Domain of EPI suite biotransformation models

SAR and QSAR in Environmental Research

Volumn 21, Issue 5-6, 2010, Pages 415-443

  Boethling, R S ^a   Costanza, J ^a  

^a U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

Author keywords

Applicability domain; Biodegradation; Biotransformation; Biowin; EPI Suite ; QSAR

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL CHEMISTRY; MEAN SQUARE ERROR; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS;

APPLICABILITY DOMAIN; BIOTRANSFORMATION; BIOWIN; DESCRIPTORS; DOMAIN METHODS; EPI SUITE™; PERFORMANCE; PREDICTIVE ACCURACY; QSAR; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIPS;

BIODEGRADATION;

EID: 77956416097     PISSN: 1062936X     EISSN: 1029046X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/1062936X.2010.501816     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. J. Jaworska, M. Comber, C. Van Leeuwen, and C. Auer, Summary of the workshop on regulatory acceptance of QSARs, Environ. Health Perspect. 111 (2003), pp. 1358-1360.
2. OECD, The principles for establishing the status of development and validation of (quantitative) structure-activity relationships [(Q)SARs], ENV/JM/TG(2004)27, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Environment Directorate, Joint Meeting of the Chemicals Committee and the Working Party on Chemicals, Pesticides and Biotechnology, 2004.
3. OECD, Guidance document on the validation of (quantitative) structure activity relationship [(Q)SAR] models, ENV/JM/MONO(2007)2, OECD Series on Testing and Assessment No. 69. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, 2007. Available at http://www.oecd.org/
4. T.I. Netzeva, A. Worth, T. Aldenberg, R. Benigni, M.T. Cronin, P. Gramatica, J.S. Jaworska, S. Kahn, G. Klopman, C.A. Marchant, G. Myatt, N. Nikolova-Jeliazkova, G.Y. Patlewicz, R. Perkins, D. Roberts, and T. Schultz, Current status of methods for defining the applicability domain of (quantitative) structure-activity relationships. The report and recommendations of ECVAM Workshop 52, ATLA 33 (2005), pp. 155-173.
5. N. Nikolova and J. Jaworska, Review of chemical similarity measures, QSAR Comb. Sci. 22 (2003), pp. 1006-1026.
6. J. Jaworska, N. Nikolova-Jeliazkova, and T. Aldenberg, QSAR applicability domain estimation by projection of the training set in descriptor space: A review, ATLA 33 (2005), pp. 445-459.
7. N. Nikolova-Jeliazkova and J. Jaworska, An approach to determining AD for QSAR group contribution models: An analysis of SRC KOWWIN, ATLA 33 (2005), pp. 461-470.
8. P. Gramatica, Principles of QSAR models validation: Internal and external, QSAR Comb. Sci. 26 (2007), pp. 694-701.
9. S. Weaver and M.P. Gleeson, The importance of the domain of applicability in QSAR modeling, J. Mol. Graphics Modell. 26 (2008), pp. 1315-1326.
10. A.K. Debnath, G. Debnath, A.J. Shusterman, and C. Hansch, A QSAR investigation of the role of hydrophobicity in regulating mutagenicity in the Ames test: 1. Mutagenicity of aromatic and heteroaromatic amines in Salmonella typhimurium TA98 and TA100, Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 19 (1992), pp. 37-52.
11. C. Glende, H. Schmitt, L. Erdinger, G. Engelhardt, and G. Boche, Transformation of mutagenic aromatic amines into non-mutagenic species by alkyl substituents. Part I. Alkylation ortho to the amino function, Mutat. Res. Gen. Tox. En. 498 (2001), pp. 19-37.
12. W.M. Meylan and P.H. Howard, Atom/fragment contribution method for estimating octanol- water partition coefficients, J. Pharm. Sci. 84 (1995), pp. 83-92.
13. W. Meylan, R. Boethling, D. Aronson, P. Howard, and J. Tunkel, Chemical structure-based predictive model for methanogenic anaerobic biodegradation potential, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26 (2007), pp. 1785-1792.
14. P. Howard, W. Meylan, D. Aronson, W. Stiteler, J. Tunkel, M. Comber, and T.F. Parkerton, A new biodegradation prediction model specific to petroleum hydrocarbons, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 24 (2005), pp. 1847-1860.
15. J.A. Arnot and F.A.P.C. Gobas, A generic QSAR for assessing the bioaccumulation potential of organic chemicals in aquatic food webs, QSAR Comb. Sci. 22 (2003), pp. 337-345.
16. J.A. Arnot, W. Meylan, J. Tunkel, P.H. Howard, D. Mackay, M. Bonnell, and R.S. Boethling, A quantitative structure-activity relationship for predicting metabolic biotransformation rates for organic chemicals in fish, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 28 (2009), pp. 1168-1177.
17. J.R. Niemela, E.B. Wedebye, N.G. Nikolov, G.E. Jensen, T. Ringsted, F. Ingerslev, H. Tyle, and C. Ihlemann, The Advisory List for Self-Classification of Dangerous Substances, Environmental Project No. 1303, The Danish Environmental Protection Agency, 2009. Available at http://www2.mst.dk/common/Udgivramme/Frame.asp?http://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2009/978-87-92548-56-6/html/kap04_eng.htm
18. M. Pavan and A.P. Worth, Review of estimation models for biodegradation, QSAR Comb. Sci. 27 (2008), pp. 32-40.
19. A. Bender, H.Y. Mussa, and R.C. Glen, Molecular similarity using atom environments, information-based feature selection, and a naïve Bayesian classifier, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 44 (2004), pp. 170-178.
20. J. Jaworska and N. Nikolova-Jeliazkova, How can structural similarity analysis help in category formation? SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 18 (2007), pp. 195-207.
21. J.A. Arnot, D. Mackay, and M. Bonnell, Estimating metabolic biotransformation rates in fish from laboratory data, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 27 (2008), pp. 341-351.
22. J.A. Arnot, D. Mackay, T.F. Parkerton, and M. Bonnell, A database of fish biotransformation rates for organic chemicals, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 27 (2008), pp. 2263-2270.
23. R.S. Boethling, P.H. Howard, W. Meylan, W. Stiteler, J. Beauman, and N. Tirado, Group contribution method for predicting probability and rate of aerobic biodegradation, Environ. Sci. Technol. 28 (1994), pp. 459-465.
24. J. Tunkel, P.H. Howard, R.S. Boethling, W. Stiteler, and H. Loonen, Predicting ready biodegradability in the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry test, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 19 (2000), pp. 2478-2485.
25. D. Aronson, R. Boethling, P. Howard, and W. Stiteler, Estimating biodegradation half-lives for use in chemical screening, Chemosphere 63 (2006), pp. 1953-1960.
26. R.S. Boethling, D.G. Lynch, J.S. Jaworska, J.L. Tunkel, G.C. Thom, and S. Webb, Using Biowin, Bayes, and batteries to predict ready biodegradability, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 23 (2004), pp. 911-920.
27. R.S. Boethling, D.G. Lynch, and G.C. Thom, Predicting ready biodegradability of Premanufacture Notice chemicals, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 22 (2003), pp. 837-844.
28. J. Tunkel, K. Mayo, C. Austin, A. Hickerson, and P. Howard, Practical considerations on the use of predictive models for regulatory purposes, Environ. Sci. Technol. 39 (2005), pp. 2188-2199.
29. T.W. Schultz, M. Hewitt, T.I. Netzeva, and M.T.D. Cronin, Assessing applicability domains of toxicological QSARs: Definition, confidence of predicted values, and the role of mechanisms of action, QSAR Comb. Sci. 26 (2007), pp. 238-254.
30. N. Kireeva, G. Marcou, A. Varnek, I. Baskin, K. Migita, M. Arakawa, and K. Funatsu, Ensemble approach to applicability domain of SAR/QSAR models, Abstracts of the Strasbourg Summer School on Chemoinformatics: CheminfoS3, VVF Obernai, France, 2008. Available at http://infochim.u-strasbg.fr/CS3/program/program.php
31. S. Dimitrov, G. Dimitrova, T. Pavlov, N. Dimitrova, G. Patlewicz, J. Niemela, and O. Mekenyan, A stepwise approach for defining the applicability domain of SAR and QSAR models, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 45 (2005), pp. 839-849.
32. K.K. Beasley, L.M. Gieg, J.M. Suflita, and M.A. Nanny, Polarizability and spin density correlate with the relative anaerobic biodegradability of alkylaromatic hydrocarbons, Environ. Sci. Technol. 43 (2009), pp. 4995-5000.