Comparison of the applicability domain of a quantitative structure-activity relationship for estrogenicity with a large chemical inventory

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

Volumn 25, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 1223-1230

  Netzeva, Tatiana I ^a   Saliner, Ana Gallegos ^a   Worth, Andrew P ^a  

^a JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE   (Italy)

Author keywords

Applicability domain; Chemical inventory; Estrogen receptor; Quantitative structure activity relationship; Relative estrogenic gene activation

Indexed keywords

BIOCHEMISTRY; COMPUTER SOFTWARE; HORMONES;

APPLICABILITY DOMAIN; CHEMICAL INVENTORY; ESTROGEN RECEPTOR; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP (QSAR) MODEL; RELATIVE ESTROGENIC GENE ACTIVATION;

GENETIC ENGINEERING;

AROMATIC COMPOUND; BENZOPHENONE DERIVATIVE; CHEMICAL AGENT; FLAVONOID; OCTANOL; PHENOL DERIVATIVE; WATER; ESTROGEN;

COMPARATIVE STUDY; ESTROGENIC COMPOUND; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RECOMBINATION; YEAST;

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; ESTROGEN ACTIVITY; GENE ACTIVATION; HYDROGEN BOND; MEDICAL ASSESSMENT; NONHUMAN; PHYLOGENETIC TREE; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VALIDATION STUDY; YEAST; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CHEMICAL MODEL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DRUG EFFECT; GENE EXPRESSION REGULATION; GENETICS;

CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL; ESTROGENS; GENE EXPRESSION REGULATION; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MODELS, CHEMICAL; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP;

EID: 33749070845     PISSN: 07307268     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1897/05-367R.1     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. U.S. Senate. 1996. Safe drinking water act amendments of 1996: Conference Report S.1216. Y1.1/8:104-741. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
2. U.S. Senate. 1997. Food quality protection act. Hearing, 12 June, 1996, S. 1166. Y4.AG8/3:S.HRG. 104-779. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
3. Commission of the European Communities. 1999. Community strategy for endocrine disrupters. Communication from the (European) Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. COM (1999) 706. Final Report. Brussels, Belgium.
4. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2003. Final report of the sixth meeting of the Task Force on Endocrine Disrupters Testing and Assessment (EDTA 6). ENV/JM/TG/ EDTA/M(2003)4. Final Report. Paris, France.
5. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2005. Report of the second meeting of the Validation Management Group for Nonanimal Testing (VMG NA) of the Task Force on Endocrine Disrupters Testing and Assessment (EDTA). ENV/JM/ TG/EDTA/M(2005)2. Final Report. Paris, France.
6. Worth AP, Van Leeuwen CJ, Hartung T. 2004. The prospects of using (Q)SARs in a changing political environment-High expectations and a key role for the European Commission's Joint Research Centre. SAR and QSAR in Environmental Research 56:331-343.
7. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2004. Annexes to the report on principles for establishing the status of development and validation of (quantitative) structure-activity relationships [(Q)SARs]. ENV/JM/TG(2004)27/ANN. Final Report. Paris, France.
8. Schmieder P, Mekenyan O, Bradbury S, Veith G. 2003. QSAR prioritization of chemical inventories for endocrine disruption testing. Pure Appl Chem 75:2389-2396.
9. Fang H, Tong W, Welsh WJ, Sheehan DM. 2003. QSAR models in receptor-mediated effects: The nuclear receptor superfamily. J Mol Struct (Theochem) 622:113-125.
10. Mizutani MY, Tomioka N, Itai A. 1994. Rational automatic search method for stable docking models of protein and ligand. J Mol Biol 243:310-326.
11. Tong W, Perkins R, Xing LI, Welsh WJ, Sheehan DM. 1997. QSAR models for binding of estrogenic compounds to estrogen receptor α and β subtypes. Endocrinology 138:4022-4025.
12. Yu SJ, Keenan SM, Tong W, Welsh WJ. 2002. Influence of the structural diversity of data sets on the statistical quality of three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationships (3D-QSAR) models: Predicting the estrogenic activity of xenoestrogens. Chem Res Toxicol 15:1229-1234.
13. Tong W, Lowis DR, Perkins R, Chen Y, Welsh WJ, Goddette DW, Heritage TW, Sheehan DM. 1998. Evaluation of quantitative structure-activity relationship methods for large-scale prediction of chemicals binding to the estrogen receptor. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 38:669-677.
14. Schmieder PK, Aptula AO, Routledge EJ, Sumpter JP, Mekenyan OG. 2000. Estrogenicity of alkylphenolic compounds: A 3-D structure-activity evaluation of gene activation. Environ Toxicol Chem 19:1727-1740.
15. Gallegos Saliner A, Amat L, Carbó-Dorca R, Schultz TW, Cronin MTD. 2003. Molecular quantum similarity analysis of estrogenic activity. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 43:1166-1176.
16. 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 affinity. Environ Health Perspect 112:1249-1254.
17. Gao H, Katzenellenbogen JA, Garg R, Hansch C. 1999. Comparative QSAR analysis of estrogen receptor ligands. Chem Rev 99:723-744.
18. Schultz TW, Sinks GD, Cronin MTD. 2002. Structure-activity relationships for gene activation estrogenicity: Evaluation of a diverse set of aromatic chemicals. Environ Toxicol 17:14-23.
19. Hawkins DM, Young SS, Rusinko A III. 1997. Analysis of a large structure-activity data set using recursive partitioning. Quant Struct-Act Relat 16:296-302.
20. Worth AP, Cronin MTD. 2001. The use of bootstrap resampling to assess the uncertainty of Cooper statistics. Alternatives To Laboratory Animals 29:447-459.
21. Commission of the European Communities. 1990. Commission Communication pursuant to Article 13 of Council Directive 67/ 548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of the laws, regulations, and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging, and labeling of dangerous substances, as amended by Directive 79/831/EEC. Official Journal of the European Communities, C146A.
22. Commission of the European Communities. 1967. Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 18 August 1967 on the approximation of the laws, regulations, and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging, and labeling of dangerous substances. Official Journal of the European Communities, L96.
23. Commission of the European Communities. 1979. Council Directive 79/831/EEC of 18 September 1979, amending for the sixth time Directive 67/548 on the approximation of the laws, regulations, and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging, and labeling of dangerous substances. Official Journal of the European Communities, L259.
24. Commission of the European Communities. 1981. Commission Decision 81/437 of 11 May 1981, laying down the criteria in accordance with which information relating to the inventory of chemical substances is supplied by the Member States to the Commission. Official Journal of the European Communities, L167.
25. Mekenyan O, Pavlov T, Grancharov V, Todorov M, Schmieder P, Veith G. 2005. 2D-3D migration of large chemical inventories with conformational multiplication. Application of the genetic algorithm. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 45: 283-292.
26. Schultz TW, Cronin MTD, Walker JD, Aptula AO. 2003. Quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSARs) in toxicology: A historical perspective. J Mol Struct (Theochem) 622:1-22.
27. Schultz TW, Cronin MTD, Netzeva TI. 2003. The present status of QSAR in toxicology. J Mol Struct (Theochem) 622:23-38.
28. Cronin MTD, Walker JD, Jaworska JS, Comber MHI, Watts CD, Worth AP. 2003. Use of QSARs in international decision-making frameworks to predict ecological effects -and environmental fate of chemical substances. Environ Health Perspect 111:1376-1390.
29. Cronin MTD, Jaworska JS, Walker JD, Comber MHI, Watts CD, Worth AP. 2003. Use of QSARs in international decision-making frameworks to predict health effects of chemical substances. Environ Health Perspect 111:1391-1401.
30. Hong H, Tong W, Fang H, Shi L, Xie Q, Wu J, Perkins R, Walker JD, Branham W, Sheehan DM. 2002. Prediction of estrogen receptor binding for. 58,000 chemicals using an integrated system of a tree-based model with structural alerts. Environ Health Perspect 110:29-36.
31. Tong W, Fang H, Hong H, Xie Q, Perkins R, Anson J, Sheehan DM. 2003. Regulatory application of SAR/QSAR for priority setting of endocrine disrupters: A perspective. Pure Appl Chem 75:2375-2388.
32. Mekenyan OG, Nikolova N, Karabunarliev S, Bradbury S, Ankley G, Hansen B. 1999. New developments in a hazard identification algorithms for hormone receptor ligands. Quant Struct-Act Relat 18:139-153.
33. Netzeva TI, Worth AP, Aldenberg T, Benigni R, Cronin MTD, Gramatica P, Jaworska JS, Kahn S, Klopman G, Marchant CA, Myatt G, Nikolova-Jeliazkova N, Patlewicz GY, Perkins R, Roberts DW, Schultz TW, Stanton DT, van de Sandt JJM, Tong W, Veith G, Yang C. 2005. Current status of methods for defining the applicability domain of (quantitative) structure-activity relationships. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 33:155-173.
34. Dimitrov S, Dimitrova G, Pavlov T, Dimitrova N, Patlewicz G, Niemela J, Mekenyan O. 2005. A stepwise approach for defining the applicability domain of SAR and QSAR models. J Chem Inf Model 45:839-849.