The expanding role of predictive toxicology: An update on the (Q)SAR models for mutagens and carcinogens

Journal of Environmental Science and Health - Part C Environmental Carcinogenesis and Ecotoxicology Reviews

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 53-97

  Benigni, Romualdo ^a   Netzeva, Tatiana I ^b   Benfenati, Emilio ^c   Bossa, Cecilia ^a   Franke, Rainer ^d   Helma, Christoph ^e   Hulzebos, Etje ^f   Marchant, Carol ^g   Richard, Ann ^h   Woo, Yin Tak ^h   Yang, Chihae ⁱ  

^a ISTITUTO SUPERIORE DI SANITÀ   (Italy)

^b JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE   (Italy)

^c MARIO NEGRI INSTITUTE FOR PHARMACOLOGICAL RESEARCH   (Italy)

^d Consulting in Drug Design GbR ^*  (Germany)

^e In Silico Toxicology   (Germany)

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

^g LHASA LIMITED   (United Kingdom)

^h U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

ⁱ Leadscope Inc   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMALS; CARCINOGENS; COST ACCOUNTING; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; MUTAGENESIS; PHYSIOLOGICAL MODELS;

CARCINOGENICITY; CHEMICAL HAZARDS; TOXICOLOGY;

MUTAGENS;

CARCINOGEN; MUTAGENIC AGENT;

CARCINOGENICITY; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH HAZARD; HUMAN; LAW; MUTAGENICITY; NONHUMAN; PREDICTIVE VALIDITY; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; RELIABILITY; REVIEW; VALIDITY;

ANIMALS; CARCINOGENS; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; MUTAGENICITY TESTS; MUTAGENS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; TOXICOLOGY;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 33847767499     PISSN: 10590501     EISSN: 15324095     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10590500701201828     Document Type: Review

References (72)

1. Worth AP, Bassan A, de Brujin J et al. The Role of the European Chemicals Bureau in Promoting the Regulatory Use of (Q)SAR Methods. SAR QSAR Environ. Res, 2007;18:111-125.
2. Pedersen F, de Brujin J, Munn SJ, Van Leeuwen K . Assessment of additional testing needs under REACH. Effects of (Q)SARs, risk based testing and voluntary industry initiatives. JRC report EUR 20863 EN. 2003. Ispra, EUR.
3. Van der Jagt K, Munn SJ, Torslov J, de Brujin J . 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. 2004. Ispra, European Commission Joint Research Centre.
4. OECD. Report on the Regulatory Uses and Applications inOECDMember Countries of (Quantitative) Structure-Activity Relationship [(Q)SAR] Models in the Assessment of New and Existing Chemicals. 2006. Paris, Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development.
5. Doull J, Borzelleca JF, Becker R et al. Framework for Use of Toxicity Screening Tools in Context-Based Decision-Making. Food Chem.Toxicol. 2006: Nov. 2, Epub ahead of print.
6. OECD. The Report from the Expert Group on (Quantitative) Structure Activity Relationship ([Q]SARs) on the Principles for the Validation of (Q)SARs. 49. 2004. Paris, OECD. OECD Series on Testing and Assessment.
7. Worth AP, Bassan A, Gallegos A, et al. The characterisation of (Quantitative) Structure-Activity Relationships: Preliminary guidance. JRC report EUR 21866 EN. 2005. Ispra, European Chemicals Bureau, Joint Research Centre, European Commission.
8. Benigni R. Structure-activity relationship studies of chemical mutagens and carcinogens: mechanistic investigations and prediction approaches. Chem. Revs. 2005;105:1767-800.
9. Miller JA, Miller EC. Ultimate chemical carcinogens as reactive mutagenic electrophiles. In: Hiatt HH, Watson JD, Winsten JA, eds. Origins of Human Cancer. Cold Spring Harbor: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, 1977; pp. 605-628.
10. Miller EC, Miller JA. Searches for ultimate chemical carcinogens and their reactions with cellular macromolecules. Cancer 1981;47:2327-2345.
11. Ashby J, Tennant RW. Chemical structure, Salmonella mutagenicity and extent of carcinogenicity as indicators of genotoxic carcinogenesis among 222 chemicals tested by the U.S.NCI/NTP. Mutat. Res. 1988;204:17-115.
12. Arcos JC, Argus MF. Multifactor interaction network of carcinogenesis - a "Tour Guide." In: Arcos JC, Argus MF,Woo YT, eds. Chemical Induction of Cancer. Modulation and Combination Effects. Boston: Birkhauser, 1995; pp. 1-20.
13. Woo YT. Mechanisms of action of chemical carcinogens, and their role in Structure-Activity Relationships (SAR) analysis and risk assessment. In: Benigni R, ed. Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) Models of Mutagens and Carcinogens. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2003; pp. 41-80.
14. Ames BN. The detection of environmental mutagens and potential carcinogens. Cancer 1984:53;2030-2040.
15. Maron DM, Ames BN. Revised methods for the Salmonella mutagenicity test. Mutat. Res. 1983;113:173-215.
16. Zeiger E. Carcinogenicity of mutagens: predictive capability of the Salmonella mutagenesis assay for rodent carcinogenicity. Cancer Res. 1987;47:1287-96.
17. Ashby J. Fundamental structural alerts to potential carcinogenicity or noncarcinogenicity. Environ.Mutagen. 1985;7:919-921.
18. Bailey AB, Chanderbhan N, Collazo-Braier N, Cheeseman MA, Twaroski ML. The use of structure-activity relationship analysis in the food contact notification program. Regulat. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 2005;42:225-235.
19. Munro IC, Ford RA, Kennepohl E, Sprenger JG. Threshold of toxicological concern based on Structure-Activity Relationships. Drug Metab. Rev. 1996;28:209-217.
20. Kazius J, McGuire R, Bursi R. Derivation and Validation of Toxicophores for Mutagenicity Prediction. J. Med. Chem. 2005;48:312-320.
21. Kazius J, Nijssen S, Kok J, Back T, Ijzerman AP. Substructure mining using elaborate chemical representation. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006;46:597-605.
22. Benigni R, Bossa C. Structure-activity models of chemical carcinogens: state of the art, and new directions. Ann. Ist. Super. Sanità 2006;42:118-126.
23. Richard AM. DSSTox web site launch: improving public access to databases for building structure-toxicity prediction models. Preclinica 2004;2:103-108.
24. Richard AM,Williams CR. Public sources of mutagenicity and carcinogenicity data: use in structure-activity relationship models. In: Benigni R, ed. Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) models of mutagens and carcinogens. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2003: pp. 145-174.
25. Provost F, Fawcett T. Robust classification for imprecise environment. Machine Learn.J. 2001;42:5-11.
26. Zeiger E, Haseman JK, Shelby MD, Margolin BH, Tennant RW. Evaluation of four in vitro genetic toxicity tests for predicting rodent carcinogenicity: confirmation of earlier results with 41 additional chemicals. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 1990;16:1-14.
27. Benigni R. Mouse bone marrow micronucleus assay: relationships with inVitro mutagenicity and rodent carcinogenicity. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 1995;45:337-347.
28. Zeiger E. Strategies and philosophies of genotoxicity testing: what is the question? Mutation Research 1994;304:309-314.
29. Debnath AK, Debnath G, Shusterman AJ, Hansch C. A QSAR investigation of the role of hydrophobicity in regulating mutagenicity in the Ames test: 1. Mutagenicity of aromatic and heteroaromatic amines in Salmonella typhimurium TA98 and TA100. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 1992;19:37-52.
30. Franke R, Gruska A, Giuliani A, Benigni R. Prediction of rodent carcinogenicity of aromatic amines: a quantitative structure-activity relationships model. Carcinogenesis 2001;22:1561-1571.
31. Helma C, Kramer S. A survey of the Predictive Toxicology Challenge 2000-2001. Bioinformatics 2003;19:1179-1182.
32. Benigni R, Giuliani A. Putting the Predictive Toxicology Challenge into perspective: reflections on the results. Bioinformatics 2003;19:1194-200.
33. Benigni R, Zito R. Designing safer drugs: (Q)SAR-based identification of mutagens and carcinogens. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 2003;3:1289-1300.
34. Hansch C, Leo A (1995) Exploring QSAR. 1. Fundamentals and Applications in Chemistry and Biology. Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society.
35. Franke R, Gruska A. General introduction to QSAR. In: Benigni R, ed. Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationhsip (QSAR) Models of Mutagens and Carcinogens. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2003: pp. 1-40.
36. Franke R, Gruska A. Research Report 6/97. 1997. Basdorf, Germany.
37. Hansch C, Kurup A, Garg R, Gao H. Chem-bioinformatics and QSAR: A review of QSAR lacking positive hydrophobic terms. Chem. Revs. 2001;101:619-672.
38. Glende C, Schmitt H, Erdinger L, Engelhardt G, Boche G. Transformation of mutagenic aromatic amines into non-mutagenic species by alkyl substituents. Part I. Alkylation ortho to the amino function. Mutat. Res. 2001;498:19-37.
39. Netzeva TI, Worth AP, Aldenberg T, et al. Current status of methods for defining the applicability domain of (Quantitative) Structure-Activity Relationships. ATLA-Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 2005;33:1-19.
40. Ford MG, Greenwood R, Brooks GT, Franke R (1996) Bioactive Compound Design: Possibilities for Industrial Use. Portsmouth and Basdorf: Bios Scientific Publishing.
41. Helma C, Kazius J. Artificial intelligence and data mining for toxicity prediction. Curr.Comput.-Aid.Drug Des. 2006;2:124-134.
42. Helma C. Lazy Structure-Activity Relationships (lazar) for the prediction of Rodent Carcinogenicity and Salmonella mutagenicity. Mol. Diversity 2006;10:147-158.
43. Gold LS, Zeiger E. (1997) Handbook of Carcinogenic Potency and Genotoxicity Databases. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
44. Sutherland JJ, O'Brien LA, Weaver DF A comparison of methods for modeling quantitative structure-activity relationships. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 2004;47:5541-5554.
45. Yang C, Richard AM, Cross KP. The Art of Data Mining the Minefields of Toxicity Databases to Link Chemistry to Biology. Curr. Comput.-Aid. Drug Des. 2006;2:135-150.
46. Yang C, Benz RD, Cheeseman MA. Landscape of current toxicity databases and database standards. Current Opinion in Drug Discovery & Development 2006;9:124-133.
47. FDA-CDER/CFSAN . FDA-CDER/CFSAN Cooperative Research and Development Agreement, "Development of FDA Toxicology and Clinical Effects Databases Suitable for Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship (QSAR) Modeling and Informatic Data Mining." 2006.
48. Tetko IV, Abagyan R, Oprea TI. Surrogate data - a secure way to share corporate data. J.Comput.-Aided Mol.Design 2005;19:749-764.
49. Richard AM,Williams CR. Distributed structure-searchable toxicity (DSSTox) public database network: A proposal. Mutat. Res. 2002;499:27-52.
50. Richard AM, Gold LS, Nicklaus MC. Chemical structure indexing of toxicity data on the Internet: Moving toward a flat world. Current Opinion in Drug Discovery & Development 2006;9:314-325.
51. Richard AM. Future of predictive toxicology: an expanded view of "chemical toxicity", future of toxicology perspective. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2006;19:1257-1262.
52. Fliri AF, Loging WT, Thadeio PF, Volkmann RA. Biological spectra analysis: Linking biological activity profiles to molecular structure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2005;102:261-266.
53. Wallqvist A, Huang RL, Thanki N, Covell DG. Evaluating chemical structure similarity as an indicator of cellular growth inhibition. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 2006;46:430-437.
54. Austin CP, Brady LS, Insel TR, Collins FS. NIH Molecular Libraries Initiative. Science 2004;306:1138-1139.
55. Dix DJ, Houck KA, Martin MT, Richard AM, Setzer MW, Kavlock RJ. The Tox-Cast program for prioritizing toxicity testing of environmental chemicals. Toxicol. Sci. 2007;95:5-12.
56. Bhogal N, Grindon C, Combes R, Balls M. Toxicity testing: creating a revolution based on new technologies. Trends in Biotechnology 2005;23:299-307.
57. Tennant RW, Ashby J. 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. Mutat. Res. 1991;257:209-227.
58. Judson PN, Marchant CA, Vessey JD. Using argumentation for absolute reasoning about the potential toxicity of chemicals. J. Chem. Inf. Comp. Sci. 2003;43:1364-1370.
59. Smithing MP, Darvas F. Hazardexpert: an expert system for predicting toxicity. In: Finlay JW, Robinson SF, Armstrong DJ, eds. Washington: American Chemical Society, 1992: pp. 191-200.
60. Woo YT, Lai DY, Argus MF, Arcos JC. Development of structure-activity relationship rules for predicting carcinogenic potential of chemicals. Toxicol. Lett. 1995:79;219-228.
61. Woo YT, Lai DY. Oncologic: a mechanism based expert system for predicting the carcinogenic potential of chemicals. In: Helma C, ed. Predictive Toxicology. Boca Raton: Taylor and Francis, 2005: pp. 385-413.
62. OECD. Report from the Expert Group on (Quantitative) Structure-Activity Relationships ((Q)SARs) on the principles for the validation of (Q)SARs. 2004. Paris, OECD.
63. Judson PN, Vessey JD. A comprehensive approach to argumentation. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences 2003;43:1356-1363.
64. Judson PN, Cooke PA, Doerrer NG, et al. Towards the creation of an international toxicology information centre. Toxicology 2005;213:117-128.
65. ECETOC. (Q)SARs: Evaluation of the commercially available software for human health and environmental endpoints with respect to chemical management applications. Technical Report No. 89. 89. 2003. Brussels, ECETOC.
66. Woo YT, Lai DY, Argus MF, Arcos JC. An integrative approach of combining mechanistically complementary short-term predictive tests as a basis for assessing the carcinogenic potential of chemicals. J. Environ. Sci. Health. C. Environ. Carcinog. Ecotoxicol. Revs. 1998;C16:101-122.
67. Benfenati E. Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships (QSAR) for pesticide regulatory purposes. 2006: Amsterdam: Elsevier.
68. EEC. Council Directive concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market. 91/414/EEC. 1991.
69. Damstra T, Barlow S, Bergman A, Kavlock R, van de Kraak G. Global assessment of the state-of-the-science of endocrine disruptors. 2002: Geneva: IPCS-WHO.
70. EC. Council Directive 92/32/EEC of 30 April 1992 amending for the 7th time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations and amministrative provisions rrelating to the classification, packaging and labeling of substances (7th Amendment). Off. J. Commun. 1992;L154(1):1-29.
71. EC. Council regulation 793/93 of March 1993 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances. Off. J. Eur. Commun. 1993;L84:1-75.
72. Klimisch HJ, Andreae M, Tillmann U. A systematic approach for evaluating the quality of experimental toxicological and ecotoxicological data. Regulat. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 1997;25:1-5.