Assessment of prediction confidence and domain extrapolation of two structure-activity relationship models for predicting estrogen receptor binding activity

Environmental Health Perspectives

Volumn 112, Issue 12, 2004, Pages 1249-1254

  Tong, Weida ^a   Xie, Qian ^a   Hong, Huixiao ^a   Shi, Leming ^a   Fang, Hong ^a   Perkins, Roger ^a  

^a NATIONAL CENTER FOR TOXICOLOGICAL RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

Applicability domain; Decision forest; Domain in extrapolation; EDCs; Endocrine disrupting chemicals; Estrogen receptor binding; Prediction confidence; QSAR; Regulatory application

Indexed keywords

ESTROGEN RECEPTOR;

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; BINDING AFFINITY; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; DECISION THEORY; HORMONE RECEPTOR INTERACTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 4444273205     PISSN: 00916765     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1289/ehp.7125     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Benigni R, Richard AM. 1998. Quantitative structure-based modeling applied to characterization and prediction of chemical toxicity. Methods 14:264-276.
2. Blair R, Fang H, Branham WS, Hass B, Dial SL, Moland CL, et al. 2000. Estrogen receptor relative binding affinities of 188 natural and xenochemicals: structural diversity of ligands. Toxicol Sci 54:138-153.
3. Bradbury S, Mekenyan O, Ankley G. 1996. Quantitative structure-activity relationships for polychlorinated hydroxybiphenyl estrogen receptor binding affinity - an assessment of conformer flexibility. Environ Toxicol Chem 15:1945-1954.
4. Bradbury SP. 1994. Predicting modes of toxic action from chemical structure: an overview. SAR QSAR Environ Res 2:89-104.
5. Branham WS, Dial SL, Moland CL, Hass BS, Blair RM, Fang H, et al. 2002. Phytoestrogens and mycoestrogens bind to the rat uterine estrogen receptor. J Nutr 132:658-664.
6. Breiman L, Friedman J, Olshen R, Stone C, Steinberg D, Colla P. 1995. CART: Classification and Regression Trees. Stanford, CA:Salford System.
7. Clark LA, Pregibon D. 1997. Tree-based models. In: Modern Applied Statistics with S-Plus (Venables WN, Ripley BD, eds). New York:Chambers and Hasties, 413-430.
8. Eriksson L, Jaworska J, Worth A, Cronin M, McDowell RM, Gramatica P. 2003. Methods for reliability and uncertainty assessment and for applicability evaluations of classification- and regression-based QSARs. Environ Health Perspect 111:1361-1375.
9. Fang H, Tong W, Branham WS, Moland CL, Dial SL, Hong H, et al. 2003a. Study of 202 natural, synthetic, and environmental chemicals for binding to the androgen receptor. Chem Res Toxicol 16:1338-1358.
10. Fang H, Tong W, Sheehan D. 2003b. QSARs in receptor-mediated effects: the nuclear receptor superfamily. J Mol Struct (THEOCHEM) 622:113-125.
11. Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. 1996. Public Law 104-170.
12. Hansch C, Hoekman D, Leo A, Zhang L, Li P. 1995a. The expanding role of quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR) in toxicology. Toxicol Lett 79:45-53.
13. Hansch C, Telzer BR, Zhang L. 1995b. Comparative QSAR in toxicology: examples from teratology and cancer chemotherapy of aniline mustards. Crit Rev Toxicol 25:67-89.
14. Hileman B. 1997. Hormone disrupter research expands. Chem Eng News 75:24-25.
15. Hong H, Tong W, Fang H, Shi L, Xie Q, Wu J, et al. 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.
16. Hopfinger AJ, Tokarski JS. 1997. Practical applications of computer-aided drug design. In: Practical Applications of Computer-Aided Design (Charifson PS, ed). New York:Marcel Dekker, 105-164.
17. Johnson M, Maggiora GM. 1990. Concepts and Applications of Molecular Similarity. New York:Wiley.
18. Kubinyi H, Folkers G, Martin YC. 1998. 3D QSAR in drug design - recent advances. Perspect Drug Disc Design 12:R5-R7.
19. Lipinski CA, Lombardo F, Dominy BW, Feeney PJ. 1997. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv Drug Delivery Rev 23:3-25.
20. Russom CL, Bradbury SP, Carlson AR. 1995. Use of knowledge bases and QSARs to estimate the relative ecological risk of agrichemicals: a problem formulation exercise. SAR QSAR Environ Res 4:83-95.
21. 2-guided region selection approach. J Med Chem 41:2261-2267.
22. Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996. 1996. Public Law 104-182.
23. Schultz TW, Seward JR. 2000. Health-effects related structure-toxicity relationships: a paradigm for the first decade of the new millennium. Sci Total Environ 249:73-84.
24. Shi L, Tong W, Fang H, Xie Q, Hong H, Perkins R, et al. 2002. An integrated "4-phase" approach for setting endocrine disruption screening priorities - Phase I and II predictions of estrogen receptor binding affinity. SAR QSAR Environ Res 13:69-88.
25. Shi LM, Fang H, Tong W, Wu J, Perkins R, Blair RM, et al. 2001. QSAR models using a large diverse set of estrogens. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 41:186-195.
26. Tong W, Fang H, Hong H, Xie Q, Perkins R, Anson JF, et al. 2003a. Regulatory application of SAR/QSAR for priority setting of endocrine disruptors - a perspective. Pure and Appl Chem 75:2375-2388.
27. Tong W, Fang H, Hong H, Xie Q, Perkins R, Sheehan D. 2004. Receptor-mediated toxicity: QSARs for oestrogen receptor binding and priority setting of potential oestrogenic endocrine disruptors. In: Predicting Chemical Toxicity and Fate (Cronin MTD, Livingstone D, eds). Boca Raton, FL:CRC Press,285-314.
28. Tong W, Hong H, Fang H, Xie Q, Perkins R. 2003b. Decision forest: Combining the predictions of multiple independent decision tree models. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 43:525-531.
29. Tong W, Lowis DR, Perkins R, Chen Y, Welsh WJ, Goddette DW, et al. 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.
30. Tong W, Perkins R, Fang H, Hong H, Xie Q, Branham SW, et al. 2002. Development of quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSARs) and their use for priority setting in the testing strategy of endocrine disruptors. Regul Res Perspect 1:1-16.
31. Tong W, Perkins R, Strelitz R, Collantes ER, Keenan S, Welsh WJ, et al. 1997a. Quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSARs) for estrogen binding to the estrogen receptor: predictions across species. Environ Health Perspect 105:1116-1124.
32. Tong W, Perkins R, Xing L, Welsh WJ, Sheehan DM. 1997b. QSAR models for binding of estrogenic compounds to estrogen receptor alpha and beta subtypes. Endocrin 138:4022-4025.
33. Tong W, Welsh WJ, Shi L, Fang H, Perkins R. 2003c. Structure-activity relationship approaches and applications. Environ Toxicol Chem 22:1680-1695.
34. Waller CL, Oprea TI, Chae K, Park HK, Korach KS, Laws SC, et al. 1996, Ligand-based identification of environmental estrogens. Chem Res Toxicol 9:1240-1248.
35. Wiese TE, Polin LA, Palomino E, Brooks SC. 1997. Induction of the estrogen specific mitogenic response of MCF-7 cells by selected analogues of estradiol-17 beta: a 3D QSAR study. J Med Chem 40:3659-3669.
36. Xing L, Welsh WJ, Tong W, Perkins R, Sheehan DM. 1999. Comparison of estrogen receptor alpha and beta subtypes based on comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA). SAR QSAR Environ Res 10:215-237.
37. Zheng W, Tropsha A. 2000. A novel variable selection QSAR approach based on the k-nearest neighbor principle. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 40:185-194.