Journal of Clinical and Experimental Toxicology

All submissions of the EM system will be redirected to Online Manuscript Submission System. Authors are requested to submit articles directly to Online Manuscript Submission System of respective journal.
Reach Us +44-1518-081136

Commentary - Journal of Clinical and Experimental Toxicology (2023) Volume 7, Issue 3

Toxicity biomarkers: Bridging the gap between clinical observations & experimental evidence.

David Joseph*

Department of Health care, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan

*Corresponding Author:
David Joseph
Department of Health care
University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
E-mail: josephd@un.tsukuba.ac.jp

Received: 05-June-2023, Manuscript No. AACETY-23-1013670; Editor assigned: 06-June-2023, PreQC No. AACETY-23-101370 (PQ); Reviewed: 19-June-2023, QC No.AACETY-23-101370; Revised: 21-June-2023, Manuscript No. AACETY-23-101370 (R); Published: 28-June-2023, DOI: 10.35841/aacety-7.3.148

Citation: Joseph D. Toxicity biomarkers: Bridging the gap between clinical observations & experimental evidence. J Clin Exp Tox. 2023;7(3):148

Visit for more related articles at Journal of Clinical and Experimental Toxicology

Introduction

Toxicity assessment is a critical component of ensuring the safety of drugs, chemicals, and environmental agents. However, traditional methods for evaluating toxicity often rely on subjective clinical observations, which may lack sensitivity and specificity. In recent years, there has been growing interest in the development of toxicity biomarkers that can bridge the gap between clinical observations and experimental evidence. These biomarkers have the potential to provide early and accurate indications of toxicity, enabling timely intervention and improved patient outcomes [1].

This review aims to provide an overview of the current state of toxicity biomarkers and their role in toxicology research and clinical practice. We discuss the different types of toxicity biomarkers, including biochemical, molecular, and imagingbased markers, and their application in various toxicity assessment scenarios. Furthermore, we explore the challenges associated with the discovery, validation, and implementation of toxicity biomarkers, along with the strategies being employed to overcome these hurdles [2].

Biochemical toxicity biomarkers involve the measurement of specific molecules or enzymes in biological fluids or tissues. These biomarkers can reflect organ-specific damage or dysfunction and provide valuable information on the extent and severity of toxicity. Molecular toxicity biomarkers focus on changes in gene expression, protein levels, or epigenetic modifications that occur in response to toxic insults. These markers offer insights into the underlying molecular pathways involved in toxicity and can aid in the identification of potential drug targets. Imaging-based biomarkers, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET), and computed tomography (CT), enable non-invasive visualization and quantification of organ structure and function, allowing for the early detection of toxicity-related abnormalities [3].

The discovery and validation of toxicity biomarkers pose significant challenges due to the complexity and heterogeneity of toxicological responses. Issues such as inter-individual variability, confounding factors, and the need for standardized assays and reference ranges necessitate careful study design and rigorous validation processes. Collaborative efforts between academia, industry, and regulatory agencies are crucial for the successful development and validation of toxicity biomarkers. Additionally, advances in high-throughput technologies, omics approaches, and data integration techniques offer new opportunities for biomarker discovery and characterization .The implementation of toxicity biomarkers in clinical practice requires overcoming further obstacles, including regulatory considerations, cost-effectiveness, and the need for reliable and user-friendly diagnostic tools. Integration of biomarkers into clinical decision-making algorithms, such as risk stratification models, can enhance their utility and impact on patient care. Furthermore, ongoing monitoring of toxicity biomarkers during treatment can provide real-time feedback on treatment efficacy and guide therapeutic interventions [4].

Conclusion

Toxicity biomarkers hold tremendous potential in bridging the gap between clinical observations and experimental evidence. Their ability to provide early, accurate, and mechanistic insights into toxicity can revolutionize toxicology research and improve patient outcomes. However, significant efforts are needed to overcome the challenges associated with biomarker discovery, validation, and implementation. Continued research, collaboration, and innovation are essential to maximize the clinical utility of toxicity biomarkers and ultimately enhance the safety and efficacy of drugs, chemicals, and environmental agents.

References

  1. Ung L, Chodosh J. Foundational concepts in the biology of bacterial keratitis. Exp  Eye Res. 2021 ;209:108647.

    2. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  2. Heiney K, Huse Ramstad O, Fiskum V, et al.,. Criticality, connectivity, and neural disorder: a multifaceted approach to neural computation. Front Comput  Neurosci. 2021; 15:611183.

    3. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  3. Yamanaka G, Suzuki S, Morishita N, et al.,. Experimental and clinical evidence of the effectiveness of riboflavin on migraines. Nutri. 2021;13(8):2612.

    4. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  4. Karoly PJ, Rao VR, Gregg NM, et al.,. Cycles in epilepsy.  Nat Rev Neurol. 2021; 17(5):267-84.

    5. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Get the App