Assessment of the sensitivity of the computational programs DEREK, TOPKAT, and MCASE in the prediction of the genotoxicity of pharmaceutical molecules

Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis

Volumn 43, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 143-158

  Snyder, Ronald D ^a   Pearl, Greg S ^b   Mandakas, George ^a   Choy, Wai Nang ^a   Goodsaid, Federico ^a   Rosenblum, I Y ^a  

^a MERCK RESEARCH LABORATORIES   (United States)

^b IBM   (United States)

Author keywords

DEREK; Marketed pharmaceuticals; MCASE; TOPKAT

Indexed keywords

ADRENALIN; AMFEBUTAMONE; AMIFOSTINE; CHLOROQUINE; CITALOPRAM; CLOMIFENE; DANTROLENE; FURAZOLIDONE; GLYCERYL TRINITRATE; HYDROQUINONE; IFOSFAMIDE; MEBENDAZOLE; METRONIDAZOLE; NALOXONE; NITROFURANTOIN; OXCARBAZEPINE; PENTOSTATIN; PHENOXYBENZAMINE; PRIMIDONE; PROCARBAZINE; QUETIAPINE; RABEPRAZOLE; TACRINE; TEMOZOLOMIDE; THIOTEPA; ZIPRASIDONE; ZOLMITRIPTAN;

ACCURACY; AMES TEST; ANIMAL CELL; ARTICLE; CARCINOGENICITY; CHINESE HAMSTER; CYTOGENETICS; DATA BASE; DRUG DNA INTERACTION; DRUG INDUSTRY; EXPERT SYSTEM; GENOTOXICITY; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; MODEL; MUTAGENICITY; NONHUMAN; PREDICTION; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; DNA DAMAGE; MUTAGENICITY TESTS; MUTAGENS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROBABILITY; SALMONELLA TYPHIMURIUM; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SOFTWARE;

BACTERIA (MICROORGANISMS); SALMONELLA;

EID: 2442548465     PISSN: 08936692     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/em.20013     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Ashby J. 1978. Structural analysis as a means of predicting carcinogenic potential. Br J Cancer 37:904-923.
2. Ashby, J. 1985. Fundamental structural alerts to potential carcinogenicity or noncarcinogenicity. Environ Mutagen 7:919-922.
3. Cariello NF, Wilson JW, Britt BH, Wedd DJ, Burlinson B, Gombar V. 2002. Comparison of the computer programs DEREK and TOPKAT to predict bacterial mutagenicity. Mutagenesis 17:321-329.
4. +/- mutation assay data using criteria from a consensus agreement. Environ Mol Mutagen 39(Suppl 33):19.
5. Galloway S. 2000. Cytotoxicity and chromosome aberrations in vitro: experience in industry and the case for an upper limit on toxicity in the aberration assay. Environ Mol Mutagen 35:191-201.
6. Greene N. 2002. Computer systems for the prediction of toxicity: an update. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 54:417-431.
7. Mueller R. 2001. Application of computer-assisted (in silico) approaches for ADME and toxicity prediction. Bethesda, MD: IBC In Silico Technologies in Drug Discovery conference. 21-23 May 2001.
8. Pearl GM, Livingston-Carr S, Durham SK. 2001. Integration of computational analysis as a sentinel tool in toxicological assessments. Curr Top Med Chem 1:247-255.
9. Physicians' Desk Reference. 2000-2002. Montvale, NJ: Medical Economics.
10. Snyder RD. 1998. A review and investigation into the mechanistic basis of the genotoxicity of antihistamines. Mutat Res 411:235-248.
11. Snyder RD, Strekowski L. 1999. Enhancement of bleomycin-induced micronucleus formation in V79 cells as a rapid and sensitive screen for non-covalent DNA-binding compounds. Mutat Res 444:181-192.
12. Snyder RD, Green JW. 2001. A review of the genotoxicity of marketed pharmaceuticals. Mutat Res 488:151-169.
13. Snyder RD, Brown JE. 2002. Evidence for and role of the dimethylamino group in tamoxifen DNA intercalation in intact Chinese hamster V79 cells. Drug Chem Tox 25:473-479.