A novel approach using hierarchical clustering to select industrial chemicals for environmental impact assessment

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Volumn 50, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 30-36

  Rännar, Stefan ^a   Andersson, Patrik L ^a  

^a UMEÅ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS; INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS; ORGANIC CHEMICALS;

ALTERNATIVE STRUCTURE; HIGH-VOLUME PRODUCTION; ORGANIC SUBSTANCES;

HIERARCHICAL CLUSTERING;

ARTICLE; CHEMISTRY; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; DRUG SCREENING; ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENT; INDUSTRY; METHODOLOGY; POLLUTANT; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS;

CLUSTER ANALYSIS; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; ENVIRONMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTANTS; INDUSTRY; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS;

EID: 75749143865     PISSN: 15499596     EISSN: 1549960X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci9003255     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Shoichet, B. K. Virtual screening of chemical libraries. Nature 2004, 432, 862-865.
2. Taylor, R. Simulation analysis of experimental design strategies for screening random compounds as potential new drugs and agrochemicals.J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1995, 35, 59-67.
3. Golbraikh, A.; Tropsha, A. Predictive QSAR modeling based on diversity sampling of experimental datasets for the training and test set selection. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2002, 16, 357-369. (Pubitemid 35414668)
4. oc prediction.J. Mol. Graphics Modell. 2007, 25, 755-766.
5. Oberg, T. A QSAR for Tth hydroxyl radical reaction rate constant: validation, domain of application, and prediction. Atmos. Environ. 2005, 39, 2189-2200. (Pubitemid 40544370)
6. Brown, T. N.; Wania, F. Screening chemicals for the potential to be persistent organic pollutants: A case study of arctic contaminants. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 5202-5209.
7. Stenberg, M.; Linusson, A.; Tysklind, M.; Andersson, P. L. A multivariate chemical map of industrial chemicals - Assessment of various protocols for identification of chemicals of potential concern. Chemosphere 2009, 76, 878-884.
8. Knekta, E.; Andersson, P. L.; Johansson, M.; Tysklind, M. An overview of OSPAR priority compounds and selection of a representative training set. Chemosphere 2004, 57, 1495-1503. (Pubitemid 39422329)
9. Willett, P.; Barnard, J. M.; Downs, G. M. Chemical similarity searching. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 1998, 38, 983-996.
10. Auer, J.; Bajorath, J. Emerging chemical patterns: A new methodology for molecular classification and compound selection. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 46, 2502-2514. (Pubitemid 46008122)
11. Golbraikh, A; Shen, M.; Xiao, Z.; Xiao, Y.-D.; Lee, K.-H.; Tropsha, A. Rational selection of training and test sets for the development of validated QSAR models.J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2003, 17, 241-253. (Pubitemid 37062785)
12. Pötter, T.; Matter, H. Random or rational design? Evaluation of diverse compound subsets from chemical structure databases. J. Med. Chem. 1998, 41, 478-488. (Pubitemid 28093083)
13. Tropsha,A.;Gramatica,P.;Gombar,V.KTheimportanceofbeingearnest: Validationistheabsoluteessentialforsuccessfulapplication andinterpretationofQSPRmodels.QSARComb.Sci.2003,22,69-77.(Pubitemid36717473)
14. Schultz, T. W.; Netzeva, T. L.; Cronin, M. T. D. Selection of data sets for QSARs: Analyses of Tetrahymena toxicity from aromatic compounds. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 2003, 14, 59-81.
15. Öberg, T. Virtual screening for environmental pollutants: structureactivity relationships applied to a database of industrial chemicals. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 25, 1178-1183. (Pubitemid 46100064)
16. Stenberg, M.; Andersson, P. L. Selection of non-dioxin-like PCBs for in vitro testing on the basis of environmental abundance and molecular structure. Chemosphere 2008, 71, 1909-1915.
17. Sköld, C; Winiwarter, S.; Wernevik, J.; Bergström, F.; Engström, L.; Allen, R.; Box, K.; Comer, J.; Mole, J.; Hallberg, A.; Lennernäs, H.; Lundstedt, T.; Ungell, A.-L.; Karlen, A. Presentation of a structurally divers and commercially available drug data set for correlation and benchmarking studies. J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 6660-6671.
18. Wu, W.; Walczak, B.; Massart, D. L.; Heuerding, S.; Erni, F.; Last, I. R.; Prebble, K. A. Artificial neural networks in classification of NIR spectral data: Design of the training set. Chemom. Intell. Lab. 1996, 33, 35-46. (Pubitemid 26168648)
19. Eriksson, L.; Andersson, P. L.; Johansson, E.; Tysklind, M. Megavariate analysis of environmental QSAR data. Part I - A basic framework founded on principal component analysis (PCA), partial least squares (PLS), and statistical molecular design (SMD). Mol. Diversity 2006, 10, 169-186. (Pubitemid 44092207)
20. Snarey, M.; Terrett, N. K.; Willet, P.; Wilton, D. J. Comparison of algorithms for dissimilarity-based compound selection. J. MoI. Graphics Modell. 1997, 15, 372-385.
21. Jackson, J. E. A User's Guide to Principal Components; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York, NY, 1991.
22. Kohonen, T. Self-Organizing Maps; Springer: New York, NY, 1995.
23. Harju, M.; Andersson, P. L.; Haglund, P.; Tysklind, M. Multivariate physicochemical characterisation and quantitative structure-property relationship modeling of polybrominated diphenyl ethers. Chemosphere 2002, 47, 375-384. (Pubitemid 34272918)
24. Box, G. E. P.; Hunter, W. G.; Hunter, J. S. Statistics for Experimenters; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York, NY, 1978.
25. De Aguiar, P. F.; Bourguignon, B.; Khots, M. S.; Massait, D. L.; PhanThan-Luu, R. D-optimal designs. Chemom. Intell. Lab. 1995, 30, 199210.
26. Olsson, I. M.; Gottfries, J.; Wold, S. D-optimal onion designs in statistical molecular design. Chemom. Intell. Lab. 2004, 73, 37-46. (Pubitemid 39198946)
27. Olsson, I. M.; Gottfries, J.; Wold, S. Controlling coverage of D-optimal onion designs and selections. J. Chemom. 2004, 18, 548-557. (Pubitemid 40830845)
28. Harju, M.; Hamers, T.; Kamstra, J. H.; Sonneveld, E.; Boon, J. P.; Tysklind, M.; Andersson, P. L. Quantitative structure-activity relationship modeling on in vitro endocrine effects and metabolic stability involving 26 selected brominated flame retardants. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2007, 26, 816-826.
29. Papa, E.; Fick, J.; Lindberg, R.; Johansson, M.; Gramatica, P.; Andersson, P. L. Multivariate chemical mapping of antibiotics and identification of structurally representative substances. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, ,1653-1661.
30. Andersson, P. L.; Oberg, K.; Öm, U. Chemical characterization of brominated flame retardants and identification of structurally representative compounds. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2006, 25, 1275-1282.
31. Eriksson, L.; Johansson, E.; Müller, M.; Wold, S. On the selection of the training set in environmental QSAR analysis when compounds are clustered. J. Chemom. 2000, 14, 599-616.
32. Nikolova,N.;Jaworska,J.Approaches-measurechemicalsimilarity-areview. QSARComb.Sci.2003,22,1006-1026.(Pubitemid38200482)
33. Chemitecs. Organic Chemicals Emitted from Technosphere Articles. http://www.chemitecs.se (accessed Aug 3, 2009).
34. Muir, D. C. G.; Howard, P. H. Are there other persistent organic pollutants? A challenge for environmental chemists. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, 7157-7166.
35. European Commission, Joint Research Centre. ESIS: European chemical Substancese Information System http://ecb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/esis/ (accessed March 17, 2008).
36. Molecular Operating Environment (MOE), 2006.08; Chemical Computing Group: Quebec, Canada, 2006.
37. Exposure Assessment Tools and Models, Estimation Program Interface (EPI) Suite, version 3.20; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Exposure Assessment Branch: Washington, DC, 2008.
38. SIMCA-P+, version 12.0; Umetrics AB: Umeå, Sweden, 2008.
39. Ward, J. H. Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1963, 58, 236-244.