of inflammatory responses
(cytokines)
• Study on the dose response of the skin cells to inflammatory cytokines contributes to quantitative assessment of skin irritation
86
Modular Composition of IL-1 Signaling
IL-1R
IL-1
Secondary messenger
NF-B MAPK Others
Extracellular
Intracellular
IL-6, etc.Transcriptional factors
IL-1 specific top module
Constitutive downstream NF-B module
87
IL-1
IL-1R
MyD88
P
IRAK
Degraded
IRAK gene
IRAK
IRA
K
P
TRAF6
TAB2
IRA
K
P
TRAF6
TA
K1
TA
B1
P
IK PIK
Nucleus
Cytoplasm
Top IL-1 Signaling Module
NF-kB moduleSelf-limiting mechanism
88
Top Module Simulation
• IL-1 receptor number and ligand binding parameters from human keratinocytes
• Other parameters constrained by reasonable ranges of similar reactions/molecules, and tuned to fit data
Time (hrs) Time (hrs)
TA
K1
*
IRA
Kp
Increasing IRAKp
degradation
89
IK P
NFBIB
P
NFB
IB Degraded
IB geneNFB
IB
IL-6 geneNFB NFB
IB
PNFBIB
Nucleus
Cytoplasm
Constitutive NF-B Signaling Module
IK
Negativefeedback
Input signal
90
NF-B Module Simulation
• Parameters from existing NF-B model (Hoffmann et al., 2002) and refined to fit experimental data in literature
Time (hrs)
Con
cen
trat i
on
(M
) IB
NF-B+ _
Time (hrs)
Con
cen
trat i
on
(M
)
IL-6
Add constant
input signal
Longer delay
Smoothened oscillations
91
The IB–NF-B Signaling Module: Temporal Control and Selective Gene ActivationAlexander Hoffmann, Andre Levchenko, Martin L. Scott, David Baltimore
Science 298:1241 – 1245, 2002
6 hr
92
MAPK intracellular signaling cascades
http://www.weizmann.ac.il/Biology/open_day/book/rony_seger.pdf
93
Growth factor
MAPKKK
MAPKK
MAPKPLA2
AA
PKC
PLA2
AA
PKC
MKPMKP
94
MAPK time-course and bifurcation after a short pulse of PDGF
Input pulse
Growth factor
MAPKKK
MAPKK
MAPKPLA2
AA
PKC
PLA2
AA
PKC
MKPMKP
95
PIRAK
DegradedIRAK gene
TRAF6
TAB2 TAK1TAB1
I
?
K
IL-1
IL-1R
MyD88
P
IRAK
P
IRAKIRAK
I
?
KP
P
NF
?
B module
NF
?
B-dependenttranscription
MAP3K1
IL-1 MAPK crosstalk and NFkB activation
96
Gain-of-function screen
97
Model prediction
98
Future directions
• Computational modeling and data collection at higher levels of biological organization– Cells
• Intercellular communication
– Tissues
– Organisms
• NIH initiatives
• Environmental health risk, drugs ==> in vivo
99
Summary
• Biological organization and systems
• Molecular pathways– identification
– Computational modeling
• Data– Gain-of-function
– Loss-of-function
• Skin irritation example– 3 modules
– Crosstalk
– Targeted data collection
100
Acknowledgements
• Colleagues who worked on the clonal growth risk assessment– Fred Miller, Julian Preston, Paul Schlosser, Julie
Kimbell, Betsy Gross, Suresh Moolgavkar, Georg Luebeck, Derek Janszen, Mercedes Casanova, Henry Heck, John Overton, Steve Seilkop
101
Acknowledgements
• CIIT Centers for Health Research– Rusty Thomas
– Maggie Zhao
– Qiang Zhang
– Mel Andersen
• Purdue– Yanan Zheng
• Wright State University– Jim McDougal
• Funding– DOE
– ACC
102
End