The current status and future applicability of quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSARs) in predicting toxicity

Alternatives to Laboratory Animals

Volumn 30, Issue SUPPL. 2, 2002, Pages 81-84

  Cronin, Mark T D ^a  

^a LIVERPOOL JOHN MOORES UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Industry; Quantitative structure activity relationships; Regulatory agencies; Toxicity

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL TESTING ALTERNATIVE; AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT; CARCINOGENICITY; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; CONFERENCE PAPER; DRUG ACTIVITY; INDUSTRY; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; TOXICITY TESTING;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 0036975618     PISSN: 02611929     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/026119290203002s12     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (16)

1. Cronin, M.T.D., Jaworska, J.S., Walker, J.D., Comber, M.H.I., Watts, C.D. & Worth, A.P. (2003). Use of QSARs in international decision-making frameworks to predict health effects of chemical substances. Environmental Health Perspectives, in press.
2. Cronin, M.T.D., Jaworska, J.S., Walker, J.D., Comber, M.H.I., Watts, C.D. & Worth, A.P. (2003). Use of quantitative structure-activity relationships in international decision-making frameworks to predict ecological effects and environmental fate of chemical substances. Environmental Health Perspectives, in press.
3. Web site http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/exposure/ (Accessed 10.11.02).
4. MacDonald, D., Breton, R., Sutcliffe, R. & Walker, J.D. (2002). Uses and limitations of quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSARs) to categorize substances on the Canadian Domestic Substance List as persistent and/or bioaccumulative, and inherently toxic to non-human organisms. SAR and QSAR in Environmental Research 13, 43-55
5. Web site http://www.mst.dk/homepage/ (Accessed 10.11.02).
6. Commission of the European Communities (2001). Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy. Brussels, Belgium: Commission of the European Communities. Web site http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/chemicals/whitepaper.htm (Accessed 10.11.02).
7. Cronin, M.T.D. (2000). Computational methods for the prediction of drug toxicity. Current Opinion in Drug Discovery and Development 3, 292-297.
8. Gottmann, E., Kramer, S., Pfahringer, B. & Helma, C. (2001). Data quality in predictive toxicology: reproducibility of rodent carcinogenicity experiments. Environmental Health Perspectives 109, 509-514
9. Helma, C., Kramer, S., Pfahringer, B. & Gottmann, E. (2000). Data quality in predictive toxicology: identification of chemical structures and calculation of chemical properties Environmental Health Perspectives 108, 1029-1033
10. Richard, A.M. & Benigni, R. (2002). AI and SAR approaches for predicting chemical carcinogenicity: survey and status report. SAR and QSAR in Environmental Research 13, 1-19.
11. Franke, R., Gruska, A., Giuliani, A. & Benigni R. (2001). Prediction of rodent carcinogenicity of aromatic amines: a quantitative structure-activity relationship model. Carcinogenesis 22, 1561-1571.
12. Cronin, M.T.D. & Dearden, J.C. (1995). QSAR in toxicology. I. Prediction of aquatic toxicity. Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships 14, 1-5.
13. Matthews, E.J. & Contrera, J.F. (1998). A new highly specific method for predicting the carcinogenic potential of pharmaceuticals in rodents using enhanced MCASE QSAR-ES software. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 28, 242-264.
14. Web site http://hesi.ilsi.org/ (Accessed 10.11.02).
15. Web site http://www.chem.leeds.ac.uk/luk/index.html (Accessed 10.11.02).
16. Purdy, R. (1996). A mechanism-mediated model for carcinogenicity: model content and prediction of the outcome of rodent carcinogenicity bioassays currently being conducted on 25 organic chemicals. Environmental Health Perspectives 104, 1085-1094.