Characterizing Accuracy of Model Predictions for Chemical Concentration in High Throughput Screening Assays

The aim of <i>in vitro</i> - <i>in vivo</i> extrapolation (IVIVE) of dose is to predict potential whole animal effects from perturbations observed <i>in vitro</i>. Reliance on nominal (administered) concentration (assumed dose) does not account for chemical distribution to cellular and noncellular elements of an <i>in vitro</i> assay system. Chemical distribution can reduce the free concentration available to cause effects and can result in an inaccurate estimate of the intracellular concentration causing any observed perturbations. There are mathematical, chemical property-based partitioning models for predicting cellular concentrations when not measured experimentally. This work evaluated two of these <i>in vitro</i> disposition models, Armitage et al., 2021 and Kramer et al., 2010, using a total of 153 experimental intracellular concentration measurements of 43 chemicals, along with parameters describing measurement conditions, from 12 peer reviewed studies in addition to data generated for this study. Intracellular concentrations were more accurately predicted by both the Armitage model (root mean squared log<sub>10</sub> error (RMSLE) = 1.12) and the Kramer model (RMSLE = 1.30) than by the nominal concentration (RMSLE = 1.45). Although limited by the amount of available measurement data, these results indicate that mathematical modeling of <i>in vitro</i> distribution can improve the accuracy of IVIVE for toxicology.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Environmental Science & Technology
Published
2026-02-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5c10195
Primary Topic
Animal testing and alternatives
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Characterizing Accuracy of Model Predictions for Chemical Concentration in High Throughput Screening Assays

Jon A. Arnot, Gregory S. Honda, James M. Armitage, Joshua Harrill et al.
Environmental Science & Technology
Animal testing and alternatives
article

Characterizing Accuracy of Model Predictions for Chemical Concentration in High Throughput Screening Assays

Jon A. Arnot, Gregory S. Honda, James M. Armitage, Joshua Harrill, Alessandro Sangion, David M. Crizer, Madison Feshuk, Caroline T. Tebes-Stevens, Michael DeVito, Kimberly Freeman, Stephen S. Ferguson, Meredith N. Scherer, John F. Wambaugh
article en

Abstract

The aim of <i>in vitro</i> - <i>in vivo</i> extrapolation (IVIVE) of dose is to predict potential whole animal effects from perturbations observed <i>in vitro</i>. Reliance on nominal (administered) concentration (assumed dose) does not account for chemical distribution to cellular and noncellular elements of an <i>in vitro</i> assay system. Chemical distribution can reduce the free concentration available to cause effects and can result in an inaccurate estimate of the intracellular concentration causing any observed perturbations. There are mathematical, chemical property-based partitioning models for predicting cellular concentrations when not measured experimentally. This work evaluated two of these <i>in vitro</i> disposition models, Armitage et al., 2021 and Kramer et al., 2010, using a total of 153 experimental intracellular concentration measurements of 43 chemicals, along with parameters describing measurement conditions, from 12 peer reviewed studies in addition to data generated for this study. Intracellular concentrations were more accurately predicted by both the Armitage model (root mean squared log<sub>10</sub> error (RMSLE) = 1.12) and the Kramer model (RMSLE = 1.30) than by the nominal concentration (RMSLE = 1.45). Although limited by the amount of available measurement data, these results indicate that mathematical modeling of <i>in vitro</i> distribution can improve the accuracy of IVIVE for toxicology.

Environmental Science & TechnologyVol. 60(6)
Oak Ridge Associated Universities (US), University of Toronto (CA), Scarborough Health Network (CA), FIT Consulting (Italy) (IT), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (US), Life Systems (United States) (US), Center for Translational Molecular Medicine (NL), ASL Environmental Sciences (Canada) (CA), American Rock Mechanics Association (US), Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 69%
Animal testing and alternatives
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.