QSARs of mutagens and carcinogens: Two case studies illustrating problems in the construction of models for noncongeneric chemicals

Mutation Research - Genetic Toxicology

Volumn 371, Issue 1-2, 1996, Pages 29-46

  Benigni, Romualdo ^a   Richard, Ann M ^b  

^a ISTITUTO SUPERIORE DI SANITÀ   (Italy)

^b U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

Author keywords

Carcinogenicity; Expert judgement; Mutagenicity; Neural network; Noncongeneric chemical; QSAR

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; CARCINOGENICITY; DRUG SCREENING; MODEL; MUTAGENICITY; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; REVIEW;

ANIMALIA; RODENTIA;

EID: 0030569257     PISSN: 01651218     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0165-1218(96)90092-0     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Hansch C., Dunn W.J. III. Linear relationships between lipophilic character and biological activity of drugs. J. Pharm. Sci. 61:1972;1-19.
2. Hansch C. On the structure of medicinal chemistry. J. Med. Chem. 19:1976;1-6.
3. Hansch C. Comprehensive medicinal chemistry, Vol. 4, Quantitative Drug Design. 1990;Pergamon Press, Oxford.
4. Hansch C. Structure-activity relationships of chemical mutagens and carcinogens. Sci. Total Environ. 109/110:1991;17-29.
5. Auer C.M., Nabholz J.V., Baetcke K.P. Mode of action and the assessment of chemical hazards in the presence of limited data: Use of structure-activity relationships (SAR) under TSCA. Environ. Health Perspect. 87:1990;183-197. Section 5.
6. Hansch C., Hoekman D., Leo A., Zhang L., Li P. The expanding role of quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR) in toxicology. Toxicol. Lett. 79:1995;45-53.
7. Richard A., Purdy R., Veith G., Wagner P. Structure-activity and modeling. 1995;101-115 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Screening and Testing Chemicals in Commerce, Washington, DC. OTA-BP-ENV-166.
8. Wagner P.M., Nabholz J.V., Kent R.J. The new chemicals process at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Structure-activity relationships for hazard identification and risk assessment. Toxicol. Lett. 79:1995;67-73.
9. Stouch T.R., Jurs P.C. Computer-assisted studies of molecular structure and geneotoxic activity by pattern recognition techniques. Environ. Health Perspect. 61:1985;329-343.
10. Enslein K.H., Borgstedt H., Tomb M.E., Blake B.W., Hart H.B. A structure-activity prediction model of carcinogenicity based on NCI/NTP assays and food additives. Toxicol. Indus. Health. 3:1987;267-287.
11. Klopman G., Frierson M.R., Rosenkranz H.S. The structural basis of the mutagenicity of chemicals in Salmonella typhimurium: The Gene-Tox Data Base. Mutation Res. 228:1990;1-50.
12. Rosenkranz H.S., Klopman G. Structural basis of carcinogenicity in rodents of genotoxicants and non-genotoxicants. Mutation Res. 228:1990;105-124.
13. Enslein K., Gombar V.K., Blake B.W. Use of SAR in computer-assisted prediction of carcinogenicity and mutagenicity of chemicals by the TOPKAT program. Mutation Res. 305:1994;47-61.
14. Benigni R., Giuliani A. QSAR studies in genetic toxicology: congeneric and non-congeneric chemicals. Arch. Toxicol. 15:1992;228-237. Suppl.
15. Enslein K. The future of toxicity prediction with QSAR. In Vitro Toxicol. 6:1993;163-169.
16. Klopman G., Rosenkranz H.S. Approaches to SAR in carcinogenesis and mutagenesis. Prediction of carcinogenicity/mutagenicity using MULTICASE. Mutation Res. 305:1994;33-46.
17. Richard A.M. Application of SAR methods to non-congeneric data bases associated with carcinogenicity and mutagenicity: Issues and approaches. Mutation Res. 305:1994;73-97.
18. Ashby J. Two million rodent carcinogens? The role of SAR and QSAR in their detection. Mutation Res. 305:1995;3-12.
19. Benigni R., Giuliani A. Quantitative structure activity relationship (QSAR) studies of mutagens and carcinogens. Med. Res. Rev. 16:1996;267-284.
20. Tennant R.W., Spalding J., Stasiewicz S., Ashby J. Prediction of the outcome of rodent carcinogenicity bioassays currently being conducted on 44 chemicals by the National Toxicology Program. Mutagenesis. 5:1990;3-14.
21. Hileman B. `Expert intuition' tops in test of carcinogenicity prediction. Chem. Engin. News. 71:(25):1993;35-38.
22. Wachsman J.T., Bristol D.W., Spalding J., Shelby M., Tennant R.W. Predicting chemical carcinogenesis in rodents. Environ. Health Perspect. 101:1993;444-445.
23. Ashby J., Tennant R.W. Prediction of rodent carcinogenicity for 44 chemicals: results. Mutagenesis. 9:1994;7-15.
24. Benigni R. Predicting chemical carcinogenesis in rodents: the state of the art in light of a comparative exercise. Mutation Res. 334:1995;103-113.
25. Benigni, R. (1995), unpublished results.
26. Waters M.D., Stack H.F., Brady A.L., Lohman P.H.M., Haroun L., Vainio H. Use of computerized data listings and activity profiles of genetic and related effects in the review of 195 compounds. Mutation Res. 205:1988;295-312.
27. Stack H.F., Jackson M.A., Waters M.D. Genetic activity profiles of hazardous air pollutants. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. Suppl. 22:1993;21.
28. Stack H.F., Jackson M.A., Waters M.D. Genetic activity profiles of hazardous air pollutants. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. Suppl. 22:1993;67.
29. Leo A., Weininger D. CLOGP: Medchem Software Release 3.5. Medicinal Chemistry Project. 1992;Pomona College, Claremont, CA.
30. Dewar M.J.S., Zoebisch E.G., Healy E.F., Stewart J.J.P. AM1: A new general purpose quantum mechanical molecular model. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 107:1985;3902-3909.
31. Frisch M.J., Trucks G.W., Head-Gordon M., Gill P.M.W., Wong M.W., Foresman J.B., Johnson B.G., Schlegel H.B., Robb M.A., Repogle E.S., Gomperts R., Andres J.L., Raghavachari K., Binkley J.S., Gonzalez C., Martin R.L., Fox D.J., Defrees D.J., Baker J., Stewart J.J.P., Pople J.A. Gaussian 92. Revision. 1992;Gaussian, Inc. Pittsburgh, PA.
32. SPSS Inc., Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL.
33. Richard A.M. Role of computational chemistry in support of hazard ID: Mechanism-based SARs. Toxicol. Lett. 79:1995;115-122.
34. Zhou Z., Parry R.G. Activation hardness: new index for describing the orientation of electrophilic aromatic substitution. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 112:1990;5720-5724.
35. Debnath A.K., Debnath G., Shusterman A.J., Hansch C. A QSAR investigation of the role of hydrophobicity in regulating mutagenicity in the Ames test: 1. Mutagenicity of aromatic and heteroaromatic amines in Salmonella typhimurium TA98 and TA100. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 19:1992;37-52.
36. Lewis D.F.V., Ioannides C., Parke D. Molecular orbital studies of oxygen activation and mechanisms of cytochromes P-450-mediated oxidative metabolism of xenobiotics. Chem.-Biol. Interact. 70:1989;263-280.
37. Benigni R., Giuliani A. Multivariate analyses in genetic toxicology. Devillers J., Karcher W. Applied Multivariate Analysis in SAR and Environmental Studies. 1991;347-375 Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.
38. Debnath A.K., Lopez de Compadre R.L., Shusterman A.J., Hansch C. Quantitative structure-activity relationship investigation of the role of hydrophobicity in regulating mutagenicity in the Ames test: 2. Mutagenicity of aromatic and heteroarmatic nitro compounds in Salmonella typhimurium TA100. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 19:1992;53-70.
39. Benigni R., Andreoli C. Rodent carcinogenicity and toxicity, in vitro mutagenicity, and their physical chemical determinants. Mutation Res. 297:1993;281-292.
40. Benigni R., Andreoli C., Cotta-Ramusino M., Giorgi F., Gallo G. The electronic properties of carcinogens, and their role in SAR studies of noncongeneric chemicals. Toxicol. Modeling. 1:1995;157-167.
41. Hansch C., Leo A. Substituent Constant for Correlation Analysis in Chemistry and Biology. 1979;Wiley-Interscience, New York.
42. Lyman W.J., Reehl W.F., Rosenblatt D.H. Handbook of chemical property estimation methods. 1982;McGraw-Hill, New York.
43. Stewart J.J.P. Optimization of parameters for semiempirical methods. I. Method. J. Comp. Chem. 10:1989;209-220.
44. Burns J.A., Whitesides G.M. Feed-forward neural networks in chemistry: mathematical systems for classification and pattern recognition. Chemical Rev. 93:1993;2583-2601.
45. Manallack D.T., Ellis D.D., Livingstone D.J. Analysis of linear and nonlinear QSAR data using neural networks. J. Med. Chem. 37:1994;3758-3767.
46. NeuralWare Inc., Penn Center West, Pittsburgh, PA.
47. Benigni R. Eve, a distance based approach for discriminating nonlinearly separable groups. Quant. Struct.-Act. Relat. 13:1994;406-411.
48. TOPKAT: Version, 3.0, Health Designs, Inc., Rochester, NY.
49. HazardExpert: ComGenex Ltd., Budapest, HUNGARY.
50. DEREK: LHASA UK, Leeds, UK.
51. OncoLogic: An Expert System that Evaluates the Carcinogenic Potential of Chemicals, LogiChem, Inc., Boyertown, PA.
52. Woo Y.-T., Lai D., Argus M., Arcos J. Development of structure-activity relationship rules for predicting carcinogenic potential of chemicals. Toxicol. Lett. 79:1995;219-228.
53. Hansch C. Quantitative structure-activity relationships and the unnamed science. Act. Chem. Res. 26:1993;147-153.
54. Barratt M.D., Castell J.V., Chamberlain M., Combes R.D., Dearden J.C., Fentem J.H., Gerner I., Giuliani A., Gray T.J.B., Livingstone D.J., Provan W.M., Rutten F.A.J.J.L., Verhaar H.J.M., Zbinden P. The integrated use of alternative approaches for predicting toxic hazard. Report and Recommendations of ECVAM (European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods) Workshop. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals (ATLA). 23:1995;410-429.