Current status of methods for defining the applicability domain of (quantitative) structure-activity relationships

ATLA Alternatives to Laboratory Animals

Volumn 33, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 155-173

  Netzeva, Tatiana I ^a   Worth, Andrew P ^a   Aldenberg, Tom ^b   Benigni, Romualdo ^c   Cronin, Mark T D ^d   Gramatica, Paola ^e   Jaworska, Joanna S ^f   Kahn, Scott ^g   Klopman, Gilles ^h   Marchant, Carol A ⁱ   Myatt, Glenn ^j   Nikolova Jeliazkova, Nina ^k   Patlewicz, Grace Y ^l   Perkins, Roger ^m   Roberts, David W ⁿ   Schultz, Terry W ^o   Stanton, David T ^f   Van De Sandt, Johannes J M ^p   Tong, Weida ^m   Veith, Gilman ^q   Yang, Chihae ^j   more..

^a JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE   (Italy)

^b NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT   (Netherlands)

^c ISTITUTO SUPERIORE DI SANITÀ   (Italy)

^d LIVERPOOL JOHN MOORES UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF INSUBRIA   (Italy)

^f PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY   (United States)

^g ACCELRYS INC   (United States)

^h MULTICASE Inc   (United States)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^j Leadscope   (United States)

^k BULGARIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES   (Bulgaria)

^l UNILEVER RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

^m NATIONAL CENTER FOR TOXICOLOGICAL RESEARCH   (United States)

ⁿ University of Tennessee ^*

^o UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

^p TNO   (Netherlands)

^q OECD   (France)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHEMICAL ENVIRONMENT; CHEMICAL INDUSTRY; CONFERENCE PAPER; DECISION THEORY; GEOMETRY; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; SKIN SENSITIZATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; WATER CONTAMINATION;

EID: 21044448353     PISSN: 02611929     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/026119290503300209     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (52)

1. Anon. (2003). Proposal Concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH). COM(2003)644 final. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. Website http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/ com/pdf/2003/com2003_0644en.html (Accessed 20.12.04).
2. Anon. (2003). Directive 2003/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 February 2003 amending Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (Text with EEA relevance). Official Journal of the European Union L66, 26-35.
3. Van der Jagt, K., Munn, S., Tørsløv, J. & de Brujin, J. (2004). Alternative Approaches can Reduce the Use of Test Animals under REACH. Addendum to the Report "Assessment of Additional Testing Needs under REACH. Effects of (Q)SARs, Risk Based Testing and Voluntary Industry Initiatives". JRC Report EUR 21405 EN, 25 pp. Ispra, Italy: European Commission Joint Research Centre. Website http://ecb.jrc.it (Accessed 16.3.05).
4. Worth, A.P., van Leeuwen, C.J. & Hartung, T. (2004). The prospects for using (Q)SARs in a changing political environment: high expectations and a key role for the Commission's Joint Research Centre. SAR & QSAR in Environmental Research 15, 331-343.
5. Schultz, T.W., Cronin, M.T.D., Netzeva, T.I. & Aptula, A.O. (2002). Structure-toxicity relationships for aliphatic chemicals evaluated with Tetrahymena pyriformis. Chemical Research in Toxicology 15, 1602-1609.
6. Jaworska, J., Aldenberg, T. & Nikolova, N. (2005). Review of methods for assessing the applicability domains of SARs and QSARs. Final report to the Joint Research Centre (Contract No. ECVA-CCR. 496575-Z). Part 1: Review of statistical methods for QSAR AD estimation by the training set. Website http://ecb.jrc.it/QSAR/Documents (Accessed 16.3.05).
7. 3 radical tropospheric degradability of organic pollutants by theoretical molecular descriptors. Atmospheric Environment 37, 3115-3124.
8. Eriksson, L., Jaworska, J., Worth, A.P., Cronin, M.T.D., McDowell, R.M. & Gramatica, P. (2003). Methods for reliability, uncertainty assessment, and applicability evaluations of classification and regression based QSARs. Environmental Health Perspectives 111, 1361-1375.
9. Tong, W., Xie, Q., Hong, H., Shi, L., Fang, H. & Perkins, R. (2004). Assessment of prediction confidence and domain extrapolation of two structure-activity relationship models for predicting estrogen receptor binding activity. Environmental Health Perspectives 112, 1249-1254.
10. Nikolova, N. & Jaworska, J. (2003). Approaches to measure chemical similarity: a review. QSAR & Combinatorial Science 22, 1006-1026.
11. Cronin, M.T.D. (2003). Quantitative structure-activity relationships for acute aquatic toxicity: the role of mechanism of toxic action in successful modeling. In Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) Models of Mutagens and Carcinogens (ed. R Benigni), pp. 235-258. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press
12. Schultz, T.W., Cronin, M.T.D., Walker, J.D. & Aptula, A.O. (2003). Quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSARs) in toxicology: a historical perspective. Journal of Molecular Structure: THEOCHEM 622, 1-22.
13. Bradbury, S.P. & Lipnick, R.L. (1990). Introduction: structural properties for determining mechanisms of toxic action. Environmental Health Perspectives 87, 181-182.
14. Schultz, T.W., Sinks, G.D. & Cronin, M.T.D. (1997). Identification of mechanisms of toxic action of phenols to Tetrahymena pyriformis from molecular descriptors. In Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships in Environmental Sciences, Vol. VII, Proceedings of QSAR 96, Elsinore, DK, June 24-28, 1996 (ed. F. Chen & G. Schüürmann), pp. 329-342. Pensacola, FL, USA: SETAC Press.
15. Patlewicz, G., Basketter, D.A., Smith, C.K., Hotchkiss, S.A. & Roberts, D.W. (2001). Skin-sensitization structure-activity relationships for aldehydes. Contact Dermatitis 44, 331-336.
16. Roberts, D.W. & Patlewicz, G. (2002). Mechanism based structure-activity relationships for skin sensitisation: the carbonyl group domain. SAR & QSAR in Environmental Research 13, 145-152.
17. Patlewicz, G.Y., Wright, Z.M., Basketter, D.A., Pease, C.K., Lepoittevin, J.P. & Arnau, E.G. (2002). Structure-activity relationships for selected fragrance allergens. Contact Dermatitis 47, 219-226.
18. Anon. (2000). US patent no. 6 036 349: Method and Apparatus for Validation of Model-based Predictions. Issued March 14, 2000. Washington, DC: USA.
19. Dimitrov, S.D., Mekenyan, O.G., Sinks, G.D. & Schultz, T.W. (2003). Global modeling of narcotic chemicals: ciliate and fish toxicity. Journal of Molecular Structure: THEOCHEM 622, 63-70.
20. Preparata, F.P. & Shamos, M.I. (1991). Computational Geometry: An Introduction, 390pp. New York, NY, USA: Springer Verlag.
21. Stanton, D.T. & Jurs, P.C. (1991). Computer-assisted prediction of normal boiling points of furans, tetrahydrofurans, and thiophenes. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences 31, 301-310.
22. Stanton, D.T., Egolf, L.M. & Jurs, P.C. (1992). Computer-assisted prediction of normal boiling points of pyrans and pyrroles. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences 32, 306-316.
23. Stanton, D.T. (2000). Development of a quantitative structure-property relationship model for estimating normal boiling points of small multifunctional organic molecules. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences 40, 81-90.
24. Seber, G.A.F. (2004). Multivariate Observations, 686pp. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
25. Atkinson, A.C. (1991). Plots, Transformation, Regression, 282pp. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
26. Gramatica, P., Pilutti, P. & Papa, E. (2004). Validated QSAR prediction of OH tropospheric degradation of VOCs: splitting into training-test sets and consensus modeling. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences 44, 1794-1802.
27. Tropsha, A., Gramatica, P. & Gombar, V. (2003). The importance of being earnest: validation is the absolute essential for successful application and interpretation of QSPR models. QSAR & Combinatorial Science 2, 69-77.
28. Kulkarni, S.A., Raje, D.V. & Chakrabarti, T. (2001). Quantitative structure-activity relationships based on functional and structural characteristics of organic compounds. SAR and QSAR in Environmental Research 12, 565-591.
29. Gramatica, P. (2004). Evaluation of Different Statistical Approaches to the Validation of Quantitative Structure-activity Relationships. Final report to the Joint Research Centre. Contract No. ECVA-CCR. 496576-Z. 177pp. Website http://ecb.jrc.it/QSAR/Documents (Accessed 16.3.05).
30. Silverman, B. W. (1986). Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis, 176pp. London, UK: Chapman & Hall.
31. Gray, A. & Moore, A. (2003). Nonparametric Density Estimation: Toward Computational Tractability. In Proceedings of SIAM International Conference on Data Mining, San Francisco, USA, 2003, 9p. Website www.siam.org/meetings.sdm03/ (Accessed 16.3.05).
32. Gray, A. & Moore, A. (2003). Very fast multivariate kernel density estimation using via computational geometry. Proceedings of Joint Statistics Meeting 2003. Alexandria, VA, USA: The American Statistical Association (Website http://www.amstat.org/meetings/jsm/2003 (Accessed 16.3.05).
33. Chen, M-H. & Shao, Q-M. (1999). Monte Carlo estimation of bayesian credible and HPD intervals. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 8, 69-92.
34. Tukey, J.W. (1977). Exploratory Data Analysis, 688pp. Reading, UK: Addison-Wesley.
35. Debnath, A.K., Debnath, G., Shusterman, A.J. & Hansch, C. (1992). A QSAR investigation of the role of hydrophobicity in regulating mutagenicity in the Ames test. I. Mutagenicity of aromatic and heteroaromatic amines in Salmonella typhimurium TA98 and TA100. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis 19, 37-52.
36. Glende, C, H. Schmitt, L. Erdinger, G. Engelhardt, & G. Boche (2001). Transformation of mutagenic aromatic amines into non-mutagenic species by alkyl substituents. Part I. Alkylation ortho to the amino function. Mutation Research 498, 19-37.
37. Klopman, G. (1992). MULTICASE: a hierarchical computer automated structure evaluation program. Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships 11, 176-184.
38. Klopman, G. & Chakravarti, S.K. (2003). Structure-activity relationship study of a diverse set of estrogen receptor ligands (I) using MultiCASE expert system. Chemosphere 51, 445-459
39. Klopman, G. & Chakravarti, S.K. (2003). Screening of high production volume chemicals for estrogen receptor binding affinity (II) by the MultiCASE expert system. Chemosphere 51, 461-468.
40. Jaworska, J., Aldenberg, T. & Nikolova, N. (2005). Review of methods for assessing the applicability domains of SARs and QSARs. Final report to the Joint Research Centre (Contract No. ECVA-CCR.496575-Z). Part 2: An approach to determining applicability domain for QSAR group contribution models: an analysis of SRC KOWWIN. Website http://ecb.jrc.it/QSAR/Documents (Accessed 16.3.05).
41. Meylan, W.M. & Howard, P.H. (1995). Atom fragment contribution method for estimating octanol-water partition-coefficients. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 84, 83-92.
42. Ashby, J., Tennant R.W., Zeiger, E. & Stasiewicz, S. (1989). Classification according to chemical structure, mutagenicity to Salmonella and level of carcinogenicity of a further 42 chemicals tested for carcinogenicity by the U.S. National Toxicology Program. Mutation Research 223, 73-103.
43. Tennant, R.W. & Ashby, J. (1991). Classification according to chemical structure, mutagenicity to Salmonella and level of carcinogenicity of a further 39 chemicals tested for carcinogenicity by the U.S. National Toxicology Program. Mutation Research 257, 209-227.
44. Ridings, J.E., Barratt, M.D., Cary, R., Earnshaw, C.G., Eggington, C.E., Ellis, M.K., Judson, P.N., Langowski, J.J., Marchant, C.A., Payne, M.P., Watson, W.P. & Yih, T.D. (1996). Computer prediction of possible toxic action from chemical structure: an update on the DEREK system. Toxicology 106, 267-279.
45. Judson, P.N., Marchant, C.A. & Vessey, J.D. (2003). Using argumentation for absolute reasoning about the potential toxicity of chemicals. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences 43, 1364-1370.
46. Smithing, M.P. & Darvas, F. (1992). HazardExpert: an expert system for predicting chemical toxicity. In Food Safety Assessment (ed. J.W. Finley, S.F. Robinson & D.J. Armstrong), ACS Symposium Series, pp. 191-200. Washington, DC, USA: American Chemical Society.
47. Woo, Y., Lai, D.Y., Argus, M.F. & Arcos, J.C. (1995). Development of structure-activity relationship rules for predicting carcinogenic potential of chemicals. Toxicology Letters 79, 219-228.
48. Gerner, I., Zinke, S., Graetschel, G. & Schlede, E. (2000). Development of a decision support system for the introduction of alternative methods into local irritancy/corrosivity testing strategies. Creation of fundamental rules for a decision support system. ATLA 28, 665-698.
49. Hong, H., Tong, W., Fang, H., Shi, L., Xie, Q., Wu, J., Perkins, R., Walker, J.D., Branham, W. & Sheehan, D.M. (2002). Prediction of estrogen receptor binding for 58,000 chemicals using an integrated system of a tree-based model with structural alerts. Environmental Health Perspectives 110, 29-36.
50. Potts, R.O. & Guy, R.H. (1992). Predicting skin permeability. Pharmaceutical Research 9, 663-669.
51. Tong, W., Hong, H., Fang, H., Xie, Q. & Perkins, R. (2003). Decision forest: combining the predictions of multiple independent decision tree models. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences 43, 525-531.
52. Tong, W., Hong, H., Xie, Q., Xie, L., Fang, H. & Perkins, R. (2004) Assessing QSAR limitations: a regulatory perspective. Current Computer Aided Drug Design 1, 65-72.