Evaluation of the OECD (Q)SAR Application Toolbox for the profiling of estrogen receptor binding affinities

SAR and QSAR in Environmental Research

Volumn 23, Issue 1-2, 2012, Pages 37-57

  Mombelli, E ^a  

^a INSTITUT NATIONAL DE L ENVIRONNEMENT INDUSTRIEL ET DES RISQUES INERIS   (France)

Author keywords

endocrine disruption; estrogen receptor; model validation; OECD (Q)SAR Toolbox; structural alerts

Indexed keywords

CHEMICAL HAZARDS; HEALTH HAZARDS; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION;

BINDING AFFINITIES; ENDOCRINE DISRUPTION; ESTROGEN RECEPTOR; ESTROGEN RECEPTOR BINDING; MODEL VALIDATION; ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT; ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (Q)SAR TOOLBOX; POTENTIAL HAZARDS; SAR APPLICATIONS; STRUCTURAL ALERT;

BINDING ENERGY;

RATTUS;

EID: 84857090379     PISSN: 1062936X     EISSN: 1029046X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/1062936X.2011.623325     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Cravedi, JP, Zalko, D, Savouret, JF, Menuet, A and Jégou, B. 2007. The concept of endocrine disruption and human health. Med. Sci. (Paris), 23: 198-204.
2. Witorsch, RJ and Thomas, JA. 2010. Personal care products and endocrine disruption: A critical review of the literature. Crit. Rev. Toxicol., 40: 1-30.
3. Snyder, SA, Villeneuve, DL, Snyder, EM and Giesy, JP. 2001. Identification and quantification of estrogen receptor agonists in wastewater effluents. Environ. Sci. Technol., 35: 3620-3625.
4. Ghisari, M and Bonefeld-Jorgensen, EC. 2009. Effects of plasticizers and their mixtures on estrogen receptor and thyroid hormone functions. Toxicol. Lett., 25: 67-77.
5. Legler, J. 2008. New insights into the endocrine disrupting effects of brominated flame retardants. Chemosphere, 73: 216-222.
6. Kojima, H, Katsura, E, Takeuchi, S, Niiyama, K and Kobayash, K. 2004. Screening for estrogen and androgen receptor activities in 200 pesticides by in vitro reporter gene assays using Chinese hamster ovary cells. Environ. Health Perspect., 112: 524-531.
7. Uzumcu, M and Zachow, R. 2007. Developmental exposure to environmental endocrine disruptors: Consequences within the ovary and on female reproductive function. Reprod. Toxicol., 23: 337-352.
8. Darbre, PD and Harvey, PW. 2008. Paraben esters: Review of recent studies of endocrine toxicity, absorption, esterase and human exposure, and discussion of potential human health risks. J. Appl. Toxicol., 28: 561-578.
9. le Maire, A, Bourguet, W and Balaguer, P. 2010. A structural view of nuclear hormone receptor: Endocrine disruptor interactions. Cell. Mol. Life Sci., 67: 1219-1237.
10. Kilbourn, MR, Arduengo, AJ, Park, JT and Katzenellenbogen, JA. 1981. Conformational analysis of nonsteroidal estrogens: The effect of conformer populations on the binding affinity of meso- and dl-hexestrol to the estrogen receptor. Mol. Pharmacol., 19: 388-398.
11. Anstead, GM and Kym, PR. 1995. Benz[a]anthracene diols: Predicted carcinogenicity and structure-estrogen receptor binding affinity relationships. Steroids, 60: 383-394.
12. Kamada, A, Sasaki, A, Kitazawa, N, Okabe, T, Nara, K, Hamaoka, S, Araki, S and Hagiwara, H. 2004. A new series of estrogen receptor modulators: Effect of alkyl substituents on receptor-binding affinity. Chem. Pharm. Bull. (Tokyo), 52: 79-88.
13. Devillers, J, Marchand-Geneste, N, Carpy, A and Porcher, JM. 2006. SAR and QSAR modeling of endocrine disruptors. SAR QSAR Environ. Res., 17: 393-412.
14. Devillers, J. 2009. Endocrine Disruption Modeling, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
15. Jensen, GE, Niemelä, JR, Wedebye, EB and Nikolov, NG. 2008. QSAR models for reproductive toxicity and endocrine disruption in regulatory use - a preliminary investigation. SAR QSAR Environ. Res., 19: 631-641.
16. Cronin, MTD and Worth, AP. 2008. (Q)SARs for predicting effects relating to reproductive toxicity. QSAR Comb. Sci., 27: 91-100.
17. Li, J and Gramatica, P. 2010. QSAR classification of estrogen receptor binders and identification of pleiotropic EDCs. SAR QSAR Environ. Res., 21: 657-669.
18. Bradbury, S, Kamenska, V, Schmieder, P, Ankley, G and Mekenyan, O. 2000. A computationally based identification algorithm for estrogen receptor ligands: Part 1. Predicting hERalpha binding affinity. Toxicol. Sci., 58: 253-269.
19. Mekenyan, O, Kamenska, V, Schmieder, P, Ankley, G and Bradbury, S. 2000. A computationally based identification algorithm for estrogen receptor ligands: Part 2. Evaluation of a hERα binding affinity model. Toxicol. Sci., 58: 270-281.
20. Liu, HX, Papa, E and Gramatica, P. 2008. Evaluation and QSAR modeling on multiple endpoints of estrogen activity based on different bioassays. Chemosphere, 70: 1889-1897.
21. Liu, HX, Papa, E and Gramatica, P. 2006. QSAR prediction of estrogen activity for a large set of diverse chemicals under the guidance of OECD principles. Chem. Res. Toxicol., 19: 1540-1548.
22. Salum, LD, Polikarpov, I and Andricopulo, AD. 2007. Structural and chemical basis for enhanced affinity and potency for a large series of estrogen receptor ligands: 2D and 3D QSAR studies. J. Mol. Graph. Model., 26: 434-442.
23. Mekenyan, O, Kamenska, V, Serafimova, R, Poellinger, L, Brouwer, A and Walker, J. 2002. Development and validation of an average mammalian estrogen receptor-based QSAR model. SAR QSAR Environ. Res., 13: 579-95.
24. Waller, CL. 2004. A comparative QSAR study using CoMFA, HQSAR, and FRED/SKEYS paradigms for estrogen receptor binding affinities of structurally diverse compounds. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 44: 758-765.
25. Tong, W, Fang, WD, Hong, H, Xie, Q, Perkins, R and Sheehan, DM. 2004. Receptor mediated toxicity: QSARs for estrogen receptor binding and priority setting of potential estrogenic endocrine disruptors, M.T.D. Cronin and D.J. Livingstone, eds., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL: in Predicting Chemical Toxicity and Fate. pp. 285-314
26. Schmieder, PK, Ankley, G, Mekenyan, O, Walker, JD and Bradbury, S. 2003. Quantitative structure-activity relationship models for prediction of estrogen receptor binding affinity of structural diverse chemicals. Env. Toxicol. Chem., 22: 1844-1854.
27. Schultz, TW, Sinks, GD and Cronin, MTD. 2002. Structure-activity relationships for gene activation oestrogenicity: Evaluation of a diverse set of aromatic compounds. Environ. Toxicol., 17: 14-23.
28. Serafimova, R, Todorov, M, Nedelcheva, D, Pavlov, T, Akahori, Y, Nakai, M and Mekenyan, O. 2007. QSAR and mechanistic interpretation of estrogen receptor binding. SAR QSAR Environ. Res., 18: 389-421.
29. Hamblen, EL, Cronin, MT and Schultz, TW. 2003. Estrogenicity and acute toxicity of selected anilines using a recombinant yeast assay. Chemosphere, 52: 1173-1181.
30. Marchand-Geneste, N, Cazaunau, M, Carpy, AJ, Laguerre, M, Porcher, JM and Devillers, J. 2006. Homology model of the rainbow trout estrogen receptor (rtERalpha) and docking of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). SAR QSAR Environ. Res., 17: 93-105.
31. Hu, JY and Aizawa, T. 2003. Quantitative structure-activity relationships for estrogen receptor binding affinity of phenolic chemicals. Water Res., 37: 1213-1222.
32. Blair, RM, Fang, H, Branham, WS, Hass, BS, Dia, SL, Moland, CL, Tong, W, Shi, L, Perkins, R and Sheehan, DM. 2000. The estrogen receptor relative binding affinities of 188 natural and xenochemicals: Structural diversity of ligands. Toxicol. Sci., 54: 138-153.
33. Boriani, E, Spreafico, M, Benfenati, E and Novic, M. 2007. Structural features of diverse ligands influencing binding affinities to estrogen alpha and estrogen beta receptors. Part I: Molecular descriptors calculated from minimal energy conformation of isolated ligands. Mol. Divers., 11: 153-169.
34. Spreafico, M, Boriani, E, Benfenati, E and Novic, M. 2007. Structural features of diverse ligands influencing binding affinities to estrogen alpha and estrogen beta receptors. Part II. Molecular descriptors calculated from conformation of the ligands in the complex resulting from previous docking study. Mol. Diversity, 11: 171-181.
35. Bignon, E, Pons, M, Crastes de Paulet, AC, Doré, JC, Gilbert, J, Abecassis, J, Miguel, JF, Ojasoo, T and Raynaud, JP. 1989. Effect of triphenylacrylonitrile derivatives on estradiol-receptor binding and on human breast cancer cell growth. J. Med. Chem., 32: 2092-2013.
36. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, Off. J. Eur. Union L306 (30.12.2006), pp. 1-849. Available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2006/l_396/l_39620061230en00010849.pdf.
37. Mombelli, E and Devillers, J. 2010. Evaluation of the OECD (Q)SAR Application Toolbox and Toxtree for predicting and profiling the carcinogenic potential of chemicals. SAR QSAR Environ. Res., 21: 731-752.
38. Devillers, J and Mombelli, E. 2010. Evaluation of the OECD QSAR application toolbox and Toxtree for estimating the mutagenicity of chemicals. Part 1. Aromatic amines. SAR QSAR Environ. Res., 21: 753-769.
39. Devillers, J and Mombelli, E. 2010. Evaluation of the OECD QSAR application toolbox and Toxtree for estimating the mutagenicity of chemicals. Part 2. α - β Unsaturated aliphatic aldehydes. SAR QSAR Environ. Res., 21: 771-783.
40. Devillers, J, Mombelli, E and Samserà, R. 2011. Structural alerts for estimating the carcinogenicity of pesticides and biocides. SAR QSAR Environ. Res., 22: 89-106.
41. OECD, OECD QSAR Application Toolbox, software available at http://www.oecd.org/document/54/0,3746,en_2649_34373_42923638_1_1_1_1,00.html
42. Worth, AP and Cronin, MTD. 2001. The use of bootstrap resampling to assess the uncertainty of cooper statistics. Altern. Lab. Anim., 29: 447-459.
43. R Development Core Team. 2010. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
44. Tetko, IV, Gasteiger, J, Todeschini, R, Mauri, A, Livingstone, D, Ertl, P, Palyulin, VA, Radchenko, EV, Zefirov, NS, Makarenko, AS, Tanchuk, VY and Prokopenko, VV. 2005. Virtual computational chemistry laboratory - design and description. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des., 19: 453-463.
45. Food, US. and Drug Administration, 'Endocrine Disruptor Knowledge Base'. Available athttp://www.fda.gov/scienceresearch/bioinformaticstools/endocrinedisruptorknowledgebase
46. Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry, Current status of testing methods development for endocrine disrupters, in Proceedings of 6th Meeting of the Task Force on Endocrine Disrupters Testing and Assessment (EDTA), 24-25 June 2002, Tokyo. Available athttp://www.meti.go.jp/english/report/data/gEndoctexte.pdf
47. Shiau, AK, Barstad, D, Loria, PM, Cheng, L, Kushner, PJ, Agard, DA and Greene, GL. 1998. The structural basis of estrogen receptor/coactivator recognition and the antagonism of this interaction by tamoxifen. Cell, 23: 927-937.
48. Brzozowski, AM, Pike, AC, Dauter, Z, Hubbard, RE, Bonn, T, Engström, O, Ohman, L, Greene, GL, Gustafsson, JA and Carlquist, M. 1997. Molecular basis of agonism and antagonism in the oestrogen receptor. Nature, 16: 753-758.
49. Alam, SM, Pal, R, Nagar, S, Islam, MA and Saha, A. 2008. Pharmacophore search for anti-fertility and estrogenic potencies of estrogen analogs. J. Mol. Modell., 14: 1071-1082.
50. Yang, JM and Sheng, TW. 2005. A pharmacophore-based evolutionary approach for screening selective estrogen receptor modulators. Proteins, 59: 205-220.
51. Asim, M, El-Salfiti, M, Qian, Y, Choueiri, C, Salari, S, Cheng, J, Shadnia, H, Bal, M, Christine Pratt, MA, Carlson, KE, Katzenellenbogen, JA, Wright, JS and Durst, T. 2009. Deconstructing estradiol: Removal of B-ring generates compounds which are potent and subtype-selective estrogen receptor agonists. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett., 19: 1250-1253.
52. Pike, AC, Brzozowski, AM, Hubbard, RE, Bonn, T, Thorsell, AG, Engström, O, Ljunggren, J, Gustafsson, JA and Carlquist, M. 1999. Structure of the ligand-binding domain of oestrogen receptor beta in the presence of a partial agonist and a full antagonist. EMBO J., 18: 4608-4618.
53. Mukherjee, S, Mukherjee, A and Saha, A. 2005. QSAR modeling on binding affinity of diverse estrogenic flavonoids: Electronic, topological and spatial functions in quantitative approximation. J. Mol. Struct.: THEOCHEM, 715: 85-90.
54. Nakai, M, Tabira, Y, Asai, D, Yakabe, Y, Shimyozu, T, Noguchi, M, Takatsuki, M and Shimohigashi, Y. 1999. Binding characteristics of dialkyl phthalates for the estrogen receptor. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun., 254: 311-314.
55. Toda, C, Okamoto, Y, Ueda, K, Hashizume, K, Itoh, K and Kojima, N. 2004. Unequivocal estrogen receptor-binding affinity of phthalate esters featured with ring hydroxylation and proper alkyl chain size. Arch. Biochem. Biophys., 431: 16-21.
56. Asai, D, Tahara, Y, Nakai, M, Yakabe, Y, Takatsuki, M, Nose, T, Shinmyozu, T and Shimohigashi, Y. 2000. Structural essentials of xenoestrogen dialkyl phthalates to bind to the estrogen receptors. Toxicol. Lett., 118: 1-8.
57. Celik, L, Davey, J, Lund, D and Schiøtt, B. 2008. Exploring interactions of endocrine-disrupting compounds with different conformations of the human estrogen receptor alpha ligand binding domain: A molecular docking study. Chem. Res. Toxicol., 21: 2195-2206.
58. Goldman, JM, Stoker, TE, Cooper, RL, McElroy, WK and Hein, JF. 1994. Blockade of ovulation in the rat by the fungicide sodium N-methyldithiocarbamate: Relationship between effects on the luteinizing hormone surge and alterations in hypothalamic catecholamines. Neurotoxicol. Teratol., 16: 257-268.
59. Stoker, TE, Goldman, JM and Cooper, RL. 1993. The dithiocarbamate fungicide thiram disrupts the hormonal control of ovulation in the female rat. Reprod. Toxicol., 7: 211-218.
60. Okubo, T, Yokoyama, Y, Kano, K, Soya, Y and Kano, I. 2004. Estimation of estrogenic and antiestrogenic activities of selected pesticides by MCF-7 cell proliferation assay. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 46: 445-453.
61. Koike, S, Sakai, M and Muramatsu, M. 1987. Molecular cloning and characterization of rat estrogen receptor cDNA. Nucleic Acids Res., 15: 2499-2513.
62. Heussner, AH, Stemmer, K, O'Brien, E and Dietrich, DR. In Vitro Estrogen Receptor-α (ERα) Saturation and Competitive Binding Assays Using Pan Vera's Human Recombinant Full length Estrogen Receptor α, Human and Environmental Toxicology, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany, 2008. Available athttp://ecvam.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ft_doc/ECVAM%20FINAL%20REPORT_AHH100808.pdf
63. Agency, US Environmental Protection. 2009. Integrated Summary Report for Validation of an Estrogen Receptor Binding Assay using Rat Uterine Cytosol as Source of Receptor as a Potential Screen in the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program Tier 1 Battery, Washington DC: US EPA Office of Science Coordination and Policy and Office of Research and Development. Available at http://www.epa.gov/endo/pubs/assayvalidation/er_ruc_isr.pdf
64. Katzenellenbogen, JA, Muthyala, R and Katzenellenbogen, BS. 2003. Nature of the ligand-binding pocket of estrogen receptor a and b: The search for subtypeselective ligands and implications for the prediction of estrogenic activity. Pure Appl. Chem., 75: 2397-2403.
65. Takeyoshi, M. 2006. Draft Report of Pre-validation and Inter-laboratory Validation For Stably Transfected Transcriptional Activation (TA) Assay to Detect Estrogenic Activity, Tokyo: Chemicals Evaluation and Research Institute. Available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/7/27/37504278.pdf
66. European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, Statement on the Validity of the Local Lymph Node Assay for Skin Sensitization Testing, ECVAM, Ispra, Italy, 2000. Available athttp://ecvam.jrc.it/publication/LLNA_statement.pdf
67. Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods, The Murine Local Lymph Node Assay: A Test Method for Assessing the Allergic Contact Dermatitis Potential of Chemicals/Compounds. The Results of an Independent Peer Review Evaluation Coordinated by the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) and the National Toxicology Program Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM), NIH Publication No. 99-4494, National Toxicology Program, Research Triangle Park, NJ, USA, 1999. Available athttp://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/docs/immunotox_docs/llna/llnarep.pdf
68. Portes, P, Grandidier, MH, Cohen, C and Roguet, R. 2002. Refinement of the Episkin® protocol for the assessment of acute skin irritation of chemicals: Follow-up to the ECVAM prevalidation study. Toxicol. In Vitro, 16: 765-770.
69. Grindon, C, Combes, R, Cronin, MTD, Roberts, DW and Garrod, JF. 2008. Integrated decision-tree testing strategies for developmental and reproductive toxicity with respect to the requirements of the EU REACH legislation. ATLA, 36: 65-80.
70. Péry, ARR, Desmots, S and Mombelli, E. 2010. Substance-tailored testing strategies in toxicology: An in silico methodology based on QSAR modeling of toxicological thresholds and Monte Carlo simulations of toxicological testing. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 56: 82-92.
71. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD Principles for the Validation, for Regulatory Purposes, of (Quantitative) Structure-Activity Relationship Models, OECD, Paris, 2004. Available athttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/33/37/37849783.pdf