The challenges involved in modeling toxicity data in silico: A review

Current Pharmaceutical Design

Volumn 18, Issue 9, 2012, Pages 1266-1291

  Gleeson, M Paul ^a   Modi, Sandeep ^b   Bender, Andreas ^c   Marchese Robinson, Richard L ^c   Kirchmair, Johannes ^c   Promkatkaew, Malinee ^a   Hannongbua, Supa ^a   Glen, Robert C ^b  

^a KASETSART UNIVERSITY   (Thailand)

^b UNILEVER RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Descriptors; In silico modeling; Qsar; Toxicity

Indexed keywords

CYTOCHROME P450; POTASSIUM CHANNEL HERG;

ALGORITHM; ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; BAYESIAN LEARNING; CARCINOGENICITY; CARDIOTOXICITY; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; COMPUTER MODEL; DATA ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; DRUG INTERACTION; DRUG SCREENING; DRUG TOXICITY; GENOTOXICITY; HUMAN; IN VITRO STUDY; MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; NONHUMAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REVIEW; SKIN SENSITIZATION; SUPPORT VECTOR MACHINE; TOXICOLOGY;

ANIMALS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG DISCOVERY; HUMANS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; TOXICITY TESTS; TOXICOLOGY;

EID: 84857770428     PISSN: 13816128     EISSN: 18734286     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2174/138161212799436359     Document Type: Review

References (359)

1. Kola I, Landis J. Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates? Nat Rev Drug Discov 2004; 3: 711-16.
2. Riley RJ, Martin IJ, Cooper AE. The Influence of DMPK as an Integrated Partner in Modern Drug Discovery. Curr Drug Metab 2002; 3: 527-50
3. Hop CE, Cole MJ, Davidson RE, et al. High throughput ADME screening: practical considerations, impact on the portfolio and enabler of in silico ADME models. Curr Drug Metab 2008; 9: 847-53.
4. Kramer JA, Sagartz JE, Morris DL. The application of discovery toxicology and pathology towards the design of safer pharmaceutical lead candidates. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2007; 6: 636-49.
5. Smith DA, Schmid EF. Drug withdrawals and the lessons within. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 2006; 9: 38-46.
6. Krewski D, Andersen ME, Mantus E, Zeise L. Toxicity testing in the 21st century: implications for human health risk assessment. Risk Anal 2009; 29: 474-9.
7. Shukla SJ, Huang R, Austin CP, Xia M. The future of toxicity testing: a focus on in vitro methods using a quantitative high-throughput screening platform. Drug Discov Today 2010; 15: 997-1007.
8. Mortelmans K, Zeiger E. The Ames Salmonella/micro some mutagenicity assay. Mutat Res 2000; 455: 29-60.
9. Kimber I, Hilton J, Botham PA. Identification of contact allergens using the murine local lymph node assay: comparisons with the Buehler occluded patch test in guinea pigs. J Appl Toxicol 1990; 10: 173-80.
10. Kimber I, Hilton J, Weisenberger C. The murine local lymph node assay for identification of contact allergens: a preliminary evaluation of in situ measurement of lymphocyte proliferation. Contact Dermatitis 1989; 21: 215-20.
11. Kimber I, Weisenberger C. A murine local lymph node assay for the identification of contact allergens. Assay development and results of an initial validation study. Arch Toxicol 1989; 63: 274-82.
12. Jamieson C, Moir EM, Rankovic Z, Wishart G. Medicinal chemistry of hERG optimizations: Highlights and hang-ups. J Med Chem 2006; 49: 5029-46.
13. O'Brien SE, de Groot MJ. Greater Than the Sum of Its Parts: Combining Models for Useful ADMET Prediction. J Med Chem 2005; 48: 1287-91.
14. Gleeson MP. Generation of a set of simple, interpretable ADMET rules of thumb. J Med Chem 2008; 51: 817-34.
15. [] TOXNET [homepage on the internet]. United States National Library of Medicine; [updated 2011 Oct 17; cited 2011 Oct 17]. Available from http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/
16. [ICCVAM. LLNA Database [homepage on the internet]. National Toxicology Program;[updated 2011 Aug 08; cited 2011 Oct 17]. http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/methods/immunotox/rLLNA.htm
17. Saiakhov RD, Klopman G. MultiCASE expert systems and the REACH initiative. Toxicol Mechanisms Methods 2008; 18: 159-75.
18. [18] OECD Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships Project [(Q)SARs] [homepage on the internet] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; c2011[updated 2011 Oct 17; cited 2011 Oct 17]. Available from http://www.oecd.org/document/23/0,3746,en_2649_34379_33957015_1_1_1_1,00.html
19. Nonoyama T, Fukuda R. Drug-induced Phospholipidosis - Pathological Aspects and Its Prediction. J Toxicol Pathol 2008; 21:9-24.
20. Lowe R, Glen RC, Mitchell JBO. Predicting Phospholipidosis Using Machine Learning. Molecular Pharmaceutics 2010; 7: 1708-14.
21. Crivori P, Poggesi I. Computational approaches for predicting CYP-related metabolism properties in the screening of new drugs. Eur J Med Chem 2006; 41: 795-808.
22. Li H, Sun J, Fan X, et al. Considerations and recent advances in QSAR models for cytochrome P450-mediated drug metabolism prediction. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2008; 22: 843-55.
23. Michielan L, Moro S. Pharmaceutical perspectives of nonlinear QSAR strategies. J Chem Inf Model 2010; 50: 961-78.
24. Enoch SJ, Madden JC, Cronin MT. Identification of mechanisms of toxic action for skin sensitisation using a SMARTS pattern based approach. SAR QSAR Environ Res 2008; 19: 555-78.
25. Benigni R, Bossa C. Structure alerts for carcinogenicity, and the Salmonella assay system: a novel insight through the chemical relational databases technology. Mutat Res 2008; 659: 248-61.
26. Devillers J, Mombelli E, Samsera R. Structural alerts for estimating the carcinogenicity of pesticides and biocides. SAR QSAR Environ Res 2011; 22: 89-106.
27. [ECB REACH Guidelines [homepage on the internet]. European Comission; [updated 2011 Sept 28; cited 2011 Oct 17].Available from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reviews_en.htm
28. Schaafsma G, Kroese ED, Tielemans ELJP, Van de Sandt JJM, Van Leeuwen CJ. REACH, non-testing approaches and the urgent need for a change in mind set. Reg Toxicol and Pharmacol 2009; 53: 70-80.
29. Valerio LG, Jr. In silico toxicology for the pharmaceutical sciences. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2009; 241: 356-70.
30. Muster W, Breidenbach A, Fischer H, Kirchner S, Muller L, Pahler A. Computational toxicology in drug development. Drug Discov Today 2008; 13: 303-10.
31. Tsakovska I, Lessigiarska I, Netzeva T, Worth AP. A Mini Review of Mammalian Toxicity (Q)SAR Models. QSAR Comb Sci 2008; 27: 41-48.
32. Boyer S. The use of computer models in pharmaceutical safety evaluation. Altern. Lab. Anim. 2009; 37: 467-75.
33. [Vedani A, Smiesko M. In silico toxicology in drug discovery-concepts based on three-dimensional models. Altern Lab Anim 2009; 37: 477-96.
34. Egan WJ, Zlokarnik G, Grootenhuis PDJ. In silico prediction of drug safety: despite progress there is abundant room for improvement. Drug Discov Today: Technologies 2004; 1: 381-7.
35. Vedani A, Dobler M, Lill MA. The challenge of predicting drug toxicity in silico. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 2006; 99: 195-208.
36. Merlot C. Computational toxicology--a tool for early safety evaluation. Drug Discov Today 2010; 15: 16-22.
37. Cronin MTD, Ellison CM, Madden JC, Judson P. Using In Silico Tools in a Weight of Evidence Approach to Aid Toxicological Assessment. Mol Informatics 2010; 29: 97-110.
38. Helma C. In silico predictive toxicology: The state-of-the-art and strategies to predict human health effects. CurrOpin Drug Discov Dev 2005; 8: 27-31.
39. Scheiber J, Chen B, Milik M, et al. Gaining Insight into Off-Target Mediated Effects of Drug Candidates with a Comprehensive Systems Chemical Biology Analysis. J Chem Inf and Model 2009;49: 308-17.
40. Scheiber J, Jenkins JL, Sukuru SC, et al. Mapping adverse drug reactions in chemical space. J Med Chem 2009; 52: 3103-7.
41. Hillebrecht A, Muster W, Brigo A, Kansy M, Weiser T, Singer T. Comparative Evaluation of in Silico Systems for Ames Test Mutagenicity Prediction: Scope and Limitations. Chem Res Toxicol 2011.
42. Benigni R, Bossa C. Predictivity and reliability of QSAR models: The case of mutagens and carcinogens. Toxicol Mech Methods 2008; 18: 137-47.
43. Benigni R, Bossa C. Mechanisms of chemical carcinogenicity and mutagenicity: a review with implications for predictive toxicology. Chem Rev 2011; 111: 2507-36.
44. Enoch SJ, Cronin MT. A review of the electrophilic reaction chemistry involved in covalent DNA binding. Crit Rev Toxicol 2010; 40: 728-48.
45. Benigni R, Bossa C. Alternative strategies for arcinogenicity assessment: an efficient and simplified approach based on in vitro mutagenicity and cell transformation assays. Mutagenesis 2011; 3: 455-60.
46. Benfenati E, Benigni R, Demarini DM, Helma C, Kirkland D, Martin TM, Mazzatorta P, Ouedraogo-Arras G, Richard AM, Schilter B, Schoonen WG, Snyder RD, Yang C. Predictive models for carcinogenicity and mutagenicity: frameworks, state-of-the-art, and perspectives. J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev 2009; 27: 57-90.
47. Aptula AO, Roberts DW. Mechanistic applicability domains for nonanimal-based prediction of toxicological end points: general principles and application to reactive toxicity. Chem Res Toxicol 2006; 19: 1097-105.
48. Lalko JF, Kimber I, Dearman RJ, Gerberick GF, Sarlo K, Api AM. Chemical reactivity measurements: potential for haracterization of respiratory chemical allergens. Toxicol In vitro 2011; 25: 433-45.
49. Chaudhry Q, Piclin N, Cotterill J, Pintore M, Price NR, Chretien JR, Roncaglioni A. Global QSAR models of skin sensitisers for regulatory purposes. Chem Cent J 2010; 4 Suppl 1: S5.
50. Schwo bel JAH, Koleva YK, et al. Measurement and Estimation of Electrophilic Reactivity for Predictive Toxicology. Chem Rev 2011; 111: 2562-96.
51. Raschi E, Ceccarini L, De Ponti F, Recanatini M. Herg-related drug toxicity and models for predicting hERG liability and QT prolongation. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2009; 5: 1005-21.
52. Aronov AM. Ligand structural aspects of hERG channel lockade. Curr Top Med Chem 2008; 8: 1113-27.
53. Aronov AM. Predictive in silico modeling for hERG channel blockers. Drug Discov Today 2005; 10: 149-55.
54. Matthews EJ, Frid AA. Prediction of drug-related cardiac adverse effects in humans-B: Use of QSAR programs for early detection of drug-induced cardiac toxicities. Reg Toxicol and Pharmacol 2010; 56: 276-89.
55. Foti RS, Wienkers LC, Wahlstrom JL. Application of cytochrome P450 drug interaction screening in drug discovery. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 2010; 13: 145-58.
56. Refsgaard HHF, Jensen BF, Christensen IT, Hagen N, Brockhoff PB. In Silico Prediction of Cytochrome P450 Inhibitors. Drug Devel Res 2006; 67: 417-29.
57. Yamanishi Y, Kotera M, Kanehisa M, Goto S. Drug-target interaction prediction from chemical, genomic and pharmacological data in an integrated framework. Bioinformatics 2010; 26: 246-54.
58. Zhang L, Zhang YD, Zhao P, Huang SM. Predicting drug-drug interactions: an FDA perspective. AAPS J 2009; 11: 300-6.
59. Stjernschantz E, Vermeulen NP, Oostenbrink C. Computational prediction of drug binding and rationalisation of selectivity towards cytochromes P450. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2008; 4: 513-27.
60. Roy K, Roy PP. QSAR of cytochrome inhibitors. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2009; 5: 1245-66.
61. Tarcsay A, Keseru GM. In silico site of metabolism prediction of cytochrome P450-mediated biotransformations. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2011; 7: 299-312.
62. Madden JC, Cronin MT. Structure-based methods for the prediction of drug metabolism. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2006; 2: 545-57.
63. Ekins S, Andreyev S, Ryabov A, et al. Computational prediction of human drug metabolism. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2005; 1:303-24.
64. Marchant CA, Briggs KA, Long A. In silico tools for sharing data and knowledge on toxicity and metabolism: derek for windows, meteor, and vitic. Toxicol Mech Methods 2008; 18: 177-87.
65. Sun H, Scott DO. Structure-based drug metabolism predictions for drug design. Chem Biol Drug Des 2010; 75: 3-17.
66. Furge LL, Guengerich FP. Cytochrome P450 enzymes in drug metabolism and chemical toxicology: An introduction. Biochem Mol Biol Educ 2006; 34: 66-74.
67. Guengerich FP. Cytochrome p450 and chemical toxicology. Chem Res Toxicol 2008; 21: 70-83.
68. Boyer S, Zamora I. New methods in predictive metabolism. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2002; 16: 403-13.
69. Piparo L, Worth AP. Review of QSAR Models and Software Tools for predicting Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity. JRC Report 2011. Models and Software Tools for predicting Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity. Accessed October 7 2010.
70. Hewitt M, Ellison CM, Enoch SJ, Madden JC, Cronin MT.Integrating (Q)SAR models, expert systems and read-across approaches for the prediction of developmental toxicity. Reprod Toxicol 2010; 30: 147-60.
71. Scialli AR. The challenge of reproductive and developmental toxicology under REACH. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2008; 51: 244-50.
72. McKim JM. Building a Tiered Approach to In vitro Predictive Toxicity Screening: A Focus on Assays with In vivo Relevance. Comb Chem & High Throughput Screen 2010; 13: 188-206.
73. Kremers P. Can Drug-Drug Interactions Be Predicted from In vitro Studies?. The Scientific World Journal 2002; 2: 751-66.
74. Adler S, Basketter D, Creton S, et al. Alternative (non-animal) methods for cosmetics testing: current status and future prospects-2010. Arch Toxicol 2011; 85: 367-485.
75. Lagrutta AA, Trepakova ES, Salata JJ. The hERG channel and risk of drug-acquired cardiac arrhythmia: an overview. Curr Top Med Chem 2008; 8: 1102-12.
76. Kalgutkar AS, Didiuk MT. Structural Alerts, Reactive Metabolites, and Protein Covalent Binding: How Reliable Are These Attributes as Predictors of Drug Toxicity? Chem Biodiversity 2009; 6: 2115-37.
77. Lasser KE, Allen PD, Woolhandler SJ, Himmelstein DU, Wolfe SM, Bor DH. Timing of New Black Box Warnings and Withdrawals for Prescription Medications. AMA, J Am Med Assoc 2002; 287: 2215-20.
78. Thompson RA, Isin EM, Li Y, et al. Risk assessment and mitigation strategies for reactive metabolites in drug discovery and development. Chem Biol Interact 2011; 192: 65-71.
79. Waring JF, Anderson MG. Idiosyncratic toxicity: mechanistic insights gained from analysis of prior compounds. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 2005; 8: 59-65.
80. Gola J, Obrezanova O, Champness E, Segall M. ADMET Property Prediction: The State of the Art and Current Challenges. QSAR Comb Sci 2006; 25: 1172-80.
81. Snyder RD, Smith MD. Computational prediction of genotoxicity: room for improvement. Drug Discov Today 2005; 10: 1119-24.
82. Kazius J, McGuire R, Bursi R. Derivation and validation of toxicophores for mutagenicity prediction. J Med Chem 2005; 48: 312-20.
83. Benigni R, Bossa C, Tcheremenskaia O, Giuliani A. Alternatives to the carcinogenicity bioassay: in silico methods, and the in vitro and in vivo mutagenicity assays. Expert Opin Drug Metabol Toxicol 2010; 6: 809-19.
84. Ikarashi Y, Tsuchiya T, Nakamura A. Detection of contact sensitivity of metal salts using the murine local lymph node assay. Toxicol Lett 1992; 62: 53-61.
85. Basketter DA, Kimber I. Skin sensitization, false positives and false negatives: experience with guinea pig assays. J Applied Toxicol 2010; 30: 381-86.
86. Thorne N, Auld DS, Inglese J. Apparent activity in high-throughput screening: origins of compound-dependent assay interference. Curr Opin Chem Biol 2010; 14: 315-24.
87. Di L, Kerns EH. Biological assay challenges from compound solubility: strategies for bioassay optimization. Drug Discov Today 2006; 11: 446-51.
88. Lane SJ, Eggleston DS, Brinded KA, Hollerton JC, Taylor NL, Readshaw SA. Defining and maintaining a high quality screening collection: the GSK experience. Drug Discov Today 2006; 11: 267-72.
89. Young D, Martin T, Venkatapathy R, Harten P. Are the Chemical Structures in Your QSAR Correct? QSAR Comb Sci 2008; 27:1337-45.
90. Fourches D, Muratov E, Tropsha A. Trust, But Verify: On the Importance of Chemical Structure Curation in Cheminformatics and QSAR Modeling Research. J Chem Inf and Model 2010; 50:1189-204.
91. Schultz TW, Rogers K, Aptula AO. Read-across to rank skin sensitization potential: subcategories for the Michael acceptor domain. Contact Dermatitis 2009; 60: 21-31.
92. Patlewicz G, Dimitrov SD, Low LK, et al. TIMES-SS-A promising tool for the assessment of skin sensitization hazard. A characterization with respect to the OECD validation principles for (Q)SARs and an external evaluation for predictivity. Reg Toxicol Pharmacol 2007; 48: 225-39.
93. Bathelt CM, Mulholland AJ, Harvey JN. QM/MM modeling of benzene hydroxylation in human cytochrome P450 2C9. J Phys Chem A 2008; 112: 13149-56.
94. Warren GL, Andrews CW, Capelli AM, et al. A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions. J Med Chem 2006; 49:5912-31.
95. Leach AR, Shoichet BK, Peishoff CE. Prediction of protein-ligand interactions. Docking and scoring: successes and gaps. J Med Chem 2006; 49: 5851-5.
96. Cramer RD, Patterson DE, Bunce JD. Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA). 1. Effect of shape on binding of steroids to carrier proteins. J Am Chem Soc 1988; 110: 5959-67.
97. Leach AR. Molecular Modelling. Principles and Applications. Harlow: Longman 1996.
98. Shaik S, Cohen S, Wang Y, Chen H, Kumar D, Thiel W. P450 enzymes: their structure, reactivity, and selectivity-modeled by QM/MM calculations. Chemrev 2010; 110: 949-1017.
99. Greene N, Judson PN, Langowski JJ, Marchant CA. Knowledge-Based Expert Systems for Toxicity and Metabolism Prediction: DEREK, StAR and METEOR. SAR QSAR Env Res 1999; 10:299-314.
100. Wassermann AM, Bajorath Jr. Chemical Substitutions That Introduce Activity Cliffs Across Different Compound Classes and Biological Targets. J Chem Inf Mod 2010; 50: 1248-56.
101. Cruciani G, Carosati E, De Boeck B, et al. MetaSite: understanding metabolism in human cytochromes from the perspective of the chemist. J Med ChemMed Chem 2005; 48: 6970-9.
102. Todeschini R, Lasagni M, Marengo E. New molecular descriptors for 2D and 3D structures. Theory.J ChemometrJ Chemometr 1994; 8: 263-72.
103. Xue L, Bajorath J. Molecular Descriptors in Chemoinformatics, Computational Combinatorial Chemistry, and Virtual Screening. Comb Chem & High Throughput Screen 2000; 3: 363-72.
104. Labute P. A widely applicable set of descriptors. J Mol Graph Model 2000; 18: 464-77.
105. Hong H, Xie Q, Ge W, et al. Mold(2), molecular descriptors from 2D structures for chemoinformatics and toxicoinformatics. J Chem Inf Model 2008; 48: 1337-44.
106. Randic M. Novel shape descriptors for molecular graphs. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2001; 41: 607-13.
107. Mansfield ML, Covell DG, Jernigan RL. A new class of molecular shape descriptors. 1. Theory and properties. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2002; 42: 259-73.
108. Arteca GA. Molecular Shape Descriptors. Reviews in Computational Chemistry. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken NJ 2007.
109. Todeschini R, Consonni, V. Molecular descriptors for chemoinformatics, Wiley VCH Verlag GmbH, Weinheim 2009
110. Todeschini R, Lasagni M, Marengo E. New molecular descriptors for 2D and 3D structures. J. Chemom. 1994; 8: 263-72.
111. Xue L, Bajorath J. Molecular descriptors in chemoinformatics, computational combinatorial chemistry, and virtual screening. Comb. Chem. High-Throughput Screen. 2000; 3: 363-72.
112. Hong H, Xie Q, Ge W, et al. Mold(2), molecular descriptors from 2D structures for chemoinformatics and toxicoinformatics. J. Chem Inf. Model. 2008; 48: 1337-44.
113. Bender A, Glen RC. Molecular similarity: a key technique in molecular informatics. Org Biomol Chem 2004; 2: 3204-18.
114. Gillet VJ, Willett P, Bradshaw J. Similarity Searching Using Reduced Graphs. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2003; 43: 338-45.
115. Willett P, Barnard JM, Downs GM. Chemical Similarity Searching. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1998; 38: 983-96.
116. Senese CL, Duca J, Pan D, Hopfinger AJ, Tseng YJ. 4D-fingerprints, universal QSAR and QSPR descriptors. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2004; 44: 1526-39.
117. Clark DE. Rapid calculation of polar molecular surface area and its application to the prediction of transport phenomena. 2. Prediction of blood-brain barrier penetration. J Pharm Sci 1999; 88: 815-21.
118. Friesner RA, Banks JL, Murphy RB, et al. Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. J Med Chem 2004; 47: 1739-49.
119. Jones G, Willett P, Glen RC, Leach AR, Taylor R. Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking. J Mol Biol 1997; 267: 727-48.
120. Bender A, Jenkins JL, Scheiber J, Sukuru SC, Glick M, Davies JW. How similar are similarity searching methods? A principal component analysis of molecular descriptor space. J Chem Inf Model 2009; 49: 108-19.
121. Maget-Dana R, Peypoux F. Iturins, a special class of pore-forming lipopeptides: biological and physicochemical properties. Toxicology 1994; 87: 151-74.
122. Clark RD, Norinder U. Two personal perspectives on a key issue in contemporary 3D QSAR. WIREs Comput Mol Sci 2011: doi: 10.1002/wcms.69.
123. Nicholls A, McGaughey GB, Sheridan RP, et al. Molecular shape and medicinal chemistry: a perspective. J Med Chem 2010; 53: 3862-86.
124. Cavasotto CN, Orry AJ. Ligand docking and structure-based virtual screening in drug discovery. Curr Top Med Chem 2007; 7: 1006-14.
125. Eckert H, Bajorath J. Molecular similarity analysis in virtual screening: foundations, limitations and novel approaches. Drug Discov Today 2007; 12: 225-33.
126. Ghosh S, Nie A, An J, Huang Z. Structure-based virtual screening of chemical libraries for drug discovery. Curr Opin Chem Biol 2006; 10: 194-202.
127. Bender A, Scheiber J, Glick M, et al. Analysis of Pharmacology Data and the Prediction of Adverse Drug Reactions and Off-Target Effects from Chemical Structure Chem Med Chem 2007; 2: 861-73.
128. Baell JB, Holloway GA. New substructure filters for removal of pan assay interference compounds (PAINS) from screening libraries and for their exclusion in bioassays. J Med Chem 2010;53: 2719-40.
129. Papadatos G, Alkarouri M, Gillet VJ, et al. Lead optimization using matched molecular pairs: inclusion of contextual information for enhanced prediction of HERG inhibition, solubility, and lipophilicity. J Chem Inf Model 2010; 50: 1872-86.
130. Patlewicz G, Jeliazkova N, Gallegos Saliner A, Worth AP. Toxmatch-a new software tool to aid in the development and evaluation of chemically similar groups. SAR QSAR Environ Res 2008; 19: 397-412.
131. Gallegos-Saliner A, Poater A, Jeliazkova N, Patlewicz G, Worth AP. Toxmatch--A chemical classification and activity prediction tool based on similarity measures. Reg Toxicol and Pharmacol 2008; 52: 77-84.
132. Sanderson DM, Earnshaw CG. Computer prediction of possible toxic action from chemical structure; the DEREK system. Hum Exp Toxicol 1991; 10: 261-73.
133. Ridings JE, Barratt MD, Cary R, et al. Computer prediction of possible toxic action from chemical structure: an update on the DEREK system. Toxicology 1996; 106: 267-79.
134. The Benigni/Bossa rulebase for mutagenicity and carcinogenicity - a module of Toxtree 2008, [pdf on the internet]. European Comission Joint Research Centre, Ispra; c2008 [updated 2008; cited 2011 Oct 17]. Available from http://ihcp.jrc.ec.europa.eu/our_labs/computational_toxicology/doc/EUR_23241_EN.pdf.
135. Patlewicz G, Jeliazkova N, Safford RJ, Worth AP, Aleksiev B. An evaluation of the implementation of the Cramer classification scheme in the Toxtree software. Sar and Qsar in Environmental Research 2008; 19: 495-524.
136. Verhaar HJM, C. VL, JLMH. Classifying environmental pollutants. 1: Structure-activity relationships for prediction of aquatic toxicity. Chemosphere 1992; 25: 471-91.
137. Gerner I, Schlegel K, Walker JD, Hulzebos E. Use of Physicochemical Property Limits to Develop Rules for Identifying Chemical Substances with no Skin Irritation or Corrosion Potential. QSAR Comb Sci 2004; 23: 726-33.
138. Gerner I, Liebsch M, Spielmann H. Assessment of the eye irritating properties of chemicals by applying alternatives to the Draize rabbit eye test: The use of QSARs and in vitro tests for the classification of eye irritation. Atla-Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 2005; 33: 215-37.
139. Olsen L, Rydberg P, Gloriam DE, Zaretzki J, Breneman C. SMARTCyp: A 2D Method for Prediction of Cytochrome P450-Mediated Drug Metabolism. Acs Medicinal Chemistry Letters 2010; 1: 96-100.
140. Schultz TW, Yarbrough JW, Hunter RS, Aptula AO. Verification of the structural alerts for Michael acceptors. Chem Res Toxicol 2007; 20: 1359-63.
141. Daylight Fingerprints [homepage on the internet]: Daylight Chemical Information Laguna Niquel CA, [updated 2008; cited 2011 Oct 17]. Available from www.daylight.com
142. Durant JL, Leland BA, Henry DR, Nourse JG. Reoptimization of MDL Keys for Use in Drug Discovery. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2002; 42: 1273-80.
143. Mussa HY, Hawizy L, Nigsch F, Glen RC. Classifying Large Chemical Data Sets: Using A Regularized Potential Function Method. J Chem Inf and Model 2011; 51: 4-14.
144. Gleeson MP, Hersey A, Hannongbua S. In-silico ADME models: a general assessment of their utility in drug discovery applications. Curr Top Med Chem 2011; 11: 358-81.
145. [Madden JC. In Silico Approaches for Predicting Adme Properties. Recent Advances in QSAR Studies. Springer Netherlands 2010.
146. Tropsha A. Best Practices for QSAR Model Development, Validation, and Exploitation. Molecular Informatics 2010; 29: 476-88.
147. Scior T, Medina-Franco JL, Do QT, Martinez-Mayorga K, Yunes Rojas JA, Bernard P. How to recognize and workaround pitfalls in QSAR studies: a critical review. Curr Med Chem 2009; 16: 4297-313.
148. Dragos H, Gilles M, Alexandre V. Predicting the Predictability: A Unified Approach to the Applicability Domain Problem of QSAR Models. J Chem Inf and Model 2009; 49: 1762-76.
149. Benigni R, Bossa C. Predictivity of QSAR. J Chem Inf Model 2008; 48: 971-80.
150. Hansch C, Leo A, Mekapati SB, Kurup A. QSAR and ADME. Bioorg Med Chem 2004; 12: 3391-400.
151. Lombardo F, Gifford E, Shalaeva MY. In silico ADME prediction: data, models, facts and myths. Mini Rev Med Chem 2003; 3: 861-75.
152. Dearden JC. In silico prediction of drug toxicity. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2003; 17: 119-27.
153. Gavaghan CL, Arnby CH, Blomberg N, Strandlund G, Boyer S. Development, interpretation and temporal evaluation of a global QSAR of hERG electrophysiology screening data. J Comput-aided Mol Des 2007; 21: 189-206.
154. Xu Y-j, Gao H. Dimension related distance and its application in QSAR/QSPR model error estimation. QSAR Comb Sci 2003; 22:422-9.
155. Tetko IV, Bruneau P, Mewes H-W, Rohrer DC, Poda GI. Can we estimate the accuracy of ADME-Tox predictions? Drug Discov Today 2006; 11: 700-7.
156. Weaver S, Gleeson MP. The importance of the domain of applicability in QSAR modeling. J Mol Graph Model 2008; 26: 1315-26.
157. Bruneau P. Search for Predictive Generic Model of Aqueous Solubility Using Bayesian Neural Nets. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2001; 41: 1605-16.
158. Sheridan RP, Feuston BP, Maiorov VN, Kearsley SK. Similarity to Molecules in the Training Set Is a Good Discriminator for Prediction Accuracy in QSAR. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2004; 44:1912-28.
159. Helgee EA, Carlsson L, Boyer S, Norinder U. Evaluation of Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship Modeling Strategies: Local and Global Models. J Chem Inf and Model 2010; 50: 677-89.
160. Hawkins DM. The problem of overfitting. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2004; 44: 1-12.
161. Marchese Robinson RL, Glen RC, Mitchell JBO. Development and Comparison of hERG Blocker Classifiers: Assessment on Different Datasets Yields Markedly Different Results. Mol Informatics 2011;30: 443-58.
162. Golbraikh A, Tropsha A. Beware of q2! J Mol Graph Model 2002;20: 269-76.
163. Johnson SR. The trouble with QSAR (or how I learned to stop worrying and embrace fallacy). J Chem Inf Model 2008; 48: 25-6.
164. Rucker C, Rucker G, Meringer M. Y-Randomization and its variants in QSPR/QSAR. J Chem Inf Model 2007; 47: 2345-57.
165. Rodgers SL, Davis AM, van de Waterbeemd H. Time-Series QSAR Analysis of Human Plasma Protein Binding Data. QSAR Comb Sci 2007; 26: 511-21.
166. Rodgers SL, Davis AM, Tomkinson NP. QSAR modeling using automatically updating correction libraries: Application to a human plasma protein binding model. J Chem Inf and Model 2007; 47:2401-07.
167. Fukunaga K. Introduction to Statistical Pattern Recognition. Academic Press: United Kingdom 1972.
168. Jensen F. Introduction to Computational Chemistry. 2nd ed. WILEY: Chichester, England 2007.
169. Bishop C. Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning. Springer Science and Business Media: New York, USA 2006.
170. Hansch C, Quinlan JE, Lawrence GL. Linear free-energy relationship between partition coefficients and the aqueous solubility of organic liquids. JOrg Chem 1968; 33: 347-50.
171. Hansch C, Fujita T. P-o-7t Analysis. A Method for the Correlation of Biological Activity and Chemical Structure. J Am Chem Soc 1964; 86: 1616-26.
172. Hansch C, Fujita T. Additions and Corrections - p-o-7t Analysis. A Method for the Correlation of Biological Activity and Chemical Structure. J Am Chem Soc 1964; 86: 5710-5720.
173. Svetnik V, Liaw A, Tong C, Culberson JC, Sheridan RP, Feuston BP. Random forest: A classification and regression tool for compound classification and QSAR modeling. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2003; 43: 1947-58.
174. Clark M, Wiseman JS. Fragment-Based Prediction of the Clinical Occurrence of Long QT Syndrome and Torsade de Pointes. J Chem Inf and Model 2009; 49: 2617-26.
175. Aberg KM, Jacobsson SP. On the separation of classes: can the Fisher criterion be improved upon when classes have unequal variance-covariance structure?J ChemometrJ Chemometr 2010; 24: 650-54.
176. Fisher RA. The Use of Multiple Measurements in Taxonomic Problems. Annals of Eugenics 1936; 7: 179-88.
177. Doddareddy MR, Klaasse EC, Shagufta, Ijzerman AP, Bender A. Prospective validation of a comprehensive in silico hERG model and its applications to commercial compound and drug databases. ChemMedChem 2010; 5: 716-29.
178. Nigsch F, Bender A, Jenkins JL, Mitchell JBO. Ligand-Target Prediction Using Winnow and Naive Bayesian Algorithms and the Implications of Overall Performance Statistics. J Chem Inf and Model 2008; 48: 2313-25.
179. Hewitt M, Cronin MT, Enoch SJ, Madden JC, Roberts DW, Dearden JC. In silico prediction of aqueous solubility: the solubility challenge. J Chem Inf Model 2009; 49: 2572-87.
180. [Worth AP, Lapenna S, Piparo EL, Mostrag-Szlichtyng A, Serafimova R. A Framework for assessing in silicoToxicity Predictions: Case Studies with selected Pesticides [pdf on the internet]: European Commision Joint Research Centre, Ispra; c2011 [updated 2011; cited 2011 Oct 17]. Available from http://ihcp.jrc.ec.europa.eu/our_labs/computational_toxicology/doc/EUR_24705_EN.pdf
181. Strobl C, Malley J, Tutz G. An introduction to recursive partitioning: rationale, application and characteristics of classification and regression trees, bagging and random forests. Psychol Methods 2009, 14, 332-48.
182. Menze BH, Kelm BM, Masuch R, et al. A comparison of random forest and its Gini importance with standard chemometric methods for the feature selection and classification of spectral data. BMC Bioinformatics 2009; 10; 213.
183. Rusinko A, Farmen MW, Lambert CG, Brown PL, Young SS. Analysis of a Large Structure/Biological Activity Data Set Using Recursive Partitioning. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1999; 39: 1017-26.
184. Burbidge R, Trotter M, Buxton B, Holden S. Drug design by machine learning: support vector machines for pharmaceutical data analysis. Comput Chem 2001; 26: 5-14.
185. Dubus E, Ijjaali I, Petitet F, Michel A. In silico classification of HERG channel blockers: a knowledge-based strategy. ChemMedChem 2006; 1: 622-30.
186. Breiman L. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 2001; 45: 5-32.
187. Breiman LBRCHC. Classification and Regression Trees. Chapman & Hall/CRC: Boca Raton 1984.
188. Peterson KL. Artificial Neural Networks and Their Use in Chemistry In: Reviews in Computational Chemistry; Lipkowitz, K.B, Boyd, D.B, Eds.; Wiley-VCH: New York, 2000, Vol. 16, 53-128.
189. Thai KM, Ecker GF. Classification models for HERG inhibitors by counter-propagation neural networks. Chem Biol Drug Des 2008; 72: 279-89.
190. Cartwright H. Development and Uses of Artificial Intelligence in Chemistry In: Reviews in Computational Chemistry; Lipkowitz, K.B., Cudari T.R. Eds.; Wiley-VCH: New York, 2007, Vol. 25, 349-389.
191. Ivanciuc O. Applications of Support Vector Machines in Chemistry In: Reviews in Computational Chemistry; Lipkowitz, K.B., Cudari T.R. Eds.; Wiley-VCH: New York, 2006, Vol. 23, 291-400.
192. Muller KR, Mika S, Ratsch G, Tsuda K, Scholkopf B. An introduction to kernel-based learning algorithms. Neural Networks, IEEE Transactions on 2001; 12: 181-201.
193. Keerthi SS, Lin CJ. Asymptotic behaviors of support vector machines with Gaussian kernel. Neural Comput 2003; 15: 1667-89.
194. Song MH, Clark M. Development and evaluation of an in silico model for hERG binding. J Chem Inf and Model 2006; 46: 392-400.
195. Zheng W, Tropsha A. Novel variable selection quantitative structure--property relationship approach based on the k-nearest-neighbor principle. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2000; 40: 185-94.
196. Baldi P, Brunak S, Chauvin Y, Andersen CAF, Nielsen H. Assessing the accuracy of prediction algorithms for classification: an overview. Bioinformatics 2000; 16: 412-24.
197. Matthews BW. Comparison of the predicted and observed secondary structure of T4 phage lysozyme. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1975; 405: 442-51.
198. Cohen J. Weighed kappa: Nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological Bulletin 1968; 70: 213-20.
199. Konovalov Da, Llewellyn LE, Vander Heyden Y, Coomans D. Robust cross-validation of linear regression QSAR models. J Chem Inf Model 2008; 48: 2081-94.
200. Gleeson MP. Plasma protein binding affinity and its relationship to molecular structure: an in-silico analysis. J Med Chem 2007; 50: 101-12.
201. Gleeson MP, Waters NJ, Paine SW, Davis AM. In silico human and rat Vss quantitative structure-activity relationship models. J Med Chem 2006; 49: 1953-63.
202. Todeschini R, Consonni V, Pavan M. A distance measure between models: a tool for similarity/diversity analysis of model populations. Chemometr Intell Lab 2004; 70: 55-61.
203. Schultz TW, Hewitt M, Netzeva TI, Cronin MTD. Assessing Applicability Domains of Toxicological QSARs: Definition, Confidence in Predicted Values, and the Role of Mechanisms of Action. QSAR Comb Sci 2007; 26: 238-54.
204. Bruneau P, McElroy NR. Logd7.4 modeling using Bayesian Regularized Neural Networks. Assessment and correction of the errors of prediction. J Chem Inf Model 2006; 46: 1379-1387.
205. Sushko I, Novotarskyi S, Korner R, et al. Applicability Domains for Classification Problems: Benchmarking of Distance to Models for Ames Mutagenicity Set. J Chem Inf and Model 2010; 50: 2094-111.
206. Tetko IV, Sushko I, Pandey AK, et al. Critical Assessment of QSAR Models of Environmental Toxicity against Tetrahymena pyriformis: Focusing on Applicability Domain and Overfitting by Variable Selection. J Chem Inf and Model 2008; 48: 1733-46.
207. Netzeva TI, Worth A, Aldenberg T, et al. Current status of methods for defining the applicability domain of (quantitative) structure-activity relationships. The report and recommendations of ECVAM Workshop 52. Alternatives to laboratory animals: ATLA 2005; 33: 155-73.
208. Kuhne R, Ebert RU, Schuurmann G. Chemical Domain of QSAR Models from Atom-Centered Fragments. J Chem Inf and Model 2009; 49: 2660-69.
209. Vaz RJ, Li Y, Rampe D. Human ether-a-go-go related gene (HERG): a chemist's perspective. Prog Med Chem 2005; 43: 1-18.
210. Polak S, Wisniowska B, Brandys J. Collation, assessment and analysis of literature in vitro data on hERG receptor blocking potency for subsequent modeling of drugs' cardiotoxic properties. J Applied Toxicol 2009; 29: 183-206.
211. Bridgland-Taylor MH, Hargreaves AC, Easter A, et al. Optimisation and validation of a medium-throughput electrophysiology-based hERG assay using IonWorks(TM) HT. J Pharmacol Toxicologl 2006; 54: 189-99.
212. Li Q, Jorgensen FS, Oprea T, Brunak S, Taboureau O. Herg classification model based on a combination of support vector machine method and GRIND descriptors. Mol Pharm 2008; 5: 117-27.
213. Su BH, Shen MY, Esposito EX, Hopfinger AJ, Tseng YJ. In silico binary classification QSAR models based on 4D-fingerprints and MOE descriptors for prediction of hERG blockage. J Chem Inf Model 2010; 50: 1304-18.
214. Obrezanova O, Segall MD. Gaussian processes for classification: QSAR modeling of ADMET and target activity. J Chem Inf Model 2010; 50: 1053-61.
215. Sen S, Sinha N. Predicting hERG activities of compounds from their 3D structures: Development and evaluation of a global descriptors based QSAR model. European J Med Chem 2011; 46: 618-30.
216. Yao X, Anderson DL, Ross SA, et al. Predicting QT prolongation in humans during early drug development using hERG inhibition and an anaesthetized guinea-pig model. Br J Pharmacol 2008; 154: 1446-56.
217. Thai KM, Ecker GF. A binary QSAR model for classification of hERG potassium channel blockers. Bioorg Med Chem 2008; 16: 4107-19.
218. Chekmarev DS, Kholodovych V, Balakin KV, Ivanenkov Y, Ekins S, Welsh WJ. Shape signatures: new descriptors for predicting cardiotoxicity in silico. Chem Res Toxicol 2008; 21: 1304-14.
219. Thai KM, Ecker GF. Similarity-based SIBAR descriptors for classification of chemically diverse hERG blockers. Mol Divers 2009; 13: 321-36.
220. Ekins S, Crumb WJ, Sarazan RD, Wikel JH, Wrighton SA. Three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationship for inhibition of human ether-a-go-go-related gene potassium channel. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2002; 301: 427-34.
221. Aronov AM. Common pharmacophores for uncharged human ether-a-go-go-related gene (hERG) blockers. J Med Chem 2006; 49: 6917-21.
222. Du LP, Li MY, Xia L, You QD. A novel structure-based virtual screening model for the hERG channel blockers. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 2007; 355: 889-94.
223. Recanatini M, Cavalli A, Masetti M. Modeling hERG and its Interactions with Drugs: Recent Advances in Light of Current Potassium Channel Simulations. Chem Med Chem 2008; 3: 523-35.
224. Roche O, Trube G, Zuegge J, Pflimlin P, Alanine A, Schneider G. A virtual screening method for prediction of the HERG potassium channel liability of compound libraries. Chem Bio Chem 2002; 3: 455-9.
225. Hansen K, Rathke F, Schroeter T, et al. Bias-correction of regression models: a case study on hERG inhibition. J Chem Inf Model 2009; 49: 1486-96.
226. Demel MA, Ecker GF, Janecek AGK, Thai KM, Gansterer WN. Predictive QSAR models for polyspecific drug targets: The importance of feature selection. Curr Comput Aided Drug Des 2008; 4: 91-110.
227. Obrezanova O, Csanyi G, Gola JM, Segall MD. Gaussian processes: a method for automatic QSAR modeling of ADME properties. J Chem Inf Model 2007; 47: 1847-57.
228. Johnson SR, Yue HW, Conder ML, Shi H, Doweyko AM, Lloyd J, Levesque P. Estimation of hERG inhibition of drug candidates using multivariate property and pharmacophore SAR. Bioorg Med Chem 2007; 15: 6182-92.
229. Davenport AJ, Moller C, Heifetz A, Mazanetz MP, Law RJ, Ebneth A., Gemkow MJ. Using Electrophysiology and In Silico Three-Dimensional Modeling to Reduce Human Ether-a-go-go Related Gene K(+) Channel Inhibition in a Histamine H3 Receptor Antagonist Program. Assay and Drug Development Technologies 2010; 8: 781-9.
230. Gleeson P, Bravi G, Modi S, Lowe D. ADMET rules of thumb II: A comparison of the effects of common substituents on a range of ADMET parameters. Bioorg Med Chem 2009; 17: 5906-19.
231. Imai YN, Ryu S, Oiki S. Docking Model of Drug Binding to the Human Ether-a-go-go Potassium Channel Guided by Tandem Dimer Mutant Patch-Clamp Data: A Synergic Approach. J Med Chem 2009; 52: 1630-38.
232. [Serafimova R, Gatnik MF, Worth AP. A Review of QSAR Models and Software Tools for Predicting Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity [pdf on the internet]. European Commision Joint Research Centre, Ispra; c2010 [updated 2010; cited 2011 Oct 17]. Available from http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/http://ihcp.jrc.ec.europa.eu/our_databases/jrc-qsar-database/review-qsar-models/at_multi_download/file?name=EUR_24427_EN.pdf
233. Ames BN, Lee FD, Durston WE. An improved bacterial test system for the detection and classification of mutagens and carcinogens. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1973; 70: 782-6.
234. Ames BN, McCann J, Yamasaki E. Methods for detecting carcinogens and mutagens with the Salmonella/mammalian-microsome mutagenicity test. Mutat Res 1975; 31: 347-64.
235. Ames BN. The detection of environmental mutagens and potential carcinogens. Cancer 1984; 53: 2034-40.
236. Chemical Carcinogenesis Research Information System (CCRIS) [homepage on the internet]. United States National Library of Medicine; [updated 2011 Oct 17; cited 2011 Oct 17]. Available from http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen?CCRIS
237. Tennant RW. The genetic toxicity database of the National Toxicology Program: evaluation of the relationships between genetic toxicity and carcinogenicity. Environ Health Perspect 1991; 96: 47-51.
238. Mutagenicity of food additives dataset[homepage on the internet]. Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Public Health; [updated 2008 May 16; cited 2011 Oct 17]. Available from www.tokyo-eiken.go.jp/henigen/index.htm
239. Kirkland D, Aardema M, Henderson L, Muller L. Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens I. Sensitivity, specificity and relative predictivity. Mutat Res 2005; 584: 1-256.
240. Ashby J, Tennant RW. Chemical structure, Salmonella mutagenicity and extent of carcinogenicity as indicators of genotoxic carcinogenesis among 222 chemicals tested in rodents by the U.S. NCI/NTP. Mutat Res 1988; 204: 17-115.
241. Ashby J, Tennant RW. Definitive relationships among chemical structure, carcinogenicity and mutagenicity for 301 chemicals tested by the U.S. NTP. Mutat Res 1991; 257: 229-306.
242. Ashby J. Fundamental structural alerts to potential carcinogenicity or noncarcinogenicity. Environ Mutagen 1985; 7: 919-21.
243. Cariello NF, Wilson JD, Britt BH, Wedd DJ, Burlinson B, Gombar V. Comparison of the computer programs DEREK and TOPKAT to predict bacterial mutagenicity. Deductive Estimate of Risk from Existing Knowledge. Toxicity Prediction by Komputer Assisted Technology. Mutagenesis 2002; 17: 321-9.
244. Helma C, Cramer T, Kramer S, De Raedt L. Data mining and machine learning techniques for the identification of mutagenicity inducing substructures and structure activity relationships of noncongeneric compounds. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2004; 44: 1402-11.
245. Brinn M, Walsh PT, Payne MP, Bott B. Neural network classification of mutagens using structural fragment data. SAR and QSAR in Environ Res 1993; 2-3: 189-210.
246. Contrera JF, Matthews EJ, Kruhlak NL, Benz RD. In silico screening of chemicals for bacterial mutagenicity using electrotopological E-state indices and MDL QSAR software. Reg Toxicol and Pharmacol 2005; 43: 313-23.
247. Klopman G, Chakravarti SK, Harris N, Ivanov J, Saiakhov RD. In-silico screening of high production volume chemicals for mutagenicity using the MCASE QSAR expert system. SAR QSAR Env Res 2003; 14: 165-80.
248. Maran U, Sild S. QSAR modeling of genotoxicity on non-congeneric sets of organic compounds. Artif Intell Rev 2003; 20: 13-38.
249. Mekenyan O, Dimitrov S, Serafimova R, Thompson E, Kotov S, Dimitrova N, Walker JD. Identification of the structural requirements for mutagenicity by incorporating molecular flexibility and metabolic activation of chemicals I: TA100 model. Chem Res in Toxicol 2004; 17: 753-66.
250. Mekenyan O, Serafimova R, Todorov M, Pavlov T, Kotov S, Jacob E, Aptula A. Identification of the structural requirements for mutagencitiy, by incorporating molecular flexibility and metabolic activation of chemicals. II. General Ames mutagenicity model. Chem Res in Toxicol 2007; 20: 662-76.
251. Fjodorova N, Vracko M, Novic M, Roncaglioni A, Benfenati E. New public QSAR model for carcinogenicity. Chem Central J 2010; 4: S3.
252. Almond LM, Yang J, Jamei M, Tucker GT, Rostami-Hodjegan A. Towards a quantitative framework for the prediction of DDIs arising from cytochrome P450 induction. Curr Drug Metabol 2009; 10: 420-32.
253. Hewitt NJ, de Kanter R, LeCluyse E. Induction of drug metabolizing enzymes: a survey of in vitro methodologies and interpretations used in the pharmaceutical industry-do they comply with FDA recommendations? Chem-biol interact 2007; 168: 51-65.
254. Wienkers LC, Heath TG. Predicting in vivo drug interactions from in vitro drug discovery data. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2005; 4: 825-33.
255. Zhou S-F. Drugs behave as substrates, inhibitors and inducers of human cytochrome P450 3A4. Curr Drug Metabol 2008; 9: 310-22.
256. Pelkonen O, Turpeinen M, Hakkola J, Honkakoski P, Hukkanen J, Raunio H. Inhibition and induction of human cytochrome P450 enzymes: current status. Arch Toxicol 2008; 82: 667-715.
257. Zhang L, Zhang YD, Zhao P, Huang S-M. Predicting drug-drug interactions: an FDA perspective. AAPSJ 2009; 11: 300-6.
258. Chu V, Einolf HJ, Evers R, Kumar G, Moore D, Ripp S, Silva J, Sinha V, Sinz M, Skerjanec A. In vitro and in vivo Induction of Cytochrome P450: A Survey of the Current Practices and Recommendations: A Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Perspective. Drug Metabol Dispos 2009; 37: 1339-54.
259. Moon T, Chi MH, Kim D-H, Yoon CN, Choi Y-S. Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships (QSAR) Study of Flavonoid Derivatives for Inhibition of Cytochrome P450 1A2. Quant Structure-Act Rel 2000; 19: 257-63.
260. Roy K, Roy PP. Comparative QSAR Studies of CYP1A2 Inhibitor Flavonoids Using 2D and 3D Descriptors. Chem Biol Drug Des 2008; 72: 370-82.
261. Saraceno M, Massarelli I, Imbriani M, James TL, Bianucci AM. Optimizing QSAR Models for Predicting Ligand Binding to the Drug-Metabolizing Cytochrome P450 Isoenzyme CYP2D6. Chem Biol Drug Des 2011; 78: 236-51.
262. Susnow RG, Dixon SL. Use of robust classification techniques for the prediction of human cytochrome P450 2D6 inhibition. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2003; 43: 1308-15.
263. Itokawa D, Nishioka T, Fukushima J, Yasuda T, Yamauchi A, Chuman H. Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship Study of Binding Affinity of Azole Compounds with CYP2B and CYP3A. QSAR Comb Sci 2007; 26: 828-36.
264. Chohan KK, Paine SW, Mistry J, Barton P, Davis AM. A rapid computational filter for cytochrome P450 1A2 inhibition potential of compound libraries. J Med Chem 2005; 48: 5154-61.
265. Vasanthanathan P, Taboureau O, Oostenbrink C, Vermeulen NPE, Olsen L, Jørgensen FS. Classification of Cytochrome P450 1A2 Inhibitors and Noninhibitors by Machine Learning Techniques. Drug Metabol Dispos 2009; 37: 658-64.
266. Cruciani G. VolSurf: a new tool for the pharmacokinetic optimization of lead compounds. Eur J Pharm Sci 2000; 11: S29-S39.
267. Burton J, Ijjaali I, Barberan O, Petitet F, Vercauteren DP, Michel A. Recursive partitioning for the prediction of cytochromes P450 2D6 and 1A2 inhibition: importance of the quality of the dataset. J Med Chem 2006; 49: 6231-40.
268. Ekins S, Berbaum J, Harrison RK. Generation and Validation of Rapid Computational Filters for CYP2D6 and CYP3A4. Drug Metabol Dispos 2003; 31: 1077-80.
269. Jensen BF, Vind C, Brockhoff PB, Refsgaard HHF. In Silico Prediction of Cytochrome P450 2D6 and 3A4 Inhibition Using Gaussian Kernel Weighted k-Nearest Neighbor and Extended Connectivity Fingerprints, Including Structural Fragment Analysis of Inhibitors versus Noninhibitors. J Med Chem 2007; 50: 501-11.
270. Zuegge J, Fechner U, Roche O, Parrott NJ, Engkvist O, Schneider G. A fast virtual screening filter for cytochrome P450 3A4 inhibition liability of compound libraries. Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships 2002; 21: 249-56.
271. Kriegl JM, Eriksson L, Arnhold T, Beck B, Johansson E, Fox T. Multivariate modeling of cytochrome P450 3A4 inhibition. Eur J Pharm Sci 2005; 24: 451-463.
272. Arimoto R. Computational Models for Predicting Interactions with Cytochrome p450 Enzyme. Curr Topics Med Chem 2006; 6: 1609-18.
273. Zhou DS, Liu RF, Otmani SA, Grimm SW, Zauhar RJ, Zamora I. Rapid classification of CYP3A4 inhibition potential using support vector machine approach. Lett Drug Design & Discov 2007; 4: 192-200.
274. Lewis DF, Modi S, Dickins M. Quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSARs) within substrates of human cytochromes P450 involved in drug metabolism. Drug Metabol Drug Interact 2001; 18: 221-42.
275. Gleeson MP, Davis AM, Chohan KK, Paine SW, Boyer S, Gavaghan CL, Arnby CH, Kankkonen C, Albertson N. Generation of in-silico cytochrome P450 1A2, 2C9, 2C19, 2D6, and 3A4 inhibition QSAR models. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2007; 21: 559-73.
276. Dagliyan O, Kavakli IH, Turkay M. Classification of cytochrome P450 inhibitors with respect to binding free energy and pIC50 using common molecular descriptors. J Chem Inf and Model 2009; 49: 2403-11.
277. Hammann F, Gutmann H, Baumann U, Helma C, Drewe J. Classification of cytochrome p(450) activities using machine learning methods. Mol pharmaceutics 2009; 6: 1920-1916.
278. Michielan L, Terfloth L, Gasteiger J, Moro S. Comparison of multilabel and single-label classification applied to the prediction of the isoform specificity of cytochrome p450 substrates. J Chem Inf and Model 2009; 49: 2588-605.
279. Korhonen LE, Rahnasto M, Mahonen NJ, Wittekindt C, Poso A, Juvonen RO, Raunio H. Predictive three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationship of cytochrome P450 1A2 inhibitors. J Med Chem 2005; 48: 3808-15.
280. Poso A, Gynther J, Juvonen R. A comparative molecular field analysis of cytochrome P450 2A5 and 2A6 inhibitors. J Comput-aided Mol Design 2001; 15: 195-202.
281. Korhonen LE, Turpeinen M, Rahnasto M, Wittekindt C, Poso A, Pelkonen O, Raunio H, Juvonen RO. New potent and selective cytochrome P450 2B6 (CYP2B6) inhibitors based on three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationship (3D-QSAR) analysis. Br J Pharmacol 2007; 150: 932-42.
282. Oprea TI, Garcia AE. Three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationships of steroid aromatase inhibitors. J Comput-aided 1996; 10: 186-200.
283. Goodford PJ. A computational procedure for determining energetically favorable binding sites on biologically important macromolecules. J Med Chem 1985; 28: 849-57.
284. Afzelius L, Zamora I, Ridderström M, Andersson TB, Karlén A, Masimirembwa CM. Competitive CYP2C9 inhibitors: enzyme inhibition studies, protein homology modeling, and three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationship analysis. Mol Pharmacol 2001; 59: 909-19.
285. Pastor M, Cruciani G, McLay I, Pickett S, Clementi S. GRid- INdependent descriptors (GRIND): a novel class of alignment-independent three-dimensional molecular descriptors. J Med Chem 2000; 43: 3233-43.
286. Fontaine F, Pastor M, Sanz F. Incorporating molecular shape into the alignment-free Grid-Independent Descriptors. J Med Chem 2004; 47: 2805-15.
287. Afzelius L, Masimirembwa CM, Karlén A, Andersson TB, Zamora I. Discriminant and quantitative PLS analysis of competitive CYP2C9 inhibitors versus non-inhibitors using alignment independent GRIND descriptors. JComput-aided Mol DesignJ Comput-aided Mol Des 2002; 16: 443-58.
288. Gabriele C, Mannhold R, Kubinyi H, Folkers G. Molecular Interaction Fields - Applications in Drug Discovery and ADME Prediction. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim 2005.
289. Cianchetta G, Li Y, Singleton R, Zhang M, Wildgoose M, Rampe D, Kang J, Vaz RJ. Molecular Interaction Fields in ADME and Safety. In: Gabriele C, Mannhold R, Kubinyi H, Folkers G, ed., Molecular Interaction Fields: Applications in Drug Discovery and ADME Prediction. Wiley: Weinheim 2005; pp. 197-216.
290. de Groot MJ, Ekins S. Pharmacophore modeling of cytochromes P450. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2002; 54: 367-83.
291. de Graaf C, Vermeulen NPE, Feenstra KA. Cytochrome p450 in silico: an integrative modeling approach. J Med Chem 2005; 48:2725-55.
292. de Groot MJ. Designing better drugs: predicting cytochrome P450 metabolism. Drug Discov Today 2006; 11: 601-6.
293. Ekins S, Mestres J, Testa B. In silico pharmacology for drug discovery: applications to targets and beyond. Br J Pharmacol 2007; 152: 21-37.
294. Schuster D, Laggner C, Steindl TM, Langer T. Development and validation of an in silico P450 profiler based on pharmacophore models. Curr Drug Discov Technol 2006; 3: 1-48.
295. Locuson CW, Rock Da, Jones JP. Quantitative binding models for CYP2C9 based on benzbromarone analogues. Biochem 2004; 43: 6948-58.
296. Mao B, Gozalbes R, Barbosa F, Migeon J, Merrick S, Kamm K, Wong E, Costales C, Shi W, Wu C, Froloff N. QSAR modeling of in vitro inhibition of cytochrome P450 3A4. J Chem Inf and Model 2006; 46: 2125-34.
297. Leong MK, Chen Y-M, Chen H-B, Chen P-H. Development of a new predictive model for interactions with human cytochrome P450 2A6 using pharmacophore ensemble/support vector machine (PhE/SVM) approach. Pharm Res 2009; 26: 987-1000.
298. Yu J, Paine MJI, Maréchal J-D, Kemp CA, Ward CJ, Brown S, Sutcliffe MJ, Roberts GCK, Rankin EM, Wolf CR. In silico prediction of drug binding to CYP2D6: identification of a new metabolite of metoclopramide. Drug Metabol Dispos: the biological fate of chemicals 2006; 34: 1386-92.
299. Watt A, Mortshire-Smith R, Gerhard U, Thomas S. Metabolite identification in drug discovery., Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 2003; 6: 57-65.
300. Tarcsay A, Keseru GM. In silico site of metabolism prediction of cytochrome P450-mediated biotransformations. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2011; 7: 299-312.
301. Klopman G, Dimayuga M, Talafous J. META 1. A Program for the Evaluation of Metabolic Transformation of Chemicals. J Chem Inf and Model 1994; 34: 1320-25.
302. Darvas F. Predicting metabolic pathways by logic programming. J Mol Graph Mod 1988; 6: 80-6.
303. Ridder L, Wagener M. SyGMa: combining expert knowledge and empirical scoring in the prediction of metabolites. Chem Med Chem 2008; 3: 821-32.
304. Mekenyan OG, Dimitrov SD, Pavlov TS, Veith GD. A Systematic Approach to Simulating Metabolism in Computational Toxicology. I. The TIMES Heuristic Modelling Framework. Current Pharm Des 2004; 10: 1273-93.
305. Tarcsay A, Kiss R, Keseru GM. Site of metabolism prediction on cytochrome P450 2C9: a knowledge-based docking approach. J Comput-aided Mol Des 2010: 399-408.
306. [Accelrys Metabolite Database. [homepage on the internet]. Accelrys Inc. San Diego CA; c2011[updated 2011 Oct 17; cited 2011 Oct 17]. Available from http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/http://accelrys.com/products/databases/bioactivity/metabolite.html
307. [Adams SE. Molecular Similarity and Xenobiotic Metabolism. [document on the internet]. University of Cambridge, UK; c2010 [updated 2010; cited 2011 Oct 17] http://www.dspace.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/1810/225225/1/Adams,%20SE%20-%20Molecular%20Similarity%20and%20Xenobiotic%20Metabolism.pdf
308. Carlsson L, Spjuth O, Adams S, Glen RC, Boyer S. Use of historic metabolic biotransformation data as a means of anticipating metabolic sites using MetaPrint2D and Bioclipse. BMC bioinformatics 2010; 11: 362.
309. MetaPrint2D. [homepage on the internet]. University of Cambridge,UK; c2008-2011 [updated 2011 Oct 17; cited 2011 Oct 17]. Available from http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/http://www-metaprint2d.ch.cam.ac.uk/metaprint2d
310. Lagunin A, Stepanchikova A, Filimonov D, Poroikov V. PASS: prediction of activity spectra for biologically active substances. Bioinformatics 2000; 16: 747-48.
311. ACD Labs P450 Regioselectivity Tool [homepage on the internet]. Advanced Chemistry Development, Inc; c1996-2011 [updated 2011 Oct 17; cited 2011 Oct 17]. Available from http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/www.acdlabs.com
312. Zamora I, Afzelius L, Cruciani G. Predicting drug metabolism: a site of metabolism prediction tool applied to the cytochrome P450 2C9. J Med Chem 2003; 46: 2313-24.
313. Berellini G, Cruciani G, Mannhold R. Pharmacophore, drug metabolism, and pharmacokinetics models on non-peptide AT1, AT2, and AT1/AT2 angiotensin II receptor antagonists. J Med Chem 2005; 48: 4389-99.
314. Zhou DS, Afzelius L, Grimm SW, Andersson TB, Zauhar RJ, Zamora I. Comparison of methods for the prediction of the metabolic sites for CYP3A4-mediated metabolic reactions. Drug Metabol Dispos 2006; 34: 976-83.
315. Trunzer M, Faller B, Zimmerlin A. Metabolic soft spot identification and compound optimization in early discovery phases using MetaSite and LC-MS/MS validation. J Med Chem 2009; 52: 329-35.
316. Unwalla RJ, Cross JB, Salaniwal S, Shilling AD, Leung L, Kao J, Humblet C. Using a homology model of cytochrome P450 2D6 to predict substrate site of metabolism. J Comput-aided Mol Des 2010; 24: 237-56.
317. Vasanthanathan P, Hritz J, Taboureau O, Olsen L, Jørgensen FS, Vermeulen NPE, Oostenbrink C. Virtual screening and prediction of site of metabolism for cytochrome P450 1A2 ligands. J Chem Inf and Model 2009; 49: 43-52.
318. de Graaf C, Oostenbrink C, Keizers PHJ, van Der Wijst T, Jongejan A, Vermeulen NPE. Catalytic site prediction and virtual screening of cytochrome P450 2D6 substrates by consideration of water and rescoring in automated docking. J Med Chem 2006; 49: 2417-30.
319. de Graaf C, Pospisil P, Pos W, Folkers G, Vermeulen NPE. Binding mode prediction of cytochrome p450 and thymidine kinase protein-ligand complexes by consideration of water and rescoring in automated docking. J Med Chem 2005; 48: 2308-18.
320. Goodsell DS, Olson AJ. Automated docking of substrates to proteins by simulated annealing. Proteins 1990; 8: 195-202.
321. Rarey M, Kramer B, Lengauer T, Klebe G. A fast flexible docking method using an incremental construction algorithm. J Mol Biol 1996; 261: 470-89.
322. Santos R, Hritz J, Oostenbrink C. Role of water in molecular docking simulations of cytochrome P450 2D6. J Chem Inf and Model 2010; 50: 146-54.
323. Teixeira VH, Ribeiro V, Martel PJ. Analysis of binding modes of ligands to multiple conformations of CYP3A4. Biochimica et biophysica acta 2010; 1804: 2036-45.
324. Keizers PHJ, de Graaf C, de Kanter FJJ, Oostenbrink C, Feenstra KA, Commandeur JNM, Vermeulen NPE. Metabolic regio- and stereoselectivity of cytochrome P450 2D6 towards 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-alkylamphetamines: in silico predictions and experimental validation. J Med Chem 2005; 48: 6117-27.
325. Carrieri A, Pérez-Nueno VI, Fano A, Pistone C, Ritchie DW, Teixidó J. Biological profiling of anti-HIV agents and insight into CCR5 antagonist binding using in silico techniques. ChemMedChem 2009; 4: 1153-63.
326. Pérez-Nueno VI, Ritchie DW, Borrell JI, Teixidó J. Clustering and classifying diverse HIV entry inhibitors using a novel consensus shape-based virtual screening approach: further evidence for multiple binding sites within the CCR5 extracellular pocket. J Chem Inf and Model 2008; 48: 2146-65.
327. Pérez-Nueno VI, Pettersson S, Ritchie DW, Borrell JI, Teixidó J. Discovery of novel HIV entry inhibitors for the CXCR4 receptor by prospective virtual screening. J Chem Inf and Model 2009; 49: 810-823.
328. Venkatraman V, Pérez-Nueno VI, Mavridis L, Ritchie DW. Comprehensive comparison of ligand-based virtual screening tools against the DUD data set reveals limitations of current 3D methods. J Chem Inf and Model 2010; 50: 2079-93.
329. Kirchmair J, Ristic S, Eder K, Markt P, Wolber G, Laggner C, Langer T. Fast and efficient in silico 3D screening: toward maximum computational efficiency of pharmacophore-based and shape-based approaches. J Chem Inf and Model 2007; 47: 2182-96.
330. Kirchmair J, Distinto S, Markt P, Schuster D, Spitzer GM, Liedl KR, Wolber G. How to optimize shape-based virtual screening: choosing the right query and including chemical information. J Chem Inf and Model 2009; 49: 678-92.
331. Perez-Nueno VI, Ritchie DW. Using Consensus-Shape Clustering To Identify Promiscuous Ligands and Protein Targets and To Choose the Right Query for Shape-Based Virtual Screening. J Chem Inf and Model 2011; 6: 1233-48.
332. Nicholls A, Grant JA. Molecular shape and electrostatics in the encoding of relevant chemical information. J Comput-aided Mol Des 2005; 19: 661-86.
333. Sykes MJ, McKinnon RA, Miners JO. Prediction of metabolism by cytochrome P450 2C9: alignment and docking studies of a validated database of substrates. J Med Chem 2008; 51: 780-91.
334. Rydberg P, Gloriam D, Olsen L. The SMARTCyp cytochrome P450 metabolism prediction server. Bioinformatics 2010; 26: 2988-89.
335. Rydberg P, Gloriam DE, Zaretzki J, Breneman C, Olsen L. SMARTCyp: A 2D Method for Prediction of Cytochrome P450-Mediated Drug Metabolism. Med Chem Lett 2010; 1: 96-100.
336. Zaretzki J, Bergeron C, Rydberg P, Huang T-W, Bennett KP, Breneman CM. RS-Predictor: A New Tool for Predicting Sites of Cytochrome P450-Mediated Metabolism Applied to CYP 3A4. J Chem Inf and Model 2011; 7: 1667-89.
337. de Groot MJ, Ackland MJ, Horne VA, Alex AA, Jones BC. Novel approach to predicting P450-mediated drug metabolism: development of a combined protein and pharmacophore model for CYP2D6. J Med Chem 1999; 42: 1515-24.
338. Hasegawa K, Koyama M, Funatsu K. Quantitative Prediction of Regioselectivity Toward Cytochrome P450/3A4 Using Machine Learning Approaches. Mol Informatics 2010; 29: 243-249.
339. Kuhn B, Jacobsen W, Christians U, Benet LZ, Kollman Pa. Metabolism of sirolimus and its derivative everolimus by cytochrome P450 3A4: insights from docking, molecular dynamics, and quantum chemical calculations. J Med Chem 2001; 44: 2027-34.
340. Korzekwa KR, Jones JP, Gillette JR. Theoretical studies on cytochrome P-450 mediated hydroxylation: a predictive model for hydrogen atom abstractions. J Am Chem Soc 1990; 112: 7042-46.
341. Jones JP, Mysinger M, Korzekwa KR. Computational Models for Cytochrome P450: A Predictive Electronic Model for Aromatic Oxidation and Hydrogen Atom Abstraction. Drug Metabol Dispos 2002; 30: 7-12.
342. Oh WS, Kim DN, Jung J, Cho K-H, No KT. New combined model for the prediction of regioselectivity in cytochrome P450/3A4 mediated metabolism. J Chem Inf and Model 2008; 48: 591-601.
343. Aleksic M, Thain E, Roger D, Saib O, Davies M, Li J, Aptula A, Zazzeroni R. Reactivity Profiling: Covalent Modification of Single Nucleophile Peptides for Skin Sensitization Risk Assessment. Toxicol Sci 2009; 108: 401-11.
344. Roberts DW, Patlewicz G, Kern PS, Gerberick F, Kimber I, Dearman RJ, Ryan CA, Basketter DA, Aptula AO. Mechanistic applicability domain classification of a local lymph node assay dataset for skin sensitization. Chem Res Toxicol 2007; 20: 1019-30.
345. Dimitrov SD, Low LK, Patlewicz GY, Kern PS, Dimitrova GD, Comber MH, Phillips RD, Niemela J, Bailey PT, Mekenyan OG. Skin sensitization: modeling based on skin metabolism simulation and formation of protein conjugates. Int J Toxicol 2005; 24: 189-204.
346. Roberts DW, Aptula AO, Patlewicz G. Mechanistic applicability domains for non-animal based prediction of toxicological endpoints. QSAR analysis of the schiff base applicability domain for skin sensitization. Chem Res Toxicol 2006; 19: 1228-33.
347. Yuan H, Huang JP, Cao CZ. Prediction of Skin Sensitization with a Particle Swarm Optimized Support Vector Machine. Int J Mol Sci 2009; 10: 3237-54.
348. Ellison CM, Sherhod R, Cronin MTD, Enoch SJ, Madden JC, Judson PN. Assessment of Methods To Define the Applicability Domain of Structural Alert Models. J Chem Inf and Model 2011; 51: 975-85.
349. Roberts DW, Patlewicz G, Dimitrov SD, Low LK, Aptula AO, Kern PS, Dimitrova GD, Comber MIH, Phillips RD, Niemela J, Madsen C, Wedebye EB, Bailey PT, Mekenyan OG. TIMES-SS -A mechanistic evaluation of an external validation study using reaction chemistry principles. Chem Res in Toxicol 2007; 20: 1321-30.
350. Enoch SJ, Madden JC, Cronin MTD, Schultz TW. Quantitative and mechanistic read across for predicting the skin sensitization potential of alkenes acting via Michael addition. Chem Res Toxicol 2008; 21: 513-20.
351. Fentem J, Carmichael P, Maxwell G, Pease C, Reynolds F, Warner G, Westmoreland C. Exploring New Approaches to assess Safety without Animal Testing. AATEX 2008; 14: 15-20.
352. Maxwell G, Mackay C. Application of a systems biology approach to skin allergy risk assessment. Altern Lab Anim 2008; 36: 521-56.
353. Davies M, Pendlington RU, Page L, Roper CS, Sanders DJ, Bourner C, Pease CK, MacKay C. Determining epidermal disposition kinetics for use in an integrated non-animal approach to skin sensitisation risk assessment. Toxicol Sci 2010; 2: 308-18.
354. [354] 7th framework joint research programmes (FP7) [homepage on the internet]. European Commission, Brussels; c2011[updated 2011 Oct 17; cited 2011 Oct 17]. Available from http:// tox-net.nlm.nih.gov/ http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7/index_en.cfm.Note
355. [Innovative Medicines Initiative [homepage on the internet]. Innovative Medicines initiative Brussels; c2011 [updated 2011 Oct 17; cited 2011 Oct 17]. Available from http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/http://www.imi.europa.eu/
356. SEURAT1 project [homepage on the internet]. The European Cosmetics Association, Brussels; c2010 [updated 2011 Oct 17; cited 2011 Oct 17]. Available from http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/http://www.colipa.eu/news-a-events.html
357. Schmidt CW. TOX 21: new dimensions of toxicity testing. Environ Health Perspect 2009; 117: 348-353.
358. Andersen ME, Krewski D. Toxicity testing in the 21st century: bringing the vision to life. Toxicol Sci 2009; 107: 324-30.
359. Knudsen TB, Houck KA, Sipes NS, Singh AV, Judson RS, Martin MT, Weissman A, Kleinstreuer NC, Mortensen HM, Reif DM, Rabinowitz JR, Setzer RW, Richard AM, Dix DJ, Kavlock RJ. Activity profiles of 309 ToxCast chemicals evaluated across 292 biochemical targets. Toxicology 2011; 282: 1-15.