In silico methods for early toxicity assessment

Current Opinion in Drug Discovery and Development

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 80-85

  Merlot, C ^a  

^a GENKYOTEX SA   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Critical Path Initiative; In silico toxicology; Integrated drug discovery; Molecular toxicology; QSAR; Toxicity pathways

Indexed keywords

DRUG;

COMPUTER MODEL; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG RESEARCH; DRUG SAFETY; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; REVIEW; TOXICITY TESTING;

ANIMALS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; ENDPOINT DETERMINATION; HUMANS; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION; TOXICOLOGY;

EID: 37848999976     PISSN: 13676733     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (44)

1. Hansch C, Leo AJ: Substituent Constants for Correlation Analysis in Chemistry and Biology. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA (1979).
2. Patlewicz G: Computational methods to predict drug safety. Curr Comp-Aided Drug Design (2006) 2(2):151-168.
3. Mohan CG, Gandhi T, Garg D, Shinde R: Computer-assisted methods in chemical toxicity prediction. Mini Rev Med Chem (2007) 7(5):499-507.
4. Helma C, Kazius J: Artificial intelligence and data mining for toxicity prediction. Curr Comp-Aided Drug Des (2006) 2(2):123-133.
5. Hakimelahi GH, Khodarahmi GA: The identification of toxicophores for the prediction of mutagenicity, hepatotoxicity and cardiotoxicity. J Iranian Chem Soc (2005) 2(4):244-267.
6. Mukherjee S, Saha A: 6. Molecular modeling studies of estrogen receptor modulators. Curr Comp-Aided Drug Des (2006) 2(3):229-253.
7. Diller DJ, Hobbs DW: Understanding hERG inhibition with QSAR models based on a one-dimensional molecular representation. J Comput Aided Mol Des (2007) 21(7):379-393.
8. Gavaghan CL, Arnby CH, Blomberg N, Strandlund G, Boyer S: Development, interpretation and temporal evaluation of a global QSAR of hERG electrophysiology screening data. J Comput Aided Mol Des (2007) 21(4):189-206.
9. Song M, Clark M: Development and evaluation of an in silico model for hERG binding. J Chem Inf Model (2006) 46(1):392-400.
10. Müller L, Breidenbach A, Funk C, Muster W, Pähler A: Strategies for using computational toxicology methods in pharmaceutical R&D. In: Computational Toxicology: Risk Assessment for Pharmaceutical and Environmental Chemicals. Ekins S (Ed), John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA (2007):545-580.
11. Gombar VK, Alberts JJ, Cassidy KC, Mattioni BE, Mohutsky MA: In silico metabolism studies in drug discovery: Prediction of metabolic stability. Curr Comp-Aided Drug Des (2006) 2(2):177-188. • Discusses how current in silico methods are best used to support discovery projects based on practical experience.
12. Gombar VK: In silico screens and tools for drug discovery. In silico ADMET, London, UK (2007).
13. Jacobson-Kram D, Contrera JF: Genetic toxicity assessment: Employing the best science for human safety evaluation part I: Early screening for potential human mutagens. Toxicol Sci (2007) 96(1):16-20.
14. Simon-Hettich B, Rothfuss A, Steger-Hartmann T: Use of computer-assisted prediction of toxic effects of chemical substances. Toxicology (2006) 224(1-2):156-162. •• Provides a fair analysis of state-of-the-art in silico toxicology; all major issues are considered and ways in which to use predictions more efficiently in drug discovery are proposed.
15. Guengerich FP, Macdonald JS: Applying mechanisms of chemical toxicity to predict drug safety. Chem Res Toxicol (2007) 20(3):334-369. •• Comprises a good reference for molecular toxicology.
16. Pelletier DJ, Gehlhaar D, Tilloy-Ellul A, Johnson TO, Greene N: Evaluation of a published in silico model and construction of a novel Bayesian model for predicting phospholipidosis inducing potential. J Chem Inf Model (2007) 47(3):1196-1205.
17. McGee P: Modeling success with in silico tools. Drug Discov Dev (2005) 8:24-28.
18. Gerner I, Zinke S, Graetschel G, Schlede E: 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. Altern Lab Anim (2000) 28(5):665-698.
19. Matthews EJ, Kruhlak NJ, Benz RD, Ivanov J, Klopman G, Contrera JF: A comprehensive model for reproductive and developmental toxicity hazard identification: II. Construction of QSAR models to predict activities of untested chemicals. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol (2007) 47(2):136-155.
20. Matthews EJ, Kruhlak NL, Cimino MC, Benz RD, Contrera JF: An analysis of genetic toxicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, and carcinogenicity data: II. Identification of genotoxicants, reprotoxicants, and carcinogens using in silico methods. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol (2006) 44(2):97-110.
21. Baurin N, Mozziconacci J-C, Arnoult E, Chavatte P, Marot C, Morin-Allory L: 2D QSAR consensus prediction for high-throughput virtual screening. An application to COX-2 inhibition modeling and screening of the NCI database. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2004) 44(1):276-285.
22. Merlot C: Optimizing the use to toxicity prediction software for lead discovery. InfoTech for Pharma & Biotech, London, UK (2007).
23. Gubbels-van Hal WM, Blaauboer BJ, Barentsen HM, Hoitink MA, Meerts IA, van der Hoeven JC: An alternative approach for the safety evaluation of new and existing chemicals, an exercise in integrated testing. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol (2005) 42(3):284-295.
24. Samuels DC: Computational models of antiviral toxicity. Curr Opin Drug Discovery Dev (2007) 10(1):43-48.
25. Gronemeyer H, Gustafsson JA, Laudet V: Principles for modulation of the nuclear receptor superfamily. Nat Rev Drug Discov (2004) 3(11):950-964.
26. Francis GA, Fayard E, Picard F, Auwerx J: Nuclear receptors and the control of metabolism. Annu Rev Physiol (2003) 65:261-311.
27. Wang CY, Ai N, Arora S, Erenrich E, Nagarajan K, Zauhar R, Young D, Welsh WJ: Identification of previously unrecognized antiestrogenic chemicals using a novel virtual screening approach. Chem Res Toxicol (2006) 19(12):1595-1601.
28. Mukherjee S, Saha A: Molecular modelling studies of estrogen receptor modulators. Curr Comp-Aided Drug Des (2006) 2(3):229-253.
29. Liu H, Papa E, Gramatica P: QSAR prediction of estrogen activity for a large set of diverse chemicals under the guidance of OECD principles. Chem Res Toxicol (2006) 19(11):1540-1548.
30. Mestres J, Martin-Couce L, Gregori-Puigjane E, Cases M, Boyer S: Ligand-based approach to in silico pharmacology: Nuclear receptor profiling. J Chem Inf Model (2006) 46(6):2725-2736.
31. Cases M, Garcia-Serna R, Hettne K, Weeber M, van der Lei J, Boyer S, Mestres, J: Chemical and biological profiling of an annotated compound library directed to the nuclear receptor family. Curr Top Med Chem (2005) 5(8):763-772.
32. Benson SC, Pershadsingh HA, Ho CI, Chittiboyina A, Desai P, Pravenec M, Qi N, Wang J, Avery MA, Kurtz TW: Identification of telmisartan as a unique angiotensin II receptor antagonist with selective PPARγ-modulating activity. Hypertension (2004) 43(5):993-1002.
33. Castoldi RE, Pennella G, Saturno GS, Grossi P, Brughera M, Venturi M: Assessing and managing toxicities induced by kinase inhibitors. Curr Opin Drug Discovery Dev (2007) 10(1):53-57.
34. van der Greef, McBurney RN: Innovation: Rescuing drug discovery: In vivo systems pathology and systems pharmacology. Nat Rev Drug Discov (2005) 4(12):961-967.
35. Johnson DE, Rodgers AD, Sudarsanam S: Future of computational toxicology: Broad application into human disease and therapeutics. In: Computational Toxicology: Risk Assessment for Pharmaceutical and Environmental Chemicals. Ekins S (Ed), John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA (2007):725-750.
36. Whittaker PA: What is the relevance of bioinformatics to pharmacology? Trends Pharmacol Sci (2003) 24(8):434-439.
37. Piotrowski PL, Sumpter BG, Malling HV, Wassom JS, Lu PY, Brothers RA, Sega GA, Martin SA, Parang M: A toxicity evaluation and predictive system based on neural networks and wavelets. J Chem Inf Model (2007) 47(2):676-685.
38. Fielden MR, Matthews JB, Fertuck KC, Halgren RG, Zacharewski TR: In silico approaches to mechanistic and predictive toxicology: An introduction to bioinformatics for toxicologists. Crit Rev Toxicol (2002) 32(2):67-112.
39. Waters MD, Fostel JM: 39. Toxicogenomics and systems toxicology: Aims and prospects. Nat Rev Genet (2004) 5(12):936-948.
40. Waters MD, Fostel JM, Wetmore BA, Merrick BA: Toxicogenomics and systems toxicology. In: Computational Toxicology: Risk Assessment for Pharmaceutical and Environmental Chemicals. Ekins S (Ed), John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA (2007):99-150.
41. Leighton JK: Application of emerging technologies in toxicology and safety assessment: Regulatory perspectives. Int J Toxicol (2005) 24(3):153-155.
42. Leighton JK, Brown P, Ellis A, Harlow P, Harrouk W, Pine PS, Robison T, Rosario L, Thompson K: Workgroup report: Review of genomics data-based experience with mock submissions - view of the CDER Pharmacology Toxicology Non-clinical Pharmacogenomics Subcommittee. Environ Health Perspect (2006) 114(4):573-578.
43. Rietjens IMCM, Alink GM: Future of toxicology - low-dose toxicology and risk-benefit analysis. Chem Res Toxicol (2006) 19(8):977-981.
44. Richard AM: Future of toxicology - predictive toxicology: An expanded view of 'chemical toxicity'. Chem Res Toxicol (2006) 19(10):1257-1262.