QSAR modeling of carcinogenic risk using discriminant analysis and topological molecular descriptors

Current Drug Discovery Technologies

Volumn 2, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 55-67

  Contrera, Joseph F ^a   MacLaughlin, Philip ^b   Hall, Lowell H ^c   Kier, Lemont B ^d  

^a CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND RESEARCH   (United States)

^b MDL Information Systems   (United States)

^c EASTERN NAZARENE COLLEGE   (United States)

^d VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Carcinogenicity; Chemoinformatics; Discriminant analysis; e state; in silico; Predictive toxicology; QSAR; Topological structure descriptors

Indexed keywords

4 NITROTOLUENE; ADAPALENE; AMFEBUTAMONE; BENZYL ACETATE; CABERGOLINE; CARMUSTINE; CHLORENDIC ACID; CIMETIDINE; CITRAL; DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE; DIETHANOLAMINE; ETORICOXIB; EZETIMIBE; FAMCICLOVIR; GLIBENCLAMIDE; GLIPIZIDE; ISONIAZID; KETOCONAZOLE; METHYLEUGENOL; METHYLTHIOURACIL; NADOLOL; ORGANIC COMPOUND; PHENOBARBITAL; RANITIDINE; RIFAMPICIN; SCOPOLAMINE; SPIRAPRIL; STREPTOZOCIN; UNINDEXED DRUG; VARDENAFIL; ZEITA;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL MODEL; ARTICLE; BIOINFORMATICS; CANCER RISK; CHEMICAL CARCINOGENESIS; DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS; MOUSE; NONHUMAN; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; RAT; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ANIMALS; CARCINOGENICITY TESTS; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; HUMANS; MICE; MODELS, THEORETICAL; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; NEOPLASMS; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; RATS; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 21744437416     PISSN: 15701638     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2174/1570163054064684     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Willett P.: Three-Dimensional Chemical Structure Handling; John Wiley & Sons: New York, (1991).
2. Lajiness M.S.: Molecular Similarity-Based Methods for Selecting Compounds for Screening, In Computational Chemical Graph Theory, Rouvray, D.H. Ed.; Nova Science: New York, pp. 300-312, (1990).
3. Johnson M., Maggiora G.M.: Concepts and Applications of Molecular Similarity: John Wiley & Sons: New York, (1990).
4. Willett P.: Similarity and Clustering in Chemical Information Systems, John Wiley & Sons: New York, (1987).
5. Warr W.: Chemical Structures. The International Language of Chemistry, Springer: Berlin, (1988).
6. Hall L.H., Kier L.B.: Electrotopological state indices for atom types: A Novel combination of electronic, topological and valence state information, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 35, 1039-1045, (1995).
7. Kier L.B.; Hall L.H.: Molecular Structure Description: The Electrotopological State: Academic Press: San Diego, (1999).
8. Hall L.H., Kier L.B.: Molecular Connectivity Indices for Database Analysis and Structure-Property Modeling, in Topological Indices and Related Descriptors in QSAR and QSPR, Devillers, J. and Balaban, A. T. Eds.; pp. 307-360, (1999).
9. Hall L.H.; Kier L.B.: Issues in the representation of molecular structure: The development of molecular connectivity. J. Molecular. Model. Graphics 20, 4-18, (2001).
10. Kier L.B., Hall L.H.: Database organization and similarity searching with E-State indices. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 12, 55-74, (2001).
11. Hall L.H.: A structure-information approach to prediction of biological activities and properties. Chem. Biodiversity 1, 183-201, (2004).
12. Contrera J.F., Matthews E.J., Benz R.D.: Predicting the carcinogenic potential of pharmaceuticals in rodents using molecular structural similarity and E-state indices. Regul. Toxicol. Pharm. 38, 243-259, (2003).
13. Gold L.S., Manley N., Slone T., Garfinkel G., Rohrback L., Ames B.N.: The fifth plot of the carcinogenic potency database: Results of animal bioassays published in the general literature through 1988, by the National Toxicology Program through 1989. Environrn. Health Perspect. 100, 65-135, (1993).
14. Haseman J.K.: A re-examination of false-positive rates for carcinogenicity studies. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 3, 334-339, (1983).
15. McConnell E.E., Solleveld H.A., Swenberg J.A., Boorman G. A.: Guidelines for combining neoplasms for evaluation of rodent carcinogenesis studies. JNCl, 76, 283-394, (1986).
16. Matthews E.J., Contrera J.F.: A new highly specific method for predicting the carcinogenic potential of pharmaceuticals in rodents using enhanced MCASE QSAR-ES software. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 28, 242-264, (1998).
17. a) MDL Information Systems, 200 Wheeler Road, Burlington, MA, 01803.
18. b) Kellogg, G. E.; Hall, L. H.; Molconn-Z. See http://www.eslc.vabiotech. com/molconn/
19. For a list of publications illustrating applications of the descriptors in Molconn-Z, see http://www.eslc.vabiotech.com/molconn/mconpubs.ht ml
20. See MDL®QSAR Users Guide for specific illustration of topological descriptors.
21. Anderson T.W.: An Introduction to Multivariate Statistical Analysis, Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons: New York, (1984).
22. Kendall M.G., Stuart A., Ord J.K.: The Advanced Theory of Statistics, Macmillan Publishing: New York, Vol. 3, Fourth Edition, (1983).
23. Grabowski H., Vernon J., DiMasi J.: Returns on research and development for 1990s new drug introductions. Pharmacoeconomics 20, (Suppl. 3), 11-29, (2000).
24. Contrera J.F., Jacobs A.C., DeGeorge J.J.: Carcinogenicity testing and the evaluation of regulatory requirements for pharmaceuticals. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 25, 130-145, (1997).