Computational Molecular Modeling for evaluating the toxicity of environmental chemicals: Prioritizing bioassay requirements

Environmental Health Perspectives

Volumn 116, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 573-576

  Rabinowitz, James R ^a   Goldsmith, Michael Rock ^a   Little, Stephen B ^a   Pasquinelli, Melissa A ^a,b  

^a U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

^b NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Computational toxicology; Docking; Enrichment; False negatives; High throughput screening; Molecular modeling; Prioritizing bioassays; Virtual screening

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMICAL;

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; BINDING AFFINITY; BIOASSAY; BIOTRANSFORMATION; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; HEALTH HAZARD; HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING; HUMAN; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MOLECULAR DOCKING; MOLECULAR MODEL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; TOXICITY TESTING;

BIOLOGICAL ASSAY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES; MODELS, MOLECULAR; RISK ASSESSMENT; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP;

EID: 45749105529     PISSN: 00916765     EISSN: 15529924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1289/ehp.11077     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Abagyan R, Totrov M. 2001. High-throughput docking for lead generation. Curr Opin Chem Biol 5(4):375-382.
2. Carlson HA. 2002. Protein flexibility and drug design: how to hit a moving target. Curr Opin Chem Biol 6(4):447-452.
3. Cho AE, Guallar V, Berne B, Friesner RA. 2005. Importance of accurate charges in molecular docking: quantum mechanical/molecular mechanical (OM/MM) approach. J Comput Chem 26:915-931.
4. Coupez B, Lewis RA. 2006. Docking and scoring: theoretically easy, practically impossible? Curr Med Chem 13:2995-3003.
5. Dix DJ, Houck KA, Martin MT, Richard AM, Setzer RW, Kavlock RJ. 2007. The ToxCast program for prioritizing toxicity testing of environmental chemicals. Toxicol Sci 95(1):5-12
6. Ekins S. 2004. Predicting undesirable drug interactions with promiscuous proteins in silica. Drug Discov Today 9(6):276-285.
7. Halperin I, Ma B, Wolfson H, Nussinov R. 2002. Principles of docking: an overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions. Proteins 47(4):409-443.
8. Hillisch A, Pineda LF, Hilgenfeld R. 2004. Utility of homology models in the drug discovery process. Drug Discov Today 9(15):659-669.
9. Hu L, Benson ML, Smith RD, Lamar MG, Carlson HA. 2005. Binding MOAD (mother of all databases). Proteins 60(3):333-340.
10. c5c: predicting ligand binding sites using the Connolly surface and degree of conservation. BMC Struct Biol 6:19; doi:10.1186/1472-6807-6-19 [Online 24 September 2006].
11. Ji ZL, Wang Y, Yu L, Han LY, Zhang CJ, Chan YZ. 2006. In silico search of putative adverse drug reaction related proteins as a potential tool for facilitating drug adverse effect prediction. Toxicol Lett 164(2):104-112.
12. Jolivette LJ, Ekins S. 2007. Methods for predicting human drug metabolism. Am Clin Chem 43:131-176.
13. Jorgensen WL. 2004. The many roles of computation in drug discovery. Science 303(5665):1813-1818.
14. Kuntz ID. 1992. Structure-based strategies for drug design and discovery. Science 257(5073):1078-1082.
15. Loging W, Harland L, Williams-Jones B. 2007. High-throughput electronic biology: mining information for drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Disc 6(3):220-230.
16. Macchiarulo A, Nobeli I, Thornton JM. 2004. Ligand selectivity and competition between enzymes in silica. Nat Biotechnol 22(8):1039-1045.
17. Matthews EJ, Kruhlak NL, Benz RD, Contrara JF, Rogers BA, Wolt MA, et al. 2005. DSSTox FDA Maximum (Recommended) Daily Dose Database (FDAMOD): SDF Files and Documentation. Updated version FDAMDD_v2b_1217_ 10Apr2006. Available: http://www.apa.gov/ncct/dsstox/ [accessed 1 September 2007].
18. Pardo L, Osman R, Weinstein H, Rabinowitz JR. 1993. Mechanisms of nucleophilic addition to activated double bonds: 1.2- and 1,4-Michael addition of ammonia. J Am Chem Soc 115:8263-8269.
19. Perry JL, Goldsmith MR, Petersoh MA, Beratan ON, Wozniak G, Rueker F, et al. 2004. Structure of the ochratoxin A binding site within human serum albumin. J Phys Chem B 108(43):16960-16964.
20. Prathipati P, Dixit A, Saxena AK. 2007. Computer-aided drug design: integration of structure-based and ligand-based approaches in drug design. Curr Comp Aid Drug Des 3(2):133-148.
21. Sousa SF, Fernandes PA, Ramos MJ. 2006. Protein-ligand docking: current status and future challenges. Proteins Struct Funct Bioinform 65:15-26.
22. Tong W, Perkins R, Xing L. Welsh WJ, Sheehan DM. 1997. OSAR models for binding of estrogenic compounds to estrogen receptor alpha and beta subtypes. Endocrinology 138(9):4022-4025.
23. U.S. EPA. 2003. A Framework for a Computational Toxicology Research Program in ORD. EPA/600/R-03/065. Washingion, DC:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
24. Waller CL, Oprea TI, Chao K, Park HK, Korach KS, Laws SC, et al. 1996. Lig and-based identification of environmental estrogens. Chem Res Toxicol 9(8):1240-1248.
25. Wang R, Fang X, Lu Y, Yang CY, Wang S. 2005. The PDBbind database: methodologies and updates. J Med Chem 48(12):4111-4119.
26. Wolf MA, Burch J, Richard AM. 2006. DSSTox EPA High Production Volume Challenge Program Structure-Index File: SDF File and Documentation. Updated version HPVCSI_v1b_3548_040ct2006. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ncct/dsstox/ [accessed 1 September 2007].
27. Zhou S, Chan E, Duan W, Huang M, Chan Y-Z. 2005. Drug bioactivation, covalent binding to target proteins and toxicity relevance. Drug Metab Rev 37(1):41-213.