Back

A high-throughput method to computationally develop candidate adverse outcome pathways in humans: a proof of concept with insecticides and Parkinson Disease

Rollin, D.; Shen, C.; Groh, K. J.; Kosnik, M.

2026-06-03 pharmacology and toxicology
10.64898/2026.05.31.728726 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) describe stressor non-specific sequences of events between a first molecular trigger (molecular initiating event, MIE), causally linked key events (KEs), and an adverse outcome (AO). AOPs are intended to aid in chemical toxicity testing as a new approach methodology. However, commonly used AOP development methods depend on manual curation, which is labor intensive. As a result, there are still relatively few AOPs and a huge number of toxicity mechanisms and possible adverse outcomes remain undescribed. Therefore, systematic and high-throughput approaches to predict new AOPs are needed. Here, we developed and implemented a data integration-based framework to generate new candidate AOPs using insecticides and Parkinson Disease as a proof of concept. We integrated and statistically linked disconnected databases (e.g., Comparative Toxicogenomics Database, Human Protein Atlas, and Gene Ontology) to form MIE - KE (cell level) - KE (tissue level) - AO candidate AOPs. Through this systematic process, we generated 562,117 candidate AOPs, which we then scored using a weight of evidence (WoE) approach and prioritized 12,756 AOPs with a WoE >0.5. Through random sampling of 100 prioritized AOPs, we found 70% had external literature supporting their biological plausibility, and only 15% represented identifiably implausible associations. The prioritized AOPs describe varied mechanisms of toxicity related to e.g., MAPK, PTEN, and FGFR signaling pathways, with "increases phosphorylation of MAPK1" as the most frequent MIE. Our AOP generating approach yields consistently structured AOPs and can complement existing and emerging development methods to expand AOP coverage across different stressors and outcomes.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Environmental Science & Technology
64 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.4%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 19%
10.0%
3
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 5%
7.1%
4
Environmental Health Perspectives
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.3%
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 18%
6.3%
50% of probability mass above
6
Science of The Total Environment
179 papers in training set
Top 1%
6.3%
7
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.8%
8
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 38%
3.9%
9
Environment International
42 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.6%
10
Toxicological Sciences
38 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.6%
11
Chemosphere
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.6%
12
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 32%
2.6%
13
Archives of Toxicology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
14
Journal of Hazardous Materials
19 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.1%
15
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.1%
16
Malaria Journal
48 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
17
Pest Management Science
32 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
18
Science Advances
1098 papers in training set
Top 28%
0.8%
19
RSC Advances
18 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
20
Briefings in Bioinformatics
326 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
21
Frontiers in Pharmacology
100 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
22
Scientific Data
174 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
23
MethodsX
14 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%