中国P站

Drug-induced toxicity; Biomarkers; Organ injury; Hepatotoxicity; Nephrotoxicity; Cardiotoxicity; Transcriptomics; Proteomics; Metabolomics; MicroRNAs; In vitro models; Preclinical safety; Toxicogenomics; Early detection; Non-invasive diagnostics; Systems biology; Predictive biomarkers; Omics technologies; Translational toxicology; Precision medicine; Regulatory toxicology

Introduction

Drug-induced organ toxicity remains a major challenge in clinical medicine and pharmaceutical development. Adverse drug reactions are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality, particularly due to hepatotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, and cardiotoxicity. Traditional diagnostic markers such as serum enzymes (e.g., ALT, AST, creatinine, and troponins) often signal damage only after significant injury has occurred. Hence, there is a critical need for sensitive, specific, and early biomarkers to predict toxicity before irreversible organ damage sets in. Advances in systems biology and high-throughput omics technologies have catalyzed the discovery of novel biomarkers capable of early detection, risk stratification, and mechanistic insight. This article explores recent breakthroughs in biomarker research, highlighting emerging tools and translational approaches that promise to transform drug safety assessment and personalized medicine [1].

Description

Biomarkers are measurable indicators of a biological process, pathological condition, or response to a therapeutic intervention. In toxicology, predictive and early-response biomarkers are essential to identify subclinical organ damage, optimize dosing, and prevent adverse outcomes. Organ toxicity can result from direct cytotoxicity, metabolic activation, oxidative stress, or immune-mediated mechanisms, making multifactorial and multiorgan approaches essential [2]. Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is a leading cause of acute liver failure. Similarly, drug-induced kidney injury (DIKI) and drug-induced cardiotoxicity, particularly from chemotherapeutics like doxorubicin, limit therapeutic options and patient safety. Classical diagnostic tests are often insufficiently sensitive or specific to detect damage early or differentiate among etiologies. Biomarker discovery efforts have increasingly turned to omics-based platforms including transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and lipidomics that provide comprehensive snapshots of molecular changes associated with toxicity [3].

Discussion

Emerging biomarkers for liver toxicity

Conventional biomarkers like ALT and AST lack organ specificity and do not always correlate with functional impairment. Emerging hepatic biomarkers include [4]. Glutamate dehydrogenase (GLDH): More specific to mitochondrial damage in hepatocytes. High-mobility group box 1 (HMGB1): Indicates hepatocyte necrosis and immune activation. Keratin-18 (K18): Reflects apoptosis (caspase-cleaved K18) and necrosis (total K18). MicroRNAs (miR-122, miR-192): Liver-specific non-coding RNAs detectable in blood before biochemical changes. These markers are being evaluated in clinical trials and preclinical models as early indicators of hepatocellular damage, with some already incorporated into biomarker panels for regulatory submission [5].

Biomarkers for kidney toxicity

Traditional renal biomarkers like serum creatinine and blood urea nitrogen (BUN) are functional markers and often insensitive to early damage. Novel kidney injury biomarkers include Kidney Injury Molecule-1 (KIM-1): A transmembrane protein upregulated after proximal tubular injury. Neutrophil Gelatinase-Associated Lipocalin (NGAL): Appears early in urine and plasma after tubular damage. Clusterin, Osteopontin, Cystatin C: Other proteins associated with specific nephron segment injury. Urinary microRNAs: miR-21 and miR-200c are potential markers of nephrotoxicity. These biomarkers have shown utility in preclinical drug screening, toxicology studies, and human trials, enabling earlier intervention and better outcome prediction [6].

Biomarkers of cardiotoxicity

Cardiac toxicity, particularly from anti-cancer drugs, often results in irreversible myocardial injury. The standard marker, troponin, reflects established myocardial necrosis. Advanced biomarkers include Brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and NT-proBNP: Reflect cardiac stress and ventricular dysfunction. Heart-type fatty acid-binding protein (H-FABP): Increases rapidly after cardiomyocyte injury [9]. Circulating microRNAs (e.g., miR-1, miR-133, miR-208): Highly enriched in cardiac tissue and elevated in subclinical cardiotoxicity. Cardiac-specific autoantibodies: Being explored as immune-related markers of cardiotoxicity. These markers, especially in combination, may allow early detection of subclinical changes before irreversible damage or symptomatic heart failure develops [7].

Omics-based and systems biology approaches

Modern biomarker discovery heavily relies on integrative omics platforms and bioinformatics tools. High-throughput techniques like RNA-sequencing, mass spectrometry, and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) enable deep profiling of biological responses to toxicants. Transcriptomics: Identifies gene expression changes indicative of cellular stress, inflammation, and apoptosis [8]. Proteomics: Detects protein modifications, cleavage products, and secreted injury signals. Metabolomics: Reveals early metabolic derangements linked to oxidative stress, energy imbalance, and mitochondrial dysfunction. These datasets, when integrated using machine learning and network analysis, provide mechanistic insights and predictive models of organ-specific toxicity [9].

Translational and regulatory considerations

Several novel biomarkers have gained traction through initiatives like the Predictive Safety Testing Consortium (PSTC) and Biomarkers Consortium, which collaborate with regulatory bodies like the FDA and EMA. KIM-1 and NGAL, qualified for use in nonclinical kidney safety assessments. miR-122, under evaluation for DILI monitoring in clinical trials. Consortia-generated biomarker panels for multi-organ toxicity screening in preclinical drug development. The push toward non-invasive biomarkers, such as circulating nucleic acids and urinary proteins, aligns with the goals of precision medicine and patient-centric care. Moreover, the development of in vitro human-derived models (e.g., organoids, 3D cultures, microphysiological systems) is enabling high-fidelity toxicity prediction and biomarker validation in human-like systems [10].

Conclusion

The landscape of drug-induced organ toxicity is being reshaped by advances in biomarker discovery. Traditional diagnostic methods are increasingly being supplemented—and in some cases replaced—by sensitive, organ-specific, and early-response biomarkers. These markers promise not only earlier detection of toxicity but also improved understanding of underlying mechanisms, better risk stratification, and safer drug development.

As technologies evolve, the integration of omics data, bioinformatics, and translational platforms will enable the creation of multi-parametric biomarker panels, tailored to individual susceptibility and organ-specific risk. Regulatory endorsement and clinical validation will be key to ensuring these tools are widely adopted. Ultimately, biomarker-guided strategies represent a transformative approach to safeguarding patient health and optimizing therapeutic outcomes in the era of personalized medicine.

References

1. Egashira T, Yuasa S, Suzuki T, Aizawa Y, Yamakawa H, et al. (2012) Cardiovasc Res 95: 419-429.

   , ,

2. Engler AJ, Carag-Krieger C, Johnson CP, Raab M, Tang HY, et al. (2008) J Cell Sci 121: 3794-3802.

   , ,

3. Anderson D, Self T, Mellor IR, Goh G, Hill SJ (2007) Mol Ther 15: 2027-2036.

   , ,

4. Bellin M, Casini S, Davis RP, D'Aniello C, Haas J, et al. (2013) EMBO J 32: 3161-3175.

   , ,

5. Akala EO (2004) Florida: pp 333-366.

6. Malm CJ, Emerson J, Hiait GD (1951) J Am Pharm Assoc (Scientific Ed.) 40: 520-525.

   , ,

7. Hillery A, Park K (2016) . CRC Press

8. Yun Y, Lee BK, Park K (2014) . Front Chem Sci Eng 8: 276-279.

   ,

9. Vargason AM, Anselmo AC, Mitragotri S (2021) Nat Biomed Eng 5: 951-967.

   , ,

10. Alqahtani MS, Kazi M, Alsenaidy MA, Ahmad MZ (2021) Front Pharmacol 12.

    , ,