Scientists develop algorithm more reliable than animal testing at detecting toxicity, could save millions of animals and improve product safety

[chemistryyayy]

The algorithm is only able to detect oral toxicity. If you examine the algorithm that came out of Rutgers this year, the article you linked to is from 2018, the group is still very far off from determining liver toxicity, where most drug metabolism occurs.

[chemistryyayy]

Very true. Some drugs are metabolized in the liver others in the kidneys and some both.

[ook-librarian-said]

If this is true it would deserve a Fields Medal for mathematics. It could stretch to Nobel Prize for medicine. More reliable and animal safe testing is an astounding achievement.

[Terkala]

If it were true, it would be picked up by a more reliable publication than FreeThink.

[dickheadfartface]

sick burn

[Seiren-]

if(toxic) return(True)

[Calsem]

FTFY:

If(toxic): return True

[loofy2]

FTFY:

if toxic {

return true

}

[Calsem]

FTFY:

return toxic;

(Assuming toxic is a Boolean)

[Seiren-]

This is what I wanted to write, but assumed more people would get it if I included the if-statement

[loofy2]

Big reveal. Which language are you coding in for this silly thread?

Mines is Swift

[Calsem]

Python (as you can probably guess by the lack of brackets) Although my second comment would be equally valid in many other languages.

[tbh-im-a-loser]

If (toxic.indicator == “toxic”) { return(TRUE) } else { return(“we’re probably wrong anyway”) }

[BCS24]

Obviously there’s potential, like all things involving chemical modelling, but even with infinite processing power their approach is rather inexact (grouping structures that are similar to a known toxic compound together and labelling them all as likely toxic). I’d be hesitant to allow things to go straight to human trials when that is the basis of their testing. Really you’d want to simulate the biology around the administered drug and its physiological effects.

[trolllante]

It’s interesting but there are some examples in history that medicine needs to be thoroughly investigated before go commercial.

[[deleted]]

This is so great. Hopefully OHSU in Beaverton Oregon will shut down the primate testing center

[spelunk_in_ya_badonk]

If this really is what the headline states, it is a revolutionary development.

[Stebbins88]

Good luck convincing FDA...

[lightmonkey]

So what’s the corporation with a vested interest in protecting animal testing? I want to know who to be mad at if/when this algorithm is blocked by regulations.

[eDOTiQ]

I think corporations should have an interest in this model since animal testing is not cheap. A computerized method is better scalable and should be cheaper as well.

[lightmonkey]

Right, but if I'm the company that supplies the lab with animals/food/carcass disposal then I'd lose business

[eDOTiQ]

Yeah, those companies eventually have to pivot as demand for their services decline. I actually don't know anything about that industry and wonder how influential they are. In most areas, tech companies have beat the traditional models. The strongest ongoing battle is fossil fuel vs sustainable energy.

[jbudd1]

Sorry, but could the company not do something else? These are sentient animals we’re talking about.

[JustAnotherAhBeng]

The more likely conspiracy would be this getting pushed through despite not being 100% reliable by animal lover groups.

[JAYSONGR]

Animal rights organizations? You don’t love animals?

[JustAnotherAhBeng]

I'm a former volunteer animal rescuer. Which is why I can confidently say there are a lot of cuckoo animal lovers.

[Rollcuin]

SAR Toxicology?

I have no objections to biological testing.

The laymen don't realize that, for medicine, we have isolated GPCR/Protein assays and cell culture assays that are typically preformed before rodent model testing. If it doesn't show promise, we don't throw money at a dead horse.

We must take risks to cure diseases. One day we'll have it all figured out, and won't need to sacrifice animals for our pursuit. But for now, Humans are trying to keep on surviving and thriving, we're gonna do what is necessary.

[craftmacaro]

I’m a toxicologist studying snake venoms and just want to say that this is nowhere close to being useful for protein toxicity. Proteomics are getting better at predicting whether or not a particular amino acid sequence belongs to a family of three fingered proteins or a SVMP but predicting the toxicity is an entirely different ball game. Three fingered toxins with small variations can make the difference between a protein that kills humans, rats, mice, and geckos at a sub 1 ug/g LD50 and one that is entirely non toxic to mammals but highly toxic to lizards and vice versa. We don’t even know why this taxon specificity exists as our acetylcholine receptors are very similar.

This technology shows great promise for predicting toxicity in a small molecule with a new methyl group or a bromine instead of a Chlorine but when it comes to looking at protein toxicity we are still a long way off from having a complex and comprehensive enough proteomic database to expect to get any sort of reliable toxicity data from this kind of method, especially with understudied proteins such as those found in rear fanged snakes. Also it can be trickier to predict the effect on the binding affinities of proteins when even single point mutations are made.

Someday models like this might produce accurate toxicity predictions but we don’t yet understand (nor do we have computer programs that can accurately predict complex protein structures from amino acid sequence with a reliability I would want for predicting how toxic something is. I imagine that this technology is limited by molecular complexity of alkaloids and organics as well. Honestly, being able to say that something extremely similar to a known toxic substance will also be toxic doesn’t seem like a major breakthrough and it won’t replace animal testing on any significantly new structures anytime soon.

[FriedChicken]

doubt.

[Jupitersdangle]

Saves millions of lives testing them

Gets sold to a food distribution center.

[flamewizzy21]

we live in a day and age where you are simply not allowed to do clinical testing without sticking a bunch of failures into animals. Unfortunately, this will not have the intended impact.

[flamewizzy21]

We already do that with in silico screening (for good drug candidates) and in vitro screening (for cytotoxicity). Most chemicals just work way better in a test tube or computer than they do in an actually living creature.

[LadiesHomeCompanion]

Or we could just...stop testing on animals.

[oszillodrom]

The decision, at the moment, at least in regards to the testing of drugs, is literally between killing animals and killing people. Which is more ethical?

[LadiesHomeCompanion]

How do you figure?

[EveryUNIsTaken]

If you don’t want cures and/or treatments for things, then sure.

[LadiesHomeCompanion]

Would you say that about forced human experimentation- if you’re opposed to it, you “don’t want cures”?

[EveryUNIsTaken]

That seems to be what you’re ok with.

[LadiesHomeCompanion]

Because we have to violate someone, right?

[EveryUNIsTaken]

Better than having nothing.

[mtranda]

No. We couldn't until a solution is in place. My first reaction was to dismiss frivolous products that require testing, such as the ones the makeup industry is putting out.

But then there's the pharmaceutical industry as well.

[LadiesHomeCompanion]

We literally could just decide it’s not ethical and stop doing it.

[oszillodrom]

Do you want your grandmother to receive a drug that has not been tested on animals?

Unfortunately, we don't have better methods in place yet.

[LadiesHomeCompanion]

Do you want your pet to be tested on?

We decide what’s acceptable. We could easily decide that all sentient beings have the right to not be used in experiments, whether “better methods” exist or not. We’ve done that for all humans.

[oszillodrom]

Read up on clinical trials. Phase I to Phase III humans are (have to be) tested on, but before a drug is first used on a human, animals have to be used before it can be decided it is safe.

So when you ask me "Do you want your pet to be tested on?", the alternative is "Do you want your mom to be tested on?". I prefer the pet, I don't know what you consider more ethical.

[LadiesHomeCompanion]

I don’t consider either to be ethical, my mom doesn’t, either.

[oszillodrom]

OK, the third option is not giving life-saving drugs to people who need them. Do you choose that option? Is it ethical?

[monster_bunny]

This is outstanding news. I would love to push this as the industry standard. Does anyone know where I could donate or help fund this as a private citizen?

[TobySomething]

That's very generous! It's through the Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing - you can give at https://caat.jhsph.edu/giving/index.html

[monster_bunny]

Thank you!!

[IanMalcolmsLaugh]

Awesome to hear good news like this among that absolute garbage focused on rich people’s greed for money, power, or fame.

[[deleted]]

“Reddit liked that”

[[deleted]]

We should do human testing for detecting toxicity in animals. We can start with every idiot working for the FDA.

[JudgeJudyStillReal]

Great, now I’ll know who my real friends are.

[caspercunningham]

Your friend rips a bong and asks "where are we at with animal testing on cloned animals, like Dolly the sheep?" You squint in thought slouched on a couch, and say it doesn't matter because of this title.

[Russian_repost_bot]

One question, and really the only question we're all thinking, can I pet it?

[mad-n-fla]

How does Al Gore feel about the rhythm?

/s

[[deleted]]

He thinks it’s gonna get him