The computational prediction of toxicological effects in regulatory contexts: Current use and future potential of (Q)SAR tools

Actualite Chimique

Volumn , Issue 335, 2009, Pages 52-59

  Mombelli, Enrico ^a   Ringeissen, Stéphanie ^b  

^a INSTITUT NATIONAL DE L ENVIRONNEMENT INDUSTRIEL ET DES RISQUES INERIS   (France)

^b Oréal R and D Life Sciences Division   (France)

Author keywords

(Q)SAR; Computational toxicology; In silico

Indexed keywords

EID: 74349100995     PISSN: 01519093     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Structural alert, also called toxicophores: molecular substructures which are known for having or modulating a toxicological effect. An example is given in figure 2.
2. Read-across: methodology based on the principle of toxicological analogy among chemicals whose physico-chemical, toxicological and ecotoxicological properties are likely to be similar or follow a regular pattern as a result of structural similarity.
3. A guidance document has recently been issued: www.oecd.org/document/23/0, 3343,en-2649-34377-33957015-1-1-1-37465,00.html
4. Computational models that describe the processes of uptake, distribution, metabolism and excretion of a xenobiotic in order to study its effects in the body over time.
5. Boelsterli U.A., Mechanistic Toxicology, Taylor and Francis, London and New York, 2003.
6. Tong W. ef al., Predicting chemical toxicity and fate, M.T.D. Cronin, D.J. Livingstone, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2004.
7. Mekenyan O.G., Dimitrov S.D., Pavlov T.S., Veith GD., A systematic approach to simulating metabolism in computational toxicology. I. The TIMES heuristic modelling framework, Curr. Pharm. Des., 2004, 10, p. 1273.
8. Dearden J.C., In silico prediction of drug toxicity, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des., 2003, 17, p. 119.
9. Hansch C., A quantitative approach to biochemical structure-activity relationships, Accounts of Chemical Research, 1969, 2, p. 232.
10. Kennedy K., Managing the drug discovery/development interface, Drug Discov. Today, 1997, 2, p. 436.
11. Russel W.M.S., Burch R.L., The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, Methuen, London, 1959.
12. European Commission, REACH (2007), http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ chemicals/reach/reach-intro.htm
13. van der Jagt K., Munn S., Tørsløv J., de Bruijn J., Alternative approaches can reduce the use of test animals under REACH, 2004, http://ihcp.jrc.cec.eu.int/docs/ecb/ Reducing-the-use-of-test-animals-under- REACH-IHCP-report.pdf
14. OECD, Guidance document on the validation of (quantitative)structure- activity relationships [(Q)SAR] models, 2007, www.oecd.org/dataoecd/ 55/35/38130292.pdf
15. [11] Worth A.P., Bassan A., de Bruijn J., Gallegos Saliner A., Netzeva T., Patlewicz G., Pavan M., Tsakovska I., Eisenreich S., The role of the European Chemicals Bureau in promoting the regulatory use of (Q)SAR methods, SAR QSAR Environ. Res., 2007, 18, p. 111. (Pubitemid 46264312)
16. OECD, Overview of the QSAR Application Toolbox, 2007, www.oecd.org/ LongAbstract/0,3425,fr-2649-34365-37850115-119669-1-1-1,00.html
17. US Environmental Protection Agency, www.epa.gov/ncct/dsstox/index.html
18. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Danish (Q)SAR Database, http://130.226.165.14/index.html
19. US FDA, CDER, ICSAS, www.fda.gov/CDER/Offices/OPS-IO/ICSAS.htm
20. de Wolf W., Comber M., Douben P., Gimeno S., Holt M., Leonard M., Lillicrap A., Sijm D., van Egmond R., Weisbrod A., Whale G., Animal use replacement, reduction and refinement: development of an integrated testing strategy for bioconcentration of chemicals in fish, lntegr. Environ. Assess. Manag., 2007, 3, p. 3.
21. ECETOC, Targeted Risk Assessment -Technical report N° 93, ECETOC, Brussels, 2004.
22. [18] Hewitt M., Madden J.C., Rowe P.H., Cronin M.T., Structure-based modelling in reproductive toxicology: (Q)SARs for the placental barrier, SAR QSAR Environ. Res., 2007, 18, p. 57. (Pubitemid 46262062)
23. Patlewicz G., Dimitrov S.D., Low L.K., Kern P.S., Dimitrova GD., Comber M.I., Aptula A.O., Phillips R.D., Niemela J., Madsen C., Wedebye E.B., Roberts D.W., Bailey P.T., Mekenyan O.G., TIMES-SS-a promising tool for the assessment of skin sensitization hazard. A characterization with respect to the OECD validation principles for (Q)SARs and an external evaluation for predictivity, Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 2007, 48, p. 225.
24. Benigni R., Bossa C., Netzeva T., Worth A., Collection and evaluation of (Q)SAR models for mutagenicity and carcinogenicity, EUR 22623 EN, 2007, http://ecb.jrc.it/qsar/publications
25. [21] Benigni R., Giuliani A., Putting the predictive toxicology challenge into perspective: reflections on the results, Bioinformatics, 2003, 19, p. 1194. (Pubitemid 36850211)
26. Ringeissen S., Note R., Dochez N., Flamand N., Ouedraogo-Arras G., Meunier J.R., Evaluation of (Q)SAR models for the prediction of mutagenicity potential, AATEX Special issue, 2007, p. 469.
27. [23] Simon-Hettich B., Rothfuss A., Steger-Hartmann T., Use of computer-assisted prediction of toxic effects of chemical substances, Toxicology, 2006, 224, p. 156. (Pubitemid 43912977)