In silico toxicology non-testing methods

Frontiers in Pharmacology

Volumn JUN, Issue , 2011, Pages

  Raunio, Hannu ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND   (Finland)

Author keywords

In silico; Modeling; Reach; Toxicity

Indexed keywords

CYTOCHROME P450; XENOBIOTIC AGENT;

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; CHEMICAL ANALYSIS; CHEMICAL REACTION KINETICS; COMPUTER MODEL; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; CRYSTAL STRUCTURE; DRUG ABSORPTION; DRUG DISTRIBUTION; DRUG EXCRETION; DRUG METABOLISM; MACROMOLECULE; MOLECULAR DOCKING; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; NONTESTING METHOD; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; TOXICOKINETICS; TOXICOLOGY; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 84856459281     PISSN: None     EISSN: 16639812     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2011.00033     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Adler, S., Basketter, D., Creton, S., Pelkonen, O., van Benthem, J., Zuang, V., Andersen, K. E., Angers-Loustau, A., Aptula, A., Bal-Price, A., Benfenati, E., Bernauer, U., Bessems, J., Bois, F. Y., Boobis, A., Brandon, E., Bremer, S., Broschard, T., Casati, S., Coecke, S., Corvi, R., Cronin, M., Daston, G., Dekant, W., Felter, S., Grignard, E., Gundert-Remy, U., Heinonen, T., Kimber, I., Kleinjans, J., Komulainen, H., Kreiling, R., Kreysa, J., Leite, S. B., Loizou, G., Maxwell, G., Mazzatorta, P., Munn, S., Pfuhler, S., Phrakonkham, P., Piersma, A., Poth, A., Prieto, P., Repetto, G., Rogiers, V., Schoeters, G., Schwarz, M., Serafimova, R., Tähti, H., Testai, E., van Delft, J., van Loveren, H., Vinken, M., Worth, A., and Zaldivar, J. M. (2011). Alternative (non-animal) methods for cosmetics testing: current status and future prospects-2010. Arch. Toxicol. 85, 367-485.
2. Andersen,M. E., and Krewski,D. (2009). Toxicity Testing in the 21st century: bringing the vision to life. Toxicol. Sci. 107, 324-330.
3. Blaauboer, B. J. (2008). The contribution of in vitro toxicity data in hazard and risk assessment: current limitations and future perspectives. Toxicol. Lett. 180, 81-84.
4. Blaauboer, B. J., Barratt, M. D., and Houston,J. B. (1999). The integrated use of alternative methods in toxicological risk evaluation. ECVAM integrated testing strategies task force report 1. Altern. Lab. Anim. 27, 229-237.
5. Boobis, A., Gundert-Remy, U., Kremers, P., Macheras, P., Pelkonen, O. (2002). In silico prediction of ADME and pharmacokinetics. Report of an expert meeting organised by COST B15. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 17, 183-193.
6. Coecke, S., Ahr, H., Blaauboer, B. J., Bremer, S., Casati, S., Castell, J., Combes, R., Corvi, R., Crespi, C. L., Cunningham, M. L., Elaut, G., Eletti, B., Freidig, A., Gennari, A., Ghersi-Egea, J. F., Guillouzo, A., Hartung, T., Hoet, P., Ingelman-Sundberg, M., Munn, S., Janssens, W., Ladstetter, B., Leahy, D., Long, A., Meneguz, A., Monshouwer, M., Morath, S., Nagelkerke, F., Pelkonen, O., Ponti, J., Prieto, P., Richert, L., Sabbioni, E., Schaack, B., Steiling, W., Testai, E., Vericat, J. A., and Worth, A. (2006). Metabolism: a bottleneck in in vitro toxicological test development. The report and recommendations of ECVAM workshop 54. Altern. Lab. Anim. 34, 49-84.
7. Cook, D. (2010). Improving drug safety using computational biology. IDrugs 13, 85-89.
8. EC. (1976). European Commission, Directive of 27 July 1976 on the Approximation of the Laws of the Member States Relating to Cosmetic Products (76/768/EEC). Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/sectors/cosmetics/documents/directive/
9. EC. (2006). European Commission, Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006R1907:EN:NOT
10. EC. (2008). European Commission, Regulation (EC) No 440/2008. Available at: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32008R0440:EN:HTML
11. ECHA. (2008). Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment Chapter R.6: QSARs and Grouping of Chemicals. Available at: http://guidance.echa.europa.eu/docs/guidance_document/information_requirements_en.htm
12. ECHA. (2010). Practical Guide 2: How to Report Weight of Evidence. Available at: http://echa.europa.eu/doc/publications/practical_guides/pg_report_weight_of_evidence.pdf
13. Ekins, S., Mestres, J., and Testa, B. (2007a). In silico pharmacology for drug discovery: methods for virtual ligand screening and profiling. Br. J. Pharmacol. 152, 9-20.
14. Ekins, S., Mestres, J., and Testa, B. (2007b). In silico pharmacology for drug discovery: applications to targets and beyond. Br. J. Pharmacol. 152, 21-37.
15. Enoch, S. J., and Cronin, M. T. (2010). A review of the electrophilic reaction chemistry involved in covalent DNA binding. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 40, 728-748.
16. Hartung, T., and Hoffmann, S. (2009). Food for thought on in silico methods in toxicology. ALTEX 36, 155166.
17. Hollenberg, P. F., Kent, U. M., and Bumpus,N. N. (2008). Mechanism-based inactivation of human cytochromes P450s: experimental characterization, reactive intermediates, and clinical implications. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 21,189-205.
18. Höltje, H. D., Sippl, W., Rognan, D., and Folkers, G. (2003). Molecular Modelling Basic Principles and Applications. Heidelberg: WileyVCH.
19. Hou, T., and Wang, J. (2008). StructureADME relationship: still a long way to go? Expert Opin. Drug Metab. Toxicol. 4, 759-770.
20. IHCP. (2010). Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission Joint Research Centre. Available at: http://ihcp.jrc.ec.europa.eu/agreement-ihcp-ncct-epa
21. IMI. (2010). Innovative Medicines Initiative. Available at: www.imi.europa.eu
22. Isin, E. M., and Guengerich, F. P. (2008). Substrate binding to cytochromes P450. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 392,1019-1030.
23. Jaworska, J., Nikolova-Jeliazkova, N., and Aldenberg, T. (2005). Review of methods for QSAR applicability domain estimation by the training set. Altern. Lab. Anim. 33, 445-459.
24. Johnson, D. E., and Rodgers, A. D. (2006). Computational toxicology: heading toward more relevance in drug discovery and development. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Devel. 9, 29-37.
25. Kavlock, R. J., Ankley, G., Blancato, J., Breen, M., Conolly, R., Dix, D., Houck, K., Hubal, E., Judson, R., Rabinowitz, J., Richard, A., Setzer, R. W., Shah, I., Villeneuve, D., and Weber, E. (2008). Computational toxicology-a state of the science mini review. Toxicol. Sci. 103, 14-27.
26. Kortagere, S., Krasowski, M. D., and Ekins, S. (2009). The importance of discerning shape in molecular pharmacology. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 30, 138-147.
27. Lewis, D. F., and Ito, Y. (2008). Human cytochromes P450 in the metabolism of drugs: new molecular models of enzyme-substrate interactions. Expert Opin. Drug Metab. Toxicol. 4, 1181-1186.
28. Liebler, D. C., and Guengerich, F. P. (2005). Elucidating mechanisms of drug-induced toxicity. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 4, 410-420.
29. Loizou, G., Spendiff, M., Barton, H. A., Bessems, J., Bois, F. Y., d'Yvoire, M. B., Buist, H., Clewell, H. J. III, Meek, B., Gundert-Remy, U., Goerlitz, G., and Schmitt, W. (2008). Development of good modelling practice for physiologically based pharmacokinetic models for use in risk assessment: the first steps. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 50, 400-411.
30. Merlot, C. (2010). Computational tox-icology-atoolforearlysafety evaluation. Drug Discov. Today 15, 16-22.
31. Mostrag-Szlichtyng, A., and Worth, A. (2010). Review of QSAR Models and Software Tools for Predicting Biokinetic Properties. Luxembourg: European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection.
32. Muster, W., Breidenbach, A., Fischer, H., Kirchner, S., Müller, L., and Pähler, A. (2008). Computational toxicology in drug development. Drug Discov. Today 13, 303-310.
33. Nigsch, F., Macaluso, N. J., Mitchell, J. B., and Zmuidinavicius, D. (2009). Computational toxicology: an overview of the sources of data and of modelling methods. Expert Opin. Drug Metab. Toxicol. 5, 1-14.
34. NRC, National Research Council. (2007). Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and A Strategy. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
35. OECD. (2004). OECD Principles for the Validation, for Regulatory Purposes, of (Quantitative) Structure-Activity Relationship Models. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/document/23/0,2340,en_2649_34379_33957015_1_1_1_1,00.html
36. OECD. (2007). "Guidance document on the validation of (quantitative) structure-activity relationships [(Q)SAR] models," in OECD Series on Testing and Assessment No. 69. ENV/JM/MONO(2007)2 (Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development), 154.
37. Pelkonen, O. (2010). Predictive toxicity: grand challenges. Front. Pharmacol. 1:3. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2010. 00003
38. Pelkonen, O., Tolonen, A., Korjamo, T., Turpeinen, M., and Raunio, H. (2009). From known knowns to known unknowns: predicting in vivo drug metabolites. Bioanalysis 1, 393-414.
39. Pelkonen, O., Turpeinen, M., Hakkola, J., Honkakoski, P., Hukkanen, J., and Raunio, H. (2008). Inhibition and induction of human cytochrome P450 enzymes current status. Arch. Toxicol. 82, 667-715.
40. Schaafsma, G., Kroese, E. D., Tielemans, E. L., Van de Sandt, J. J., and Van Leeuwen, C. J. (2009). REACH, nontesting approaches and the urgent need for a change in mind set. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 53, 70-80.
41. Stjernschantz, E., Vermeulen, N. P. E., and Oostenbrink, C. (2008). Computational prediction of drug binding and rationalisation of selectivity towards cytochromes P450. Expert Opin. Drug Metab. Toxicol. 4, 513527.
42. US EPA. (2003). A Framework for a Computational Toxicology Research Program. Washington, D.C: Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, [EPA600/R-03/65].
43. Valerio, L. G. (2009). In silico toxicology for the pharmaceutical sciences. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 241, 356-370.
44. van de Waterbeemd, H., and Gifford, E. (2003). ADMET in silico modelling: towards prediction paradise? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2, 192-204.
45. Walker, D., Brady, J., Dalvie, D., Davis, J., Dowty, M., Duncan, N., Nedderman, A., Obach, R. C., and Wright, P. (2009). A holistic strategy for characterizing the safety of metabolites through drug discovery and development. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 22, 1653-1662.
46. Wang, J. (2009). Comprehensive assessment of ADMET risks in drug discovery. Curr. Pharm. Des. 15, 21952219.
47. Weaver, S., and Gleeson, M. P. (2008). The importance of the domain of applicability in QSAR modeling. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 26, 1315-1326.
48. Wu, S., Blackburn, K., Amburgey, J., Jaworska, J., and Federle, T. (2010). A framework for using structural, reactivity, metabolic and physicochemical similarity to evaluate the suitability of analogs for SAR-based toxicological assessments. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 56, 67-81.