Food for thought... on in silico methods in toxicology

Altex

Volumn 26, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 155-166

  Hartung, Thomas ^a,b   Hoffmann, Sebastian ^c  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KONSTANZ   (Germany)

^c T V Rheinland Industrie Service GmbH   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DRUG;

ANIMAL TESTING ALTERNATIVE; ARTICLE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EXPERT SYSTEM; FACTUAL DATABASE; METHODOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY; RESEARCH; TOXICOLOGY;

ANIMAL TESTING ALTERNATIVES; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATABASES, FACTUAL; EXPERT SYSTEMS; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH; SOFTWARE; TOXICOLOGY;

EID: 73949095137     PISSN: 1868596X     EISSN: 18688551     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.14573/altex.2009.3.155     Document Type: Review

References (68)

1. Benigni, R. and Giuliani, A. (2003). Putting the predictive toxicology challenge into perspective: reflections on the results. Bioinformatics 19, 1194-1200.
2. Benigni, R. and Zito, R. (2004). The second national toxicology program comparative exercise on the prediction of rodent carcinogenicity: definitive results. Mut. Res. 566, 49-63.
3. Bottini, A. A. and Hartung, T. (2009). Food for thought... on economics of animal testing. ALTEX 26, 3-16.
4. Box, G. E. P. (1979). Robustness in the strategy of scientific model building. In R. L. Launer and G. N. Wilkinson (eds.), Robustness in Statistics, 202. New York: Academic Press.
5. Bremer, S., Pellizzer, C., Hoffmann, S. et al. (2007). The development of new concepts for assessing reproductive toxicity applicable to large scale toxicological programs. Curr. Pharm. Des. 13, 3047-3058.
6. Cronin, M. T. D. (2000). Computational methods for the prediction of drug toxicity. Curr. Opin. Drug Disc. Develop. 3, 292-297.
7. Cronin, M. T. D., Jaworska, J., Walker, J. D. et al. (2003). Use of QSAR in International decision-making frameworks to predict health effects of chemical substances. Env. Health Persp., 111, 1391-1401.
8. Dearden, J. C. (2007). In silico prediction of ADMET properties: how far have we come? Expert Opin. Drug Metab. Toxicol. 3, 635-639.
9. Devillers, J. (2008). Artificial neural network modeling in environmental toxicology. In D. S. Livingstone (ed.), Artificial neuronal networks: methods and protocols, 61-80. New York: Humana Press.
10. Doweyko, A. (2004). 3D-QSAR illusions. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design 18, 587-596.
11. Durham, S. K. and Pearl, G. M. (2001). Computational methods to predict drug safety liabilities. Curr. Opin. Drug Disc. Develop. 4, 110-115.
12. Eriksson, L., Jaworska, J., Worth, A. P. et al. (2003). Methods for reliability and uncertainty assessment and for applicability evaluations of classifications- and regression-based QSARs. Env. Health Persp. 111, 1361-1375.
13. Gerner, I., Spielmann, H., Hoefer, T. et al. (2004). Regulatory use of (Q)SARs in toxicological hazard assessment strategies. SAR and QSAR Env. Res. 15, 359-366.
14. Golbraikh, A. and Tropsha, A. (2002). Beware of q2. J. Mol. Graphics Modelling 20, 269-276.
15. Greene, N. and Naven, R. (2009). Early toxicity screening strategies. Curr. Opin. Drug Disc. Develop. 12, 90-97.
16. Greene, N. (2002). Computer systems for the prediction of toxicity: an update. Adv. Drug Delivery rev. 54, 417-431.
17. Hartung, T. (2009a). Food for thought... on evidence-based toxicology. ALTEX 26, 75-82.
18. Hartung, T. (2009b). Toxicology for the twenty-first century. Nature 460, 208-212.
19. Hartung, T. and Rovida, C. (2009). Chemical regulators have overreached. Nature 460 , 1080-1081.
20. Hartung, T. and Daston, G. (2009). Are in vitro tests suitable for regulatory use? Tox. Sci., in press.
21. Hartung, T. (2008a). Towards a new toxicology - evolution or revolution? ATLA - Altern. Lab. Anim. 36, 635-639.
22. Hartung, T. (2008b). Food for thought... on animal tests. ALTEX 25, 3-9.
23. Hartung, T. and Leist, M. (2008). Food for thought... on the evolution of toxicology and phasing out of animal testing. ALTEX 25, 91-96.
24. Hartung, T. (2007). Food for thought... on validation. ALTEX 24, 67-72.
25. Hartung, T., Bremer, S., Casati, S. et al. (2004). A Modular Approach to the ECVAM principles on test validity. ATLA - Altern. Lab. Anim. 32, 467-472.
26. Hawkins, D. (2004). The problem of overfitting. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 44, 1-12.
27. Helma, C. (2005). In silico predictive toxicology: the state-of-the- art and strategies to predict human health effects. Curr. Opin. Drug Disc. Develop. 8, 27-31.
28. Helma, C. and Kramer, S. (2003). A survey of the predictive toxicology challenge 2000-2001. Bioinformatics 19, 1179-1182.
29. Hoffmann, S. and Hartung, T. (2006). Towards an evidence-based toxicology. Human Exp Toxicol 25 , 497-513.
30. Hoffmann, S., Luderitz-Puchel, U., Montag-Lessing, U. and Hartung, T. (2005). Optimisation of pyrogen testing in parenterals according to different pharmacopoeias by probabilistic modelling. J. Endotoxin Res. 11 , 25-31.
31. Hrovat, M., Segner, H. and Jeram, S. (2009). Variability of in vivo fish acute toxicity data. Regulat. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 54, 294-300.
32. Huynh, L., Masereeuw, R., Friedberg, T. et al. (2009). In silico platform for xenobiotics ADME-T pharmacological properties modelling and prediction. Part I: beyond the reduction of animal use. Drug Disc. Today 14, 401-405.
33. Jaworska, J. S., Comber, M., Auer, C. and van Leeuwen, C. J. (2003). Summary of a workshop on regulatory acceptance of (Q)SARs for human health and environmental endpoint. Env. Health Persp. 111, 1358-1360.
34. Julien, E., Willhite, C. C., Richard, A. M. and DeSesso, J. M. (2004). Challenges in constructing statistically based structure- activity relationship models for developmental toxicity. Birth Defects Res. 70, 902-911.
35. Kavlock, R. J., Ankley, G., Blancato, J. et al. (2008). Computational toxicology - a state of the science mini review. Toxicol. Sci. 103, 14-27.
36. Kennedy, T. (1997). Managing the drug discovery/development interface. Drug Discov. Today 2, 436-444.
37. Kubinyi, H., Hamprecht, F.A. and Mietzner, T. (1998). Three-dimensional quantitative similarity-activity relationships (3D QSiAR) from SEAL similarity matrices. J. Med. Chem. 41, 2553-2564.
38. Kubinyi, H. (2004). Validation and predictivity of QSAR models. http://www.kubinyi.de/istanbul-2004-manuscript.pdf
39. Leist, M., Hartung, T. and Nicotera, P. (2008). The dawning of a new age of toxicology. ALTEX 25, 103-114.
40. Lessigiarska, I., Wort, A. P., Sokoll-kluettgen, B. et al. (2004). QSAR investigation of a large data set for fish, algae and Daphnia toxicity. SAR and QSAR Env. Res. 15, 413-431.
41. Lombardo, F., Gifford, E. and Shalaeva, M. Y. (2003). In silico ADME prediction: data, models, facts and myths. Mini Rev. Medicin. Chem. 3, 861-875.
42. Matthews, E. J., Kruhlak, N. L., Cimino, M. C. et al. (2006). An analysis of genetic toxicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity and carcinogenicity data: II. Identification of genotoxicants, reprotoxicants, and carcinogens using in silico methods. Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 44, 97-110.
43. Matthews, E. J., Kruhlak, N. L., Benz, D. R et al. (2007). A comprehensive model for reproductive and developmental toxicity hazard identification: II. Construction of QSAR models to predict activities of untested chemicals. Regult. Tox. Pharmacol. 47, 136-155.
44. McDowell, R. M. and Jaworska, J. S. (2002). Bayesian analysis and interference from QSAR predicitive model results. SAR and QSAR Env. Res. 13, 111-125.
45. Merlot, C. (2008). In silico methods for early toxicity assessment. Curr. Opin. Drug Disc. Develop. 11 , 80-85.
46. National Research Council (2007). Models in environmental regulatory decision making. Washington: The National Academies Press.
47. Netzeva, T. I., Worth, A. P ., Aldenburg, T. et al. (2005). Current status of methods defining the applicability domain of (quantitative) structure-activity relationships - the report and recommendations of ECVAM workshop 52. ATLA 33, 1-19.
48. Nigsch, F., Macaluso, N. J. M., Mitchell, J. B. O. and Zmuidinavicius, D. (2009). Computational toxicology: an overview of the sources of data and of modelling methods. Expert Opin. Drug Metab. Toxicol. 5, 1-14.
49. Nikolova, N. and Jaworska, J. (2003). Approaches to measure chemical similarity - a review. QSAR Comb. Sci. 22, 1006-1026.
50. Pilkey, O. H. and Pilkey-Jarvis, L. (2007). Useless arithmetic - why environmental scientists can't predict the future. New York: Columbia University Press.
51. Puopolo, M. (2004). Biostatistical approaches to reducing the number of animals used in biomedical research. Ann. Ist. Super. Sanita 40, 157-163.
52. Richard, A. M., Gold, L. S. and Nicklaus, M. C. (2006). Chemical structure indexing of toxicity data on the internet: moving toward a flat world. Curr. Opin. Drug Disc. Develop. 9, 314-325.
53. Richard, A. M., Yang, C. and Judson, R. S. (2008). Toxicity data informatics: supporting a new paradigm for toxicity prediction. Toxicol. Mech. Meth. 18, 103-118.
54. Rovida, C., and Hartung T. (2009). Re-evaluation of animal numbers and costs for in vivo tests to accomplish REACH legislation requirements for chemicals. ALTEX 26, this issue.
55. Simon-Hettich, B., Rothfuss, A. and Steger-Hartmann, T. (2006). Use of computer-assisted prediction of toxic effects of chemical substances. Toxicol. 22, 156-162.
56. Todeschini, R. and Consonni, V. (2000). Handbook of molecular properties. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH Verlag.
57. Toivonen, H., Srinivasan, A., King, R. D., Kramer, S. and Helma, C. (2003). Statistical evaluation of the predictive toxicology challenge 2000-2001. Bioinformatics 19, 1183-1193.
58. Topliss, J. G. and Costello, R. J. (1972). Chance correlations in structure-activity studies using multiple regression analysis. J. Med. Chem. 15 , 1066-1068.
59. Unger, S. H. and Hansch, C. (1973). On model building in structure-activity relationships. A reexamination of adrenergic blocking activity of â-halo-â-arylalkylamines. J. Med. Chem. 16, 745-749.
60. Van de Waterbeemd, H. (2002). High-throughput and in silico techniques in drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics. Curr. Opin. Drug Disc. Developm. 5, 33-43.
61. Van de Waterbeemd, H. and Gifford, E. (2003). ADMET in silico modelling: towards prediction paradise? Nature Rev. Drug Disc. 2, 192-204.
62. Vedani, A., Dobler, M. and Lill, M. A. (2005). In silico prediction of harmful effects triggered by drugs and chemicals. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 207, Suppl. 1, 398-407.
63. Vedani, A., Dobler, M., Spreafico, M. et al. (2007). Virtual- ToxLab - in silico prediction of theHartung toxic potential of drugs and environmental chemicals: evaluation status and internet access protocol. ALTEX 24, 153-161.
64. Veith, G. D. (2004). On the nature, evolution and future of quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR) in toxicology. SAR and QSAR Env. Res. 15, 323-330.
65. Walker, J. D., Carlesen, L., Hulzebos, E. and Simon-Hettich, B. (2002). Global government applications of analogues, SARs and QSARs to predict aquatic toxicity, chemical or physical properties, environmental fate and health effects of organic chemicals. SAR and QSAR Env. Res. 13, 607-616.
66. Worth, A. P., Hartung, T. and Van Leeuwen, C. J. (2004a). The role of the European centre for the validation of alternative methods (ECVAM) in the validation of (Q)SARs. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 15, 345-358.
67. Worth, A. P., Van Leeuwen, C. J. and Hartung, T. (2004b). The prospects for using (Q)SARs in a changing political environment - high expectations and a key role for the European Commission's joint research centre. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 15, 331-343.
68. Yuan, H., Wang, Y. and Cheng, Y. (2007). Local and global Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship modeling and prediction for the baseline toxicity. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 47, 159-169.