Skip navigation

DSpace

機構典藏 DSpace 系統致力於保存各式數位資料(如:文字、圖片、PDF)並使其易於取用。

點此認識 DSpace
DSpace logo
English
中文
  • 瀏覽論文
    • 校院系所
    • 出版年
    • 作者
    • 標題
    • 關鍵字
    • 指導教授
  • 搜尋 TDR
  • 授權 Q&A
    • 我的頁面
    • 接受 E-mail 通知
    • 編輯個人資料
  1. NTU Theses and Dissertations Repository
  2. 公共衛生學院
  3. 食品安全與健康研究所
請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件: http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/104564
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位值語言
dc.contributor.advisor羅宇軒zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisorYu-Syuan Luoen
dc.contributor.author陳宣廷zh_TW
dc.contributor.authorHsuan-Ting Chenen
dc.date.accessioned2026-08-28T16:23:39Z-
dc.date.available2026-08-29-
dc.date.copyright2026-08-28-
dc.date.issued2026-
dc.date.submitted2026-08-07 16:53:02-
dc.identifier.citationArzuaga, X., Smith Martyn, T., Gibbons Catherine, F., Skakkebæk Niels, E., Yost Erin, E., Beverly Brandiese, E. J., Hotchkiss Andrew, K., Hauser, R., Pagani Rodrigo, L., Schrader Steven, M., Zeise, L., & Prins Gail, S. (2019). Proposed Key Characteristics of Male Reproductive Toxicants as an Approach for Organizing and Evaluating Mechanistic Evidence in Human Health Hazard Assessments. Environmental Health Perspectives, 127(6), 065001. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP5045
Ashburner, M., Ball, C. A., Blake, J. A., Botstein, D., Butler, H., Cherry, J. M., Davis, A. P., Dolinski, K., Dwight, S. S., Eppig, J. T., Harris, M. A., Hill, D. P., Issel-Tarver, L., Kasarskis, A., Lewis, S., Matese, J. C., Richardson, J. E., Ringwald, M., Rubin, G. M., & Sherlock, G. (2000). Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. The Gene Ontology Consortium. Nat Genet, 25(1), 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/75556
Auger, J., Eustache, F., & Rouiller-Fabre, V. (2014). Integrative rodent models for assessing male reproductive toxicity of environmental endocrine active substances. Asian Journal of Andrology.
Bédard, P., Gauvin, S., Ferland, K., Caneparo, C., Pellerin, È., Chabaud, S., & Bolduc, S. (2020). Innovative human three-dimensional tissue-engineered models as an alternative to animal testing. Biomedicines.
Benfenati, E., Roncaglioni, A., Lombardo, A., & Manganaro, A. (2019). Integrating QSAR, read-across, and screening tools: the VEGAHUB platform as an example. In Advances in computational toxicology: methodologies and applications in regulatory science (pp. 365–381). Springer.
Brodersen, K. H., Ong, C. S., Stephan, K. E., & Buhmann, J. M. (2010). The balanced accuracy and its posterior distribution. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), 3121–3124. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPR.2010.764
Carusi, A. (2024). Chemicals regulation and non-animal methods: displacing the gold standard. Wellcome Open Research, 9, 167. https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.20581.2
Cassano, A., Manganaro, A., Martin, T., Young, D., Piclin, N., Pintore, M., Bigoni, D., & Benfenati, E. (2010). CAESAR models for developmental toxicity. Chemistry Central Journal, 4(Suppl 1), S4. https://doi.org/10.1186/1752-153X-4-S1-S4
Clough, E., Barrett, T., Wilhite, S. E., Ledoux, P., Evangelista, C., Kim, Irene F., Tomashevsky, M., Marshall, Kimberly A., Phillippy, Katherine H., Sherman, Patti M., Lee, H., Zhang, N., Serova, N., Wagner, L., Zalunin, V., Kochergin, A., & Soboleva, A. (2024). NCBI GEO: archive for gene expression and epigenomics data sets: 23-year update. Nucleic Acids Research, 52(D1), D138–D144. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkad965
Crain, D. A., Janssen, S. J., Edwards, T. M., Heindel, J., Ho, S.-m., Hunt, P., Iguchi, T., Juul, A., McLachlan, J. A., Schwartz, J., Skakkebaek, N., Soto, A. M., Swan, S., Walker, C., Woodruff, T. K., Woodruff, T. J., Giudice, L. C., & Guillette, L. J. (2008). Female reproductive disorders: the roles of endocrine-disrupting compounds and developmental timing. Fertility and Sterility, 90(4), 911–940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.08.067
DeVito, M., Farrell, P., Hagiwara, S., Paoli, G., Krewski, D., Harrill, A., & Thomas, R. (2024). Value of Information Case Study on the Human Health and Economic Trade-offs Associated with the Timeliness, Uncertainty, and Costs of the Draft EPA Transcriptomic Assessment Product (ETAP) (EPA/600/X-23/082). https://doi.org/10.23645/epacomptox.26093572
Dutta, S., Sengupta, P., Bagchi, S., Chhikara, B. S., Pavlík, A., Sláma, P., & Roychoudhury, S. (2023). Reproductive toxicity of combined effects of endocrine disruptors on human reproduction. Frontiers in cell and developmental biology, 11, 1162015.
Edgar, R., Domrachev, M., & Lash, A. E. (2002). Gene Expression Omnibus: NCBI gene expression and hybridization array data repository. Nucleic Acids Research, 30(1), 207–210. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/30.1.207
European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). (2025). Registered substances.
European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). (2025/07a). Candidate List of substances of very high concern (SVHC) for Authorisation. European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). https://echa.europa.eu/candidate-list-table
European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). (2025/07b). ECHA Classification and Labelling (C&L) Inventory. European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). https://echa.europa.eu/information-on-chemicals/cl-inventory-database
Foote, R. H., & Carney, E. W. (2000). The rabbit as a model for reproductive and developmental toxicity studies. Reproductive Toxicology.
GESTIS. (2025/07). GESTIS Substance Database. Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the German Social Accident Insurance,. https://gestis.dguv.de/
Glaus, P., Honkela, A., & Rattray, M. (2012). Identifying differentially expressed transcripts from RNA-seq data with biological variation. Bioinformatics, 28(13), 1721–1728. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bts260
Gore, A. C., Chappell, V. A., Fenton, S. E., Flaws, J. A., Nadal, A., Prins, G. S., Toppari, J., & Zoeller, R. T. (2015). EDC-2: The Endocrine Society's Second Scientific Statement on Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals. Endocrine Reviews, 36(6), E1–E150. https://doi.org/10.1210/er.2015-1010
Green, A. J., Mohlenkamp, M. J., Das, J., Chaudhari, M., Truong, L., Tanguay, R. L., & Reif, D. M. (2021). Leveraging high-throughput screening data, deep neural networks, and conditional generative adversarial networks to advance predictive toxicology. PLOS Computational Biology, 17(7), e1009135. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009135
Harrill, J. A., Everett, L. J., Haggard, D. E., Word, L. J., Bundy, J. L., Chambers, B., Harris, F., Willis, C., Thomas, R. S., Shah, I., & Judson, R. (2024). Signature analysis of high-throughput transcriptomics screening data for mechanistic inference and chemical grouping. Toxicological Sciences, 202(1), 103–122. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfae108
Hartung, T. (2009). Toxicology for the twenty-first century. Nature, 460, 208–212. https://doi.org/10.1038/460208a
Khatri, P., Sirota, M., & Butte, A. J. (2012). Ten years of pathway analysis: current approaches and outstanding challenges. PLoS Comput Biol, 8(2), e1002375. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002375
Kim, S., Chen, J., Cheng, T., Gindulyte, A., He, J., He, S., Li, Q., Shoemaker, B. A., Thiessen, P. A., Yu, B., Zaslavsky, L., Zhang, J., & Bolton, E. E. (2025). PubChem 2025 update. Nucleic Acids Research, 53(D1), D1516–D1525. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkae1059
Knapen, D., Vergauwen, L., Villeneuve, D. L., & Ankley, G. T. (2015). The potential of AOP networks for reproductive and developmental toxicity assay development. Reproductive toxicology, 56, 52–55.
Krewski, D., Andersen, M. E., Tyshenko, M. G., Krishnan, K., Hartung, T., Boekelheide, K., Wambaugh, J. F., Jones, D., Whelan, M., Thomas, R., Yauk, C., Barton-Maclaren, T., & Cote, I. (2020). Toxicity testing in the 21st century: progress in the past decade and future perspectives. Arch Toxicol, 94(1), 1–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-019-02613-4
Leist, M., Lidbury, B. A., Yang, C., Hayden, P. J., Kelm, J. M., Ringeissen, S., Detroyer, A., Meunier, J. R., Rathman, J. F., Jackson, G. R., Jr., Stolper, G., & Hasiwa, N. (2012). Novel technologies and an overall strategy to allow hazard assessment and risk prediction of chemicals, cosmetics, and drugs with animal-free methods. ALTEX - Alternatives to Animal Experimentation, 29(4), 373–388. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2012.4.373
Li, W., Shih, A., Freudenberg-Hua, Y., Fury, W., & Yang, Y. (2021). Beyond standard pipeline and p < 0.05 in pathway enrichment analyses. Computational Biology and Chemistry, 92, 107455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiolchem.2021.107455
Lowe, R., Shirley, N., Bleackley, M., Dolan, S., & Shafee, T. (2017). Transcriptomics technologies. PLoS Comput Biol, 13(5), e1005457. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005457
Luderer, U., Eskenazi, B., Hauser, R., Korach Kenneth, S., McHale Cliona, M., Moran, F., Rieswijk, L., Solomon, G., Udagawa, O., Zhang, L., Zlatnik, M., Zeise, L., & Smith Martyn, T. (2019). Proposed Key Characteristics of Female Reproductive Toxicants as an Approach for Organizing and Evaluating Mechanistic Data in Hazard Assessment. Environmental Health Perspectives, 127(7), 075001. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP4971
Luijten, M., Vries, A. d., Opperhuizen, A., & Piersma, A. H. (2007). Alternative methods in reproductive toxicity testing : state of the art. RIVM, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment.
Luo, Y.-S., Ying, R.-Y., Chen, X.-T., Yeh, Y.-J., Wei, C.-C., & Chan, C.-C. (2024). Integrating high-throughput phenotypic profiling and transcriptomic analyses to predict the hepatosteatosis effects induced by per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 469, 133891.
Lynch, S., Pridgeon, C. S., Duckworth, C. A., Sharma, P., Park, B. K., & Goldring, C. E. P. (2019). Stem cell models as an in vitro model for predictive toxicology. Biochemical Journal, 476(7), 1149–1158. https://doi.org/10.1042/BCJ20170780
Marikawa, Y. (2022). Toward better assessments of developmental toxicity using stem cell‐based in vitro embryogenesis models. Birth Defects Research, 114(16), 972–982.
Ng, Y.-P., Tee, M.-L., Pang, S.-N., Yee, C.-L., Chong, U. R.-W., Ng, K.-L., Lee, K.-H., & Toh, M.-S. (2025). NAM-based development of a predictive test model for evaluating skin mildness potential of rinse-off products via integrated in vitro assays. Toxicology in Vitro, 106134.
OECD. (2001). Test No. 416: Two-Generation Reproduction Toxicity. Paris: OECD Publishing
OECD. (2018a). Test No. 414: Prenatal Developmental Toxicity Study. Paris: OECD Publishing
OECD. (2018b). Users' Handbook Supplement to the Guidance Document for Developing and Assessing Adverse Outcome Pathways (OECD Series on Adverse Outcome Pathways, Issue. https://doi.org/10.1787/5jlv1m9d1g32-en
OECD. (2025). Test No. 443: Extended One-Generation Reproductive Toxicity Study. Paris OECD Publishing
Office of Environmental Health Hazard, A. (2025). The Proposition 65 List.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. (2025). Proposition 65 List. California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, OEHHA. Retrieved 2025-07-10 from https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/proposition-65-list
Piersma, A. H., Bosgra, S., van Duursen, M. B. M., Hermsen, S. A. B., Jonker, L. R. A., Kroese, E. D., van der Linden, S. C., Man, H., Roelofs, M. J. E., Schulpen, S. H. W., Schwarz, M., Uibel, F., van Vugt-Lussenburg, B. M. A., Westerhout, J., Wolterbeek, A. P. M., & van der Burg, B. (2013). Evaluation of an alternative in vitro test battery for detecting reproductive toxicants. Reproductive toxicology, 38, 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reprotox.2013.03.002
Rajagopal, R., Baltazar, M. T., Carmichael, P. L., Dent, M. P., Head, J., Li, H., Muller, I., Reynolds, J., Sadh, K., & Simpson, W. (2022). Beyond AOPs: A mechanistic evaluation of NAMs in DART testing. Frontiers in toxicology, 4, 838466.
Reimand, J., Isserlin, R., Voisin, V., Kucera, M., Tannus-Lopes, C., Rostamianfar, A., Wadi, L., Meyer, M., Wong, J., Xu, C., Merico, D., & Bader, G. D. (2019). Pathway enrichment analysis and visualization of omics data using g:Profiler, GSEA, Cytoscape and EnrichmentMap. Nat Protoc, 14(2), 482–517. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41596-018-0103-9
Reynolds, J., Aleksic, M., Gilmour, N., & Reynolds, G. (2025). Determination of acceptable margins of exposure (MoE) for NAM-based skin sensitisation risk assessment. NAM Journal, 100062.
R Core Team. (2025). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. In R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
Rivals, I., Personnaz, L., Taing, L., & Potier, M.-C. (2007). Enrichment or depletion of a GO category within a class of genes: which test? Bioinformatics, 23(4), 401–407. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btl633
Rogers, J. D., Bundy, J. L., Harrill, J. A., Judson, R. J., Paul-Friedman, K., & Everett, L. J. (2025). Integrating transcriptomic and targeted new approach methodologies into a tiered framework for chemical bioactivity screening. Environmental Health Perspectives, 133(6), 067013.
Ruei-Chang Environmental Technology Co, L. (2021). The Project for Inventory, Analysis, and Application of the Information on Existing Chemical Substances Registration (Project No. 109A033).
Safe Work Australia. (2025). Hazardous Chemicals Information. Safe Work Australia. Retrieved 2025-07-10 from https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/
Sciome LLC. (2025). BMDExpress 3. Sciome LLC. Retrieved 2025-07-10 from https://www.sciome.com/bmdexpress/
Sharma, S., & Pandey, G. (2025). Understanding the impact of triazoles on female fertility and embryo development: Mechanisms and implications. Toxicology Reports, 14, 101948.
Shulhai, A. M., Bianco, V., Donini, V., Esposito, S., & Street, M. E. (2024). Which is the current knowledge on man-made endocrine- disrupting chemicals in follicular fluid? An overview of effects on ovarian function and reproductive health. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne), 15, 1435121. https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2024.1435121
Smith Martyn, T., Guyton Kathryn, Z., Gibbons Catherine, F., Fritz Jason, M., Portier Christopher, J., Rusyn, I., DeMarini David, M., Caldwell Jane, C., Kavlock Robert, J., Lambert Paul, F., Hecht Stephen, S., Bucher John, R., Stewart Bernard, W., Baan Robert, A., Cogliano Vincent, J., & Straif, K. (2016). Key Characteristics of Carcinogens as a Basis for Organizing Data on Mechanisms of Carcinogenesis. Environmental Health Perspectives, 124(6), 713–721. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1509912
Smith, M. T. (2025). The key characteristics concept. Curr Opin Toxicol, 41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cotox.2024.100515
Team, R. C. (2025). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. In R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
Traini, G., Tamburrino, L., Ragosta, M. E., Guarnieri, G., Morelli, A., Vignozzi, L., Baldi, E., & Marchiani, S. (2023). Effects of Benzo[a]pyrene on Human Sperm Functions: An In Vitro Study. Int J Mol Sci, 24(19). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms241914411
Tsai, H.-H. D., Oware, K. D., Wright, F. A., Chiu, W. A., & Rusyn, I. (2025). A workflow for human health hazard evaluation using transcriptomic data and Key Characteristics-based gene sets. Toxicological Sciences, 205(2), 310–325.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2021). New Approach Methodologies Work Plan: Reducing Use of Vertebrate Animals in Chemical Testing. U. S. E. P. Agency. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-11/nams-work-plan_11_15_21_508-tagged.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2025). CompTox Chemicals Dashboard. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved 2025-07-11 from https://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard/batch-search
United Nations Environment Programme, & World Health Organization. (2013). State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals - 2012.
Van Norman, G. A. (2019). Limitations of Animal Studies for Predicting Toxicity in Clinical Trials: Is it Time to Rethink Our Current Approach? JACC: Basic to Translational Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacbts.2019.10.008
Vineis, P., Chatziioannou, A., Cunliffe, V. T., Flanagan, J. M., Hanson, M., Kirsch-Volders, M., & Kyrtopoulos, S. (2017). Epigenetic memory in response to environmental stressors. The FASEB Journal, 31(6), 2241–2251. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.201601059RR
Wareing, B., Aktalay Hippchen, A., Kolle, S. N., Birk, B., Funk-Weyer, D., & Landsiedel, R. (2024). Limitations and modifications of skin sensitization NAMs for testing inorganic nanomaterials. Toxics, 12(8), 616.
Wu, S., Fisher, J., Naciff, J., Laufersweiler, M., Lester, C., Daston, G., & Blackburn, K. (2013). Framework for identifying chemicals with structural features associated with the potential to act as developmental or reproductive toxicants. Chemical Research in Toxicology, 26(12), 1840–1861.
Xie, Q., Cao, H., Liu, H., Xia, K., Gao, Y., & Deng, C. (2024). Prenatal DEHP exposure induces lifelong testicular toxicity by continuously interfering with steroidogenic gene expression. Translational Andrology and Urology, 13(3), 369–382. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau-23-503
Yang, L., Allen, B. C., & Thomas, R. S. (2007). BMDExpress: a software tool for the benchmark dose analyses of genomic data. BMC Genomics, 8, 387. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-8-387
Zhang, L., Yang, R., Xu, G., Wang, L., Chen, W., Tan, Y., Zhang, G., Liu, W., Zhang, G., Li, J., & Zhou, Z. (2025). Paternal DEHP Exposure Triggers Reproductive Toxicity in Offspring via Epigenetic Modification of H3K27me3. Toxics, 13(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics13030172
Zuang, V., Baccaro, M., Barroso, J., & Berggren, E. (2024). Non-Animal Methods in Science and Regulation: EURL ECVAM Status Report 2024.
-
dc.identifier.urihttp://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/104564-
dc.description.abstract近年來工業化驅動化學物質多樣性與使用量快速擴增,然而大多數物質缺乏全面的毒理學資料,其中生殖與發育毒性相關資料的匱乏尤為嚴重(僅約2%化學物質具備相關測試資料),凸顯了高效生殖毒性篩選的迫切需求。生殖與發育毒性一直是非動物替代測試方法(New Approach Methodologies, NAMs)中最難處理的終點之一,因為它牽涉內分泌調控、配子形成、著床、胚胎發育等複雜且跨尺度的生物學過程,難以用單一替代性方法完整涵蓋。為填補此缺口,本研究開發一套「關鍵轉錄體特徵(Key Transcriptomic Characteristics, KTC)」架構,整合高通量轉錄體反應與既有的生殖毒性關鍵特徵法(Key Characteristics, KCs),用於化學安全性評估中的化學物質篩選與優先排序。
本研究的轉錄體數據取自基因表現綜合資料庫(GEO, GSE272548),涵蓋1,750種化學物質於MCF-7細胞中經6小時暴露後的反應。整合六項資料庫與清單後,共分類出549種生殖毒性物質與1,056種非生殖毒性物質;再扣除4種缺乏可用轉錄體路徑資料而視為生物不活性的物質後,建立了包含1,601種化學物質的參考資料集(包含546種生殖毒性物質、1,055種非生殖毒性物質)。透過差異基因表現分析、路徑富集分析,並以逐步優化的方式將富集倍數閾值訂為2.11倍,並建構出涵蓋112條生物學預警路徑的清單。這些路徑主要集中在發炎反應(KC7)與訊號傳導改變(KC9)兩大機制領域,兩者合計超過清單半數,且經邏輯迴歸證實各自獨立與生殖毒性物質狀態顯著相關(勝算比分別為1.91與1.44)。
比較三個模型的表現後發現,基於生物學效應的KTC模型與兩種傳統模型(VEGA CAESAR model、DART決策樹)呈現不同、但彼此互補的表現特性。DART決策樹的特異度(81.7%)與平衡準確率(68.2%)為三者最高;VEGA CAESAR模型敏感度最高(74.1%),但特異度最低(37.4%);KTC模型的表現介於兩者之間(平衡準確率63.0%),並達到100%的化學物質涵蓋率,能評估因缺乏明確化學結構而無法處理的物質。McNemar's檢定證實三模型的分類錯誤模式彼此系統性不同(p<0.0001),因此本研究進一步建立共識分類架構,將陽性預測值與陰性預測值分別提升至67.0%與88.9%。
KTC模型應用於篩選我國化學物質優先排序計畫之案例研究,不僅成功辨識已有充分生殖毒性證據的物質(三模型一致判定陽性者代表與GHS分類100%相符),且具有篩選出結構模型未能標記的候選物質,可信度較高(KTC獨有陽性物質有75%獲GHS支持,相對於VEGA獨有陽性物質僅25%)。進一步將此模型應用於更廣泛的化學物質清單後,在145種目前完全缺乏GHS或其他法規生殖毒性分類的物質中,成功標記出68種(46.9%)具備可偵測生物學警訊的候選物質。這些結果支持以HTTr為基礎的KTC模型,作為一套具擴充性且機制可解釋的生殖毒性篩選與優先排序策略,有助於協助法規單位優先排序高風險候選物質以進行後續測試。
zh_TW
dc.description.abstractRapid industrialization has exponentially increased chemical diversity and usage, yet comprehensive toxicological data remain scarce for most substances—reproductive and developmental toxicity data are particularly limited, with only about 2% of chemicals having relevant testing data—highlighting the urgent need for efficient reproductive toxicity screening. Reproductive and developmental toxicity remains one of the most difficult endpoints for new approach methodologies (NAMs), because it involves complex, multiscale biological processes such as endocrine regulation, gametogenesis, implantation, and embryofetal development, which are difficult to capture using any single alternative assay. To help address this gap, this study developed and benchmarked a Key Transcriptomic Characteristics (KTC) model that integrates high-throughput transcriptomic responses with the established Key Characteristics (KCs) of reproductive toxicants for chemical screening and prioritization in chemical safety evaluation.
Using transcriptomic data from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GSE272548), which evaluated 1,750 chemicals following a 6-hour exposure in MCF-7 cells, this study classified 549 reproductive toxicants and 1,056 non-reproductive toxicants using six authoritative databases and lists; after excluding 4 chemicals lacking usable transcriptomic pathway data (bio-inactive), a reference dataset of 1,601 chemicals (546 reproductive toxicants, 1,055 non-reproductive toxicants) was curated. Differential gene expression and pathway enrichment analyses, combined with stepwise threshold optimization (RF ratio = 2.11), identified 112 biological warning pathways associated with reproductive toxicants. These pathways were dominated by two mechanistic domains, inflammation (KC7) and altered signal transduction (KC9), which together accounted for more than half of the list and were independently associated with reproductive toxicant status (OR = 1.91 and 1.44, respectively).
Performance benchmarking showed that the biology-based KTC model and two structure-based models, VEGA CAESAR and the DART decision tree, had genuinely different and complementary performance profiles. The DART decision tree achieved the highest specificity (81.7%) and balanced accuracy (68.2%), while VEGA CAESAR achieved the highest sensitivity (74.1%) but the lowest specificity (37.4%); the KTC model fell between these extremes (balanced accuracy 63.0%) while achieving complete chemical coverage (100%), including chemicals that lack the defined structures required by structure-based models. McNemar's tests confirmed that the three models made systematically different classification errors (all p < 0.0001), motivating a consensus classification scheme that raised positive and negative predictive values to 67.0% and 88.9%, respectively.
Applied to a regulatory case study of Taiwan's Priority Existing Chemicals, the KTC model recovered chemicals with well-established reproductive toxicity evidence (100% of three-model consensus positives were GHS-confirmed) while also identifying candidates missed by structure-based models with substantially higher reliability (75% GHS-supported for KTC-unique flags versus 25% for VEGA-unique flags). Applied more broadly, the model flagged 68 of 145 chemicals (46.9%) that currently carry no GHS or other regulatory reproductive hazard classification. These findings support the HTTr-informed KTC model as a scalable and mechanistically interpretable approach for reproductive toxicant screening and prioritization, helping regulatory agencies prioritize high-risk candidates for further testing.
en
dc.description.provenanceSubmitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2026-08-28T16:23:39Z
No. of bitstreams: 0
en
dc.description.provenanceMade available in DSpace on 2026-08-28T16:23:39Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0en
dc.description.tableofcontents口試委員審定書 I
致謝 II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IV
摘要 V
ABSTRACT VII
TABLE OF CONTENTS X
LIST OF FIGURES XIII
LIST OF TABLES XIV
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 RESEARCH BACKGROUND 1
1.1.1 Current Status and Risks of Chemical Substance Usage 1
1.1.2 Limitations of Traditional Animal-Based Testing Methods 3
1.1.3 Non-Animal Methods for Reproductive Toxicity Screening: Advances and Challenges 4
1.2 KEY CHARACTERISTIC APPROACH (KCS) 6
1.2.1 Literature on Key Characteristics of Female Reproductive Toxicants 7
1.2.2 Literature on Key Characteristics of Male Reproductive Toxicants 8
1.2.3 Integration of Male and Female Key Characteristics 10
1.3 TRANSCRIPTOMICS IN TOXICOLOGICAL RESEARCH 11
1.3.1 Introduction to Transcriptomics 11
1.3.2 Applications of Transcriptomics in Toxicity Assessment 12
1.4 EXISTING IN SILICO MODELS FOR REPRODUCTIVE TOXICITY ASSESSMENT 13
1.5 RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS AND OBJECTIVES 14
CHAPTER 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS 18
2.1 OVERALL STUDY DESIGN AND ANALYTICAL WORKFLOW 18
2.2 DATA SOURCES AND COLLECTION 19
2.3 CURATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF TOXICANTS 21
2.3.1 PubChem 24
2.3.2 SVHC (Substances of Very High Concern) 25
2.3.3 ECHA Classification and Labelling (C&L) Inventory 25
2.3.4 GESTIS 26
2.3.5 Safe Work Australia 26
2.3.6 Proposition 65 27
2.4 DEVELOPMENT OF KEY TRANSCRIPTOMIC CHARACTERISTICS (KTCS) 27
2.4.1 Preprocessing of Gene Expression Data and BMDExpress 3 Prefilter 27
2.4.2 BMD Modeling and Pathway Enrichment Analysis 28
2.4.3 Mapping Enriched GO Terms to Reproductive KCs 31
2.4.4 Identification and Optimization of KTC Warning Pathway Sets 32
2.5 INTEGRATION AND BENCHMARKING OF TOXICITY MODELS 33
2.5.1 DART Decision Tree 34
2.5.2 VEGA CAESAR Model 36
2.5.3 Consensus Model Construction 37
2.5.4 Performance Evaluation Metrics 38
2.5.5 Additional Statistical Analyses 39
2.6 REGULATORY CASE STUDY USING TAIWAN'S PRIORITY EXISTING CHEMICALS (PECS) LIST 41
CHAPTER 3. RESULTS 43
3.1 DATA CURATION AND CLASSIFICATION OUTCOMES 43
3.2 DEGS AND ENRICHED GO PATHWAYS 44
3.2.1 Differentially Expressed Genes 45
3.2.2 Enriched GO Terms 46
3.3 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE KTC WARNING PATHWAY LIST 47
3.3.1 Optimization of Pathway Enrichment Threshold to 2.11-Fold 47
3.3.2 Mapping to KCs and Final Warning Pathway List 48
3.3.3 KC Odds Ratio Analysis 49
3.3.4 Gene-Level Concordance of Warning Pathways 50
3.4.1 Comparative Performance Metrics 52
3.4.2 Statistical Significance of Model Differences 53
3.4.3 ROC Curve Analysis 55
3.5 THE CONSENSUS MODEL IMPROVED PREDICTIVE PERFORMANCE 56
3.6 REGULATORY CASE STUDY ON PRIORITY CHEMICALS IN TAIWAN 57
3.6.1 Prioritization Results Based on Consensus Prediction 57
3.6.2 Toxicological Evidence of Prioritized Chemicals 58
3.7 CHEMICALS FLAGGED BY KTC BUT LACKING GHS CLASSIFICATION 59
CHAPTER 4. DISCUSSION 61
4.1 MECHANISTIC INSIGHTS FROM TRANSCRIPTOMIC FEATURES 61
4.2 COMPLEMENTARY PERFORMANCE OF BIOLOGY-BASED AND STRUCTURE-BASED MODELS 64
4.3 THE CONSENSUS FRAMEWORK AND IDENTIFICATION OF EMERGING HAZARDS 67
4.3.1 Consensus Model Performance and Regulatory Case Study 67
4.3.2 Identification of Emerging Hazards Beyond Current GHS Classification 69
4.4 FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR PREDICTIVE TOXICOLOGY 70
4.4.1 Data Integration and Multi-Omics Approaches 71
4.4.2 Expansion of Cell Models, Sex-Specific Analyses, and IVIVE 71
4.4.3 Optimization of Screening Parameters and Dynamic Thresholds 72
CHAPTER 5. LIMITATION 74
5.1 TOXICITY CLASSIFICATION 74
5.2 PATHWAY ASSIGNMENT 75
5.3 CELL LINE SPECIFICITY AND SEX DIFFERENCES 76
5.4 IN VITRO TO IN VIVO EXTRAPOLATION AND EXPOSURE DESIGN 77
5.5 LIMITED TRANSCRIPTOMIC DETECTABILITY OF CERTAIN KEY CHARACTERISTICS 77
CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION 79
6.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 79
6.2 IMPLICATIONS FOR REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY 79
6.3 FUTURE DIRECTIONS 82
FIGURES 83
TABLES 94
REFERENCES 110
APPENDIX 117
-
dc.language.isoen-
dc.subject生殖毒性物質-
dc.subject高通量轉錄體學-
dc.subject關鍵特徵法-
dc.subject新興替代方法(NAMs)-
dc.subject化學物質優先排序-
dc.subjectReproductive toxicants-
dc.subjecthigh-throughput transcriptomics-
dc.subjectkey characteristics-
dc.subjectnew approach methodologies (NAMs)-
dc.subjectchemical prioritization-
dc.title基於轉錄體學關鍵特徵法之生殖毒性篩選策略zh_TW
dc.titleA Transcriptomics-Based Key Characteristics Strategy for Reproductive Toxicant Screeningen
dc.typeThesis-
dc.date.schoolyear114-2-
dc.description.degree碩士-
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee童俊維;林靖愉;陳保中zh_TW
dc.contributor.oralexamcommitteeChun-Wei Tung;Ching-Yu Lin;Pau-Chung Chenen
dc.subject.keyword生殖毒性物質; 高通量轉錄體學; 關鍵特徵法; 新興替代方法(NAMs); 化學物質優先排序zh_TW
dc.subject.keywordReproductive toxicants; high-throughput transcriptomics; key characteristics; new approach methodologies (NAMs); chemical prioritizationen
dc.relation.page328-
dc.identifier.doi10.6342/NTU202603488-
dc.rights.note同意授權(限校園內公開)-
dc.date.accepted2026-08-07-
dc.contributor.author-college公共衛生學院-
dc.contributor.author-dept食品安全與健康研究所-
dc.date.embargo-lift2026-08-29-
顯示於系所單位:食品安全與健康研究所

文件中的檔案:
檔案 大小格式 
ntu-114-2.pdf
授權僅限NTU校內IP使用(校園外請利用VPN校外連線服務)
8.67 MBAdobe PDF
顯示文件簡單紀錄


系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。

社群連結
聯絡資訊
10617臺北市大安區羅斯福路四段1號
No.1 Sec.4, Roosevelt Rd., Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C. 106
Tel: (02)33662353
Email: ntuetds@ntu.edu.tw
意見箱
相關連結
館藏目錄
國內圖書館整合查詢 MetaCat
臺大學術典藏 NTU Scholars
臺大圖書館數位典藏館
本站聲明
© NTU Library All Rights Reserved