Application of chemical reaction mechanistic domains to an ecotoxicity qsar model, the kashinhou tool for ecotoxicity (KATE)

SAR and QSAR in Environmental Research

Volumn 22, Issue 5-6, 2011, Pages 505-523

  Furuhama, A ^a   Hasunumaa, K ^a   Aokia, Y ^a   Yoshioka, Y ^b   Shiraishi, H ^a  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES   (Japan)

^b OITA UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Applicability domain; Chemical reaction mechanistic domain; Ecotoxicity; KATE

Indexed keywords

CHEMICAL DETECTION; COMPUTATIONAL CHEMISTRY; MEAN SQUARE ERROR;

APPLICABILITY DOMAIN; CHEMICAL REACTION MECHANISTIC DOMAIN; DAPHNIA; ECOTOXICITY; END-POINTS; KASHINHOU TOOL FOR ECOTOXICITY; MECHANISTICS; ROOT MEAN SQUARE ERRORS; SKIN SENSITIZATION;

FISH;

DAPHNIA;

EID: 80051827093     PISSN: 1062936X     EISSN: 1029046X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/1062936X.2011.569944     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development: Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August-4 September 2002 (with corrigendum), United Nations, 2003. Available at http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/html/documents/documents.html
2. Parliament Adopts REACH: New EU Chemicals Legislation and New Chemicals Agency, 2006. Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?language=EN&type=IMPRESS&reference=20061213IPR01493
3. Act on the Evaluation of Chemical Substances and Regulation of their Manufacture, etc. (CSCL), 2010. Available at: http://www.meti.go.jp/policy/chemical_management/english/cscl.html
4. OECD Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships [(Q)SARs] Project. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/document/23/0,3343,en_2649_34379_33957015_1_1_1_1,00.htm
5. T. Netzeva, P. Manuela, and W. Andrew, Review of Data Sources, QSARs and Integrated Testing Strategies for Aquatic Toxicity, European Commission Joint Research Centre, 2007. Available at: http://ecb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/DOCUMENTS/QSAR/EUR_22943_EN.pdf
6. OECD Environment Health and Safety Publications Series on Testing and Assessment, No. 69, Guidance Document on the Validation of (Quantitative) Structure-Activity Relationships [(Q)SAR] Models, Paris, 2007. Available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/55/35/8130292.pdf
7. T.I. Netzeva, A.P. Worth, T. Aldenberg, R. Benigni, M.T.D. Cronin, P. Gramatica, J.S. Jaworska, S. Kahn, G. Klopman, C.A. Marchant, G. Myatt, N. Nikolova-Jeliazkova, G.Y. Patlewicz, R. Perkins, D.W. Roberts, T.W. Schultz, D.T. Stanton, J.J.M. van de Sandt, W.D. Tong, G. Veith, and C.H. Yang, Current status of methods for defining the applicability domain of (quantitative) structure-activity relationships: Report and recommendations of ECVAM Workshop 52, ATLA, Altern. Lab. Anim. 33 (2005), pp. 155-173.
8. L. Eriksson, J. Jaworska, A.P. Worth, M.T.D. Cronin, R.M. McDowell, and P. Gramatica, Methods for reliability and uncertainty assessment and for applicability evaluations of classification-and regression-based QSARs, Environ. Health Persp. 111 (2003), pp. 1361-1375.
9. J. Jaworska, N. Nikolova-Jeliazkova, and T. Aldenberg, QSAR applicability domain estimation by projection of the training set in descriptor space: A review, ATLA, Altern. Lab. Anim. 33 (2005), pp. 445-459.
10. T.I. Netzeva, A.G. Saliner, and A.P. Worth, Comparison of the applicability domain of a quantitative structure-activity relationship for estrogenicity with a large chemical inventory, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 25 (2006), pp. 1223-1230.
11. R.S. Boethling and J. Costanza, Domain of EPI suite biotransformation models, SAR QSAREnviron. Res. 21 (2010), pp. 415-443.
12. O.G. Mekenyan, S.D. Dimitrov, T.S. Pavlov, and G.D. Veith, A systematic approach to simulating metabolism in computational toxicology: I. The TIMES heuristic modelling framework, Curr. Pharm. Des. 10 (2004), pp. 1273-1293.
13. 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.
14. A. Furuhama, T. Toida, N. Nishikawa, Y. Aoki, Y. Yoshioka, and H. Shiraishi, Development of an ecotoxicity QSAR model for the KAshinhou Tool for Ecotoxicity (KATE) system, March 2009 version, SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 21 (2010), pp. 403-413.
15. KATE: It should be noted that the prediction results provided by the KATE system do not guarantee satisfactory prediction accuracy. It should be regarded as a tool for obtaining reference SAR and QSAR in Environmental Research 521 figures for the extent of the ecotoxicity impact of a chemical substance. Furthermore, the results may not be used for MoE submissions in compliance with the CSCL, 2009. Available at http://kate.nies.go.jp
16. A.O. Aptula, G. Patlewicz, and D.W. Roberts, Skin sensitization: Reaction mechanistic applicability domains for structure-activity relationships, Chem. Res. Toxicol. 18 (2005), pp. 1420-1426.
17. J.L.M. Hermens, Electrophiles and acute toxicity to fish, Environ. Health Perspect. 87 (1990), pp. 219-225.
18. A.O. Aptula and D.W. Roberts, Mechanistic applicability domains for non animal-based prediction of toxicological end points: General principles and application to reactive toxicity, Chem. Res. Toxicol. 19 (2006), pp. 1097-1105.
19. D.W. Roberts, G. Patlewicz, P.S. Kern, F. Gerberick, I. Kimber, R.J. Dearman, C.A. Ryan, D.A. Basketter, and A.O. Aptula, Mechanistic applicability domain classification of a local lymph node assay dataset for skin sensitization, Chem. Res. Toxicol. 20 (2007), pp. 1019-1030.
20. S.D. Dimitrov, L.K. Low, G.Y. Patlewicz, P.S. Kern, G.D. Dimitrova, M.H.I. Comber, R.D. Phillips, J. Niemela, P.T. Bailey, and O.G. Mekenyan, Skin sensitization: Modeling based on skin metabolism simulation and formation of protein conjugates, Int. J. Toxicol. 24 (2005), pp. 189-204.
21. I.R. Jowsey, D.A. Basketter, C. Westmoreland, and I. Kimber, A future approach to measuring relative skin sensitising potency: A proposal, J. Appl. Toxicol. 26 (2006), pp. 341-350.
22. C. Grindon, R. Combes, M.T.D. Cronin, D.W. Roberts, and J.F. Garrod, An integrated decision-tree testing strategy for skin sensitisation with respect to the requirements of the EU REACH legislation, ATLA, Altern. Lab. Anim. 35 (2007), pp. 683-697.
23. G. Patlewicz, A.O. Aptula, D.W. Roberts, and E. Uriarte, A minireview of available skin sensitization (Q)SARs/expert systems, QSAR Comb. Sci. 27 (2008), pp. 60-76.
24. R.J. Vandebriel and H. van Loveren, Non-animal sensitization testing: State-of-the-art, Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 40 (2010), pp. 389-404.
25. S.J. Enoch, J.C. Madden, and M.T.D. Cronin, Identification of mechanisms of toxic action for skin sensitisation using a SMARTS pattern based approach, SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 19 (2008), pp. 555-578.
26. Daylight Chemical Information Systems Inc., Daylight Theory Manual: 4. SMARTS_- A Language for Describing Molecular Patterns. Available at http://www.daylight.com/dayhtml/doc/theory/theory.smarts.html
27. D. Weininger, SMILES, A chemical language and information system: 1. Introduction to methodology and encoding rules, J. Chem. Inf. Comp. Sci. 28 (1988), pp. 31-36.
28. Y. Yoshioka, Know-how in the development of a program for QSAR platform, PAS: Part 1. Extract the component from the SMILES notation (in Japanese), Jpn. J. Environ. Toxicol. 11 (2008), pp. 33-40.
29. Y. Yoshioka, Know-how in the development of a program for QSAR platform, PAS: Part 2. Drawing method of chemical structure (in Japanese), Jpn. J. Environ. Toxicol. 12 (2009), pp. 107-112.
30. Y. Yoshioka, Know-how in the development of a program for QSAR platform, PAS: Part 3. An extraction method of partial structure (in Japanese), Jpn. J. Environ. Toxicol. 12 (2009), pp. 113-122.
31. R.L. Lipnick, D.E. Johnson, J.H. Gilford, C.K. Bickings, and L.D. Newsome, Comparison of fish toxicity screening data for 55 alcohols with the quantitative structure-activity relationship predictions of minimum toxicity for nonreactive nonelectrolyte organic compounds, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 4 (1985), pp. 281-296.
32. R.L. Lipnick, Narcosis, electrophile and proelectrophile toxicity mechanisms: Application of SAR and QSAR, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 8 (1989), pp. 1-12.
33. Mo E, Japan ecotoxicity test data, 2009. Available at http://www.env.go.jp/chemi/sesaku/02e.pdf 2011 Taylor & Francis.
34. US EPA fathead minnow database. Available at http://www.epa.gov/med/Prods_Pubs/fathead_minnow.htm
35. C.L. Russom, S.P. Bradbury, S.J. Broderius, D.E. Hammermeister, and R.A. Drummond, Predicting modes of toxic action from chemical structure: Acute toxicity in the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 16 (1997), pp. 948-967.
36. T.I. Netzeva, M. Pavan, and A.P. Worth, Review of (quantitative) structure-activityrelationships for acute aquatic toxicity, QSAR Comb. Sci. 27 (2008), pp. 77-90.
37. OECD, OECD Environment Monographs No. 58, Report of the OECD workshop on quantitative structure activity relationships (QSARs) in aquatic effects assessment, Paris, 1992. Available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/19/27/35220377.pdf
38. H.J.M. Verhaar, C.J. van Leeuwen, and J.L.M. Hermens, Classifying environmental pollutants: 1. Structure-activity relationships for prediction of aquatic toxicity, Chemosphere 25 (1992), pp. 471-491.
39. M.T.D. Cronin and J.C. Dearden, QSAR in toxicology: 1. Prediction of aquatic toxicity, Quant. Struct.-Act. Rel. 14 (1995), pp. 1-7.
40. H.J.M. Verhaar, E.U. Ramos, and J.L.M. Hermens, Classifying environmental pollutants: 2. Separation of class 1 (baseline toxicity) and class 2 ('polar narcosis') type compounds based on chemical descriptors, J. Chemom. 10 (1996), pp. 149-162.
41. H.J.M. Verhaar, J. Solbe, J. Speksnijder, C.J. van Leeuwen, and J.L.M. Hermens, Classifying environmental pollutants: Part 3. External validation of the classification system, Chemosphere 40 (2000), pp. 875-883.
42. S.P. Bradbury, C.L. Russom, G.T. Ankley, T.W. Schultz, and J.D. Walker, Overview of data and conceptual approaches for derivation of quantitative structure-activity relationships for ecotoxicological effects of organic chemicals, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 22 (2003), pp. 1789-1798.
43. ECOSAR, 2009. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/tools/21ecosar.htm
44. G.D. Veith and S.J. Broderius, Rules for distinguishing toxicants that cause type-I and type-II narcosis syndromes, Environ. Health Perspect. 87 (1990), pp. 207-211.
45. KOWWIN. Available at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/exposure/pubs/episuite.htm
46. EPISuite. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/exposure/pubs/episuite.htm
47. E.M. Hulzebos and R. Posthumus, (Q)SARs: Gatekeepers against risk on chemicals?, SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 14 (2003), pp. 285-316.
48. T.W. Schultz and M.T.D. Cronin, Essential and desirable characteristics of ecotoxicity quantitative structure-activity relationships, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 22 (2003), pp. 599-607.
49. P.C. von der Ohe, R. Kühne, R.U. Ebert, R. Altenburger, M. Liess, and G. Schürmann, Structural alerts: A new classification model to discriminate excess toxicity from narcotic effect levels of organic compounds in the acute daphnid assay, Chem. Res. Toxicol. 18 (2005), pp. 536-555.
50. G.D. Veith, D.J. Call, and L.T. Brooke, Structure toxicity relationships for the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas: Narcotic industrial chemicals, Can. J. Chem. 40 (1983), pp. 743-748.
51. C.J. van Leeuwen, P.T.J. van der Zandt, T. Aldenberg, H.J.M. Verhaar, and J.L.M. Hermens, Application of QSARs, extrapolation and equilibrium partitioning in aquatic effects assessment: 1. Narcotic industrial pollutants, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 11 (1992), pp. 267-282.
52. S. Hidaka, H. Shiraishi, Y. Ohmayu, H. Yamasaki, K. Okamoto, N. Kawashita, T. Yasunaga, and T. Takagi, Ecotoxicity prediction using 3D descriptors, J. Comput.-Aided Chem. 11 (2010), pp. 11-18.