In silico approaches to predicting cancer potency for risk assessment of genotoxic impurities in drug substances

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

Volumn 57, Issue 2-3, 2010, Pages 300-306

  Bercu, Joel P ^a   Morton, Stuart M ^a   Deahl, J Thom ^a   Gombar, Vijay K ^a   Callis, Courtney M ^a   van Lier, Robert B L ^a  

^a ELI LILLY AND COMPANY   (United States)

Author keywords

Cancer potency; Carcinogenicity; Genotoxic; Impurities; In silico; Pharmaceutical; TD50; Threshold of toxicological concern

Indexed keywords

CHLORAMBUCIL; CYANAZINE; OCHRATOXIN;

ARTICLE; CANCER RISK; CARCINOGENICITY; CHEMICAL CARCINOGENESIS; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; COMPUTER MODEL; COMPUTER PREDICTION; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROLLED STUDY; GENOTOXICITY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ANIMALS; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DRUG CONTAMINATION; FORECASTING; MICE; MODELS, THEORETICAL; MUTAGENS; NEOPLASMS; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; RATS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOFTWARE; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP;

EID: 77953479723     PISSN: 02732300     EISSN: 10960295     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2010.03.010     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Barlow S., Renwick A.G., Kleiner J., Bridges J.W., Busk L., Dybing E., Edler L., Eisenbrand G., Fink-Gremmels J., Knaap A., Kroes R., Liem D., Muller D.J., Page S., Rolland V., Schlatter J., Tritscher A., Tueting W., Wurtzen G. Risk assessment of substances that are both genotoxic and carcinogenic report of an International Conference organized by EFSA and WHO with support of ILSI Europe. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2006, 44:1636-1650.
2. Benfenati E., Benigni R., Demarini D.M., Helma C., Kirkland D., Martin T.M., Mazzatorta P., Ouédraogo-Arras G., Richard A.M., Schilter B., Schoonen W.G.E.J., Snyder R.D., Yang C. Predictive Models for Carcinogenicity and Mutagenicity: Frameworks, State-of-the-Art, and Perspectives 2009, vol. 27. Taylor & Francis, pp. 57-90.
3. Benz R.D. Toxicological and clinical computational analysis and the US FDA/CDER. Expert Opin. Drug Metab. Toxicol. 2007, 3:109-124.
4. Blackburn K., Stickney J.A., Carlson-Lynch H.L., McGinnis P.M., Chappell L., Felter S.P. Application of the threshold of toxicological concern approach to ingredients in personal and household care products. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2005, 43:249-259.
5. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, European Medicines Agency, 2007. Guideline on the Limits of Genotoxic Impurities. EMEA/CHMP/QWP/251344/2006. -last accessed March 9, 2010. http://www.ema.europa.eu/pdfs/human/swp/519902en.pdf.
6. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, European Medicines Agency, 2008. Question & Answers on the CHMP Guideline on the Limits of Genotoxic Impurities. EMEA/CHMP/SWP/431994/2007. -last accessed March 9, 2010. http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/swp/43199407en.pdf.
7. Delaney E.J. An impact analysis of the application of the threshold of toxicological concern concept to pharmaceuticals. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2007, 49:107-124.
8. Dobo K.L., Greene N., Cyr M.O., Caron S., Ku W.W. The application of structure-based assessment to support safety and chemistry diligence to manage genotoxic impurities in active pharmaceutical ingredients during drug development. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2006, 44:282-293.
9. Gaylor D.W., Chen J.J., Sheehan D.M. Uncertainty in cancer risk estimates. Risk Anal. 1993, 13:149-154.
10. Gaylor D.W., Gold L.S. Quick estimate of the regulatory virtually safe dose based on the maximum tolerated dose for rodent bioassays. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 1995, 22:57-63.
11. Golbraikh A., Tropsha A. Beware of q2!. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 2002, 20:269-276.
12. Gold L.S., Manley N.B., Slone T.H., Rohrbach L. Supplement to the Carcinogenic Potency Database (CPDB): results of animal bioassays published in the general literature in 1993 to 1994 and by the National Toxicology Program in 1995 to 1996. Environ. Health Perspect. 1999, 107(Suppl. 4):527-600.
13. Gold L.S., Manley N.B., Slone T.H., Rohrbach L., Garfinkel G.B. Supplement to the Carcinogenic Potency Database (CPDB): results of animal bioassays published in the general literature through 1997 and by the National Toxicology Program in 1997-1998. Toxicol. Sci. 2005, 85:747-808.
14. Gold L.S., Sawyer C.B., Magaw R., Backman G.M., de V.M., Levinson R., Hooper N.K., Havender W.R., Bernstein L., Peto R. A carcinogenic potency database of the standardized results of animal bioassays. Environ. Health Perspect. 1984, 58:9-319.
15. Gold L.S., Slone T.H., Manley N.B., Garfinkel G.B., Hudes E.S., Rohrbach L., Ames B.N. The Carcinogenic Potency Database: analyses of 4000 chronic animal cancer experiments published in the general literature and by the U.S. National Cancer Institute/National Toxicology Program. Environ. Health Perspect. 1991, 96:11-15.
16. Gold L.S., Slone T.H., Stern B.R., Manley N.B., Ames B.N. Rodent carcinogens: setting priorities. Science 1992, 258:261-265.
17. Gombar V.K., Enslein K. Use of predictive toxicology in the design of new chemicals. Computer-aided Molecular Design. Applications in Agrochemicals, Materials, and Pharmaceuticals 1995, vol. 236-249. ACS, Washington, DC. C.H. Reynolds (Ed.).
18. Gombar V.K., Mattioni B.E., Zwickl C., Deahl T. Computational approaches for assessment of toxicity-a historical perspective and current status. Computational Toxicology: Risk Assessment for Pharmaceuticals and Environmental Chemicals 2007, 183-215. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ. S. Elkins (Ed.).
19. Gombar V.K., Polli J.W., Humphreys J.E., Wring S.A., Serabjit-Singh C.S. Predicting P-glycoprotein substrates by a quantitative structure-activity relationship model. J. Pharm. Sci. 2004, 93:957-968.
20. Gombar, V. K., Zhang, H., 2007. VISDOM -Visual In Silico Design Of Molecules -A Web-based Predictive Modeling Tool. (In- house software, Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, IN 46285).
21. Hall L., Mohney B., Kier L. The electrotopological state: structure information at the atomic level. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1991, 31:76-82.
22. Hayashi M., Kamata E., Hirose A., Takahashi M., Morita T., Ema M. In silico assessment of chemical mutagenesis in comparison with results of Salmonella microsome assay on 909 chemicals. Mutat. Res. 2005, 588:129-135.
23. Humfrey C.D. Recent developments in the risk assessment of potentially genotoxic impurities in pharmaceutical drug substances. Toxicol. Sci. 2007, 100:24-28.
24. International Conference on Harmonisation, 2006a. Q3A(R2): Impurities in New Drug Substances. -last accessed March 9, 2010. http://www.ich.org/LOB/media/MEDIA422.pdf.
25. International Conference on Harmonisation, 2006b. Q3B(R2): Impurities in New Drug Products. -last accessed March 9, 2010. http://www.ich.org/MediaServer.jser?@_ID=421&@_MODE=GLB.
26. Klopman G. Artificial intelligence approach to structure-activity studies. Computer automated structure evaluation of biological activity of organic molecules. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1984, 106:7315-7321.
27. Klopman G. MULTICASE. 1. A hierarchical computer automated structure evaluation program. Quant. Struct.-Act. Relat. 1992, 11:176-184.
28. Krewski D., Szyszkowicz M., Rosenkranz H. Quantitative factors in chemical carcinogenesis: variation in carcinogenic potency. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 1990, 12:13-29.
29. Kroes R., Kozianowski G. Threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) in food safety assessment. Toxicol. Lett. 2002, 127:43-46.
30. Kroes R., Renwick A.G., Cheeseman M., Kleiner J., Mangelsdorf I., Piersma A., Schilter B., Schlatter J., van S.F., Vos J.G., Wurtzen G. Structure-based thresholds of toxicological concern (TTC): guidance for application to substances present at low levels in the diet. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2004, 42:65-83.
31. Lipinski C.A. Drug-like properties and the causes of poor solubility and poor permeability. J. Pharmacol. Toxicol. Methods 2000, 44:235-249.
32. Matthews E.J., Contrera J.F. A new highly specific method for predicting the carcinogenic potential of pharmaceuticals in rodents using enhanced MCASE QSAR-ES software. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 1998, 28:242-264.
33. Matthews E.J., Contrera J.F. In silico approaches to explore toxicity end points: issues and concerns for estimating human health effects. Expert Opin. Drug Metab. Toxicol. 2007, 3:125-134.
34. Matthews E.J., Kruhlak N.L., Benz R.D., Contrera J.F., Marchant C.A. Combined use of MC4PC, MDL-QSAR, BioEpisteme, Leadscope PDM, and Derek for Windows software to achieve high performance, high confidence, mode of action-based predictions of chemical carcinogenesis in rodents. Toxicol. Mech. Methods 2008, 18:189-206.
35. Matthews E.J., Kruhlak N.L., Cimino M.C., Benz R.D., Contrera J.F. An analysis of genetic toxicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, and carcinogenicity data: II. Identification of genotoxicants, reprotoxicants, and carcinogens using in silico methods. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2006, 44:97-110.
36. Matthews E.J., Ursem C.J., Kruhlak N.L., Benz R.D., Sabaté D.A., Yang C., Klopman G., Contrera J.F. Identification of structure-activity relationships for adverse effects of pharmaceuticals in humans: Part B. Use of (Q)SAR systems for early detection of drug-induced hepatobiliary and urinary tract toxicities. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2009, 54:23-42.
37. Mayer J., Cheeseman M.A., Twaroski M.L. Structure-activity relationship analysis tools: validation and applicability in predicting carcinogens. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2008, 50:50-58.
38. Müller L., Mauthe R.J., Riley C.M., Andino M.M., Antonis D.D., Beels C., DeGeorge J., De Knaep A.G., Ellison D., Fagerland J.A., Frank R., Fritschel B., Galloway S., Harpur E., Humfrey C.D., Jacks A.S., Jagota N., Mackinnon J., Mohan G., Ness D.K., O'Donovan M.R., Smith M.D., Vudathala G., Yotti L. A rationale for determining, testing, and controlling specific impurities in pharmaceuticals that possess potential for genotoxicity. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2006, 44:198-211.
39. Munro I.C., Kennepohl E., Kroes R. A procedure for the safety evaluation of flavouring substances. Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. Food Chem. Toxicol. 1999, 37:207-232.
40. Peto R., Pike M.C., Bernstein L., Gold L.S., Ames B.N. The TD50: a proposed general convention for the numerical description of the carcinogenic potency of chemicals in chronic-exposure animal experiments. Environ. Health Perspect. 1984, 58:1-8.
41. Sawyer C., Peto R., Bernstein L., Pike M.C. Calculation of carcinogenic potency from long-term animal carcinogenesis experiments. Biometrics 1984, 40:27-40.
42. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2005. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. EPA/630/P-03/001B. -last accessed March 9, 2010. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=116283.
43. United States Food and Drug Administration: Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, 2008. Guidance for Industry: Genotoxic and Carcinogenic Impurities in Drug Substances and Products: Recommended Approaches. -last accessed March 9, 2010. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformati on/Guidances/ucm079235.pdf.
44. Venkatapathy R., Wang C.Y., Bruce R.M., Moudgal C. Development of quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models to predict the carcinogenic potency of chemicals: I. Alternative toxicity measures as an estimator of carcinogenic potency. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 2009, 234:209-221.
45. Votano J.R., Parham M., Hall L.H., Kier L.B., Oloff S., Tropsha A., Xie Q., Tong W. Three new consensus QSAR models for the prediction of Ames genotoxicity. Mutagenesis 2004, 19:365-377.
46. White A.C., Mueller R.A., Gallavan R.H., Aaron S., Wilson A.G. A multiple in silico program approach for the prediction of mutagenicity from chemical structure. Mutat. Res. 2003, 539:77-89.