Physicochemical and Graph Theoretical Descriptors in Developmental Toxicity SAR: A Comparative Study

SAR and QSAR in Environmental Research

Volumn 11, Issue 5-6, 2001, Pages 345-362

  Macina, O T ^a   Sussman, N B ^a   Claycamp, H G ^a   Grant, S G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

Developmental toxicity; Graph theoretical parameters; Multiple random sampling; Physicochemical parameters; SAR model building

Indexed keywords

MAMMALS; MODEL BUILDINGS; PARTITIONS (BUILDING);

DESCRIPTORS; DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY; GRAPH THEORETICAL PARAMETER; MULTIPLE RANDOM SAMPLING; PHYSICO - CHEMICAL PARAMETERS; PHYSICO-CHEMICALS; RANDOM SAMPLING; RELATIONSHIP MODEL; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP MODEL BUILDING; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIPS;

DECISION TREES;

TERATOGENIC AGENT;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FACTUAL DATABASE; FEMALE; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; MOUSE; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY; PREGNANCY; STATISTICS; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; THEORETICAL MODEL; TOXICITY TESTING;

ANIMALS; CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL; DATABASES, FACTUAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MICE; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PREGNANCY; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; TERATOGENS; TOXICITY TESTS;

EID: 0035257958     PISSN: 1062936X     EISSN: 1029046X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10629360108035358     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Brent, R. L., 1985. “Methods for evaluating the alleged teratogenicity of environmental agents. In: Prevention of Physical and Mental Congential Defects. Part C. Basic and Medical Science, Education and Future Strategies”. Edited by: Maurois, M., 191–195. New York, NY: Alan R. Liss.
2. Hansch, C., and Leo, A., 1995. “Exploring QSAR: Fundamentals and Applications in Chemistry and Biology”. 557Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
3. Devillers, J., and Balaban, A. T., 1999. “Topological Indices and Related Descriptors in QSAR and QSPR”. 811Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Gordan and Breach Science Publishers.
4. Flury, B., and Reidwil, H., 1990. “Multivariate Statistics: A Practical Approach”. 88–155. New York, NY: Chapman and Hall.
5. Bishop, C. M., 1995. Neural Networks for Pattern Recognition, 482Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
6. Taber, C. S., and Tampon, R. J., 1996. “Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications”. In Computational Modeling., 95Thousand Oaks, CA: the Social Sciences, series no. 07–113.
7. Weiss, S. M., and Kulikowski, C. A., 1991. Computer Systems That Learn., 43–44. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufman Publishers.
8. Efron, B., and Gong, G., 1983. A leisurely look at the bootstrap, the jacknife, and cross-validation. Am. Stat., 7(1): 36–48.
9. Chernoff, N., and Kavlock, R. J., 1982. An in vivo teratology screen utilizing pregnant mice. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health, 10: 541–550.
10. Chernoff, N., and Kavlock, R. J., 1983. “A teratology test system which utilizes postnatal growth and viability in the mouse”. In Short-Term Bioassays in the Analysis of Complex Environmental Mixtures, Edited by: Walters. 417–427. New York, NY: Plenum Publishing Co.
11. Kavlock, R. J., Short, R. D., and Chernoff, N., 1987. Further evaluation of an in vivo teratology screen. Teratogen. Carcinogen. Mutagen., 7: 7–16.
12. Hardin, B. D., Schuler, R. L., Burg, J. R., Booth, G. M., Hazelton, K. P., Mackenzie, K. M., Piccirillo, V. J., and Smith, K. N., 1987. Evaluation of 60 chemicals in a preliminary developmental toxicity test. Teratogen. Carcinogen. Mutagen., 7: 29–48.
13. Seidenberg, J. M., Anderson, J. M., and Becker, R. A., 1986. Validation of an in vivo developmental toxicity screen in the mouse. Teratogen. Carcinogen. Mutagen., 6: 361–374.
14. Dyott, T. M., Stuper, A. J., and Zander, G. S., 1980. MOLY: An interactive system for molecular analysis. J. Chem. Inf. Comp. Sci., 20: 28–35.
15. Pople, J., and Beveridge, D., 1970. Approximate Molecular Orbital Theory., 214New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.