Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Towards consensus practices to qualify safety biomarkers for use in early drug development


Application of any new biomarker to support safety-related decisions during regulated phases of drug development requires provision of a substantial data set that critically assesses analytical and biological performance of that biomarker. Such an approach enables stakeholders from industry and regulatory bodies to objectively evaluate whether superior standards of performance have been met and whether specific claims of fit-for-purpose use are supported. It is therefore important during the biomarker evaluation process that stakeholders seek agreement on which critical experiments are needed to test that a biomarker meets specific performance claims, how new biomarker and traditional comparators will be measured and how the resulting data will be merged, analyzed and interpreted.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type



Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Urinary Kim-1 levels after cisplatin treatment16.

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Biomarker Definitions Working Group. Biomarker and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 69, 89–95 (2001).

  2. Wagner, J.A. Strategic approach to fit-for-purpose biomarkers in drug development. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 48, 631–651 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Wilson, C., Schulz, S. & Waldman, S.A. Biomarker development, commercialization, and regulation: individualization of medicine lost in translation. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 81, 153–155 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Sistare, F.D. & DeGeorge, J.J. Preclinical predictors of clinical safety: opportunities for improvement. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 82, 210–214 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Food and Drug Administration. Innovation or Stagnation: Challenge And Opportunity on the Critical Path to New Medical Products. (16 March 2004)

  6. European Medicines Agency. Evaluation of Medicines for Human Use Innovative Drug Development Approaches Final Report from the EMEA/CHMP-Think-Tank Group on Innovative Drug Development (22 March 2007).

  7. Mattes, W.B. et al. Research at the interface of industry, academia and regulatory science. Nat. Biotechnol. 28, 432–433 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Cummins, B., Auckland, M.L. & Cummins, P. Cardiac-specific troponin-I radioimmunoassay in the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction. Am. Heart J. 113, 1333–1344 (1987).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Alpert, J.S. et al. Myocardial infarction redefined – a consensus document of the joint European Society of Cardiology/American College of Cardiology Committee for the Redefinition of myocardial infarction. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 36, 959–969 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Altar, C.A. et al. A prototypical process for creating evidentiary standards for biomarkers and diagnostics. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 83, 368–371 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Wagner, J.A., Williams, S.A. & Webster, C.J. Biomarkers and surrogate end points for fit-for-purpose development and regulatory evaluation of new drugs. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 81, 104–107 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Bonventre, J.V., Vaidya, V.S., Schmouder, R., Feig, P. & Dieterle, F. Next-generation biomarkers for detecting kidney toxicity. Nat. Biotechnol. 28, 436–440 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Inglese, J. et al. Eli Lilly and Company and the NIH Chemical Genomics Center Assay Guidance Manual. (Eli Lilly and Company and the NIH Chemical Genomics Center, 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lee, J.W. et al. Fit-for-purpose method development and validation for successful biomarker measurement. Pharm. Res. 23, 312–328 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ichimura, T., Hung, C.C., Yang, S.A., Stevens, J.L. & Bonventre, J.V. Kidney injury molecule-1: a tissue and urinary biomarker for nephrotoxicant-induced renal injury, American Journal of Physiology – Ren. Physiol. 286, F552–F563 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Vaidya, V. et al. Kidney injury molecule-1 outperforms traditional biomarker of kidney injury in mult-site preclinical biomarker qualification studies. Nat. Biotechnol. 28, 478–485 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Yu, Y. et al. Urinary biomarkers trefoil factor 3 and albumin enable early detection of kidney tubular injury. Nat. Biotechnol. 28, 470–477 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Dieterle, F. et al. Urinary clusterin, cystatin C, β2-microglobulin and total protein as markers to detect drug-induced kidney injury. Nat. Biotechnol. 28, 463–469 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Crissman, J.W. et al. Best practices guideline: toxicologic histopathology. Toxicol. Pathol. 32, 126–131 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Ransohoff, D.F. Bias as a threat to the validity of cancer molecular-marker research. Nat. Rev. Cancer 5, 142–149 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Dieterle, F. et al. Renal biomarker qualificaiton submission: a dialog between the FDA-EMEA and Predictive Safety Testing Consortium. Nat Biotechnol. 28, 455–462 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. DeLong, E.R., DeLong, D.M. & Clarke-Pearson, D.L. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44, 837–845 (1988).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Harrell, F.E. Jr. Regression Modeling Strategies (Springer, New York; 2001).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Hill, AB. The environment and disease: association or causation? Proc. R. Soc. Med. 58, 295–300 (1965).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frank D Sistare.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Text and Figures

Supplementary Table 1 (PDF 116 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sistare, F., Dieterle, F., Troth, S. et al. Towards consensus practices to qualify safety biomarkers for use in early drug development. Nat Biotechnol 28, 446–454 (2010).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing: Translational Research

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.

Get what matters in translational research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Translational Research