In silico methods for toxicity prediction

Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology

Volumn 745, Issue , 2012, Pages 96-116

  Combes, Robert D ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOAVAILABILITY; BIOLOGICAL ACTIVITY; BOOTSTRAPPING; CHEMICAL ANALYSIS; COMPUTER MODEL; DECISION TREE; EXPERT SYSTEM; EXTERNAL VALIDITY; HEALTH HAZARD; HUMAN; HYDROPHOBICITY; LIPOPHILICITY; NONHUMAN; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY; POPULATION EXPOSURE; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS DEVELOPMENT; PROCESS MODEL; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; STRUCTURE ANALYSIS; SYSTEM ANALYSIS; TOXICITY TESTING; TOXICOKINETICS; VALIDATION PROCESS;

ANIMALS; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; HUMANS; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; TOXICITY TESTS; VALIDATION STUDIES AS TOPIC;

EID: 84859986518     PISSN: 00652598     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-3055-1_7     Document Type: Article

References (114)

1. Barratt MD. Prediction of toxicity from chemical structure. Cell Biol Toxicol 2008; 16:1-13.
2. Judson PN, Combes RD. Artificial intelligence systems for predicting toxicity. Pesticide Outlook 1996; 7:11-15.
3. Combes R, Balls M, Bansil L et al. An assessment of progress in the use of alternatives in toxicity testing since the publication of the report of the Second FRAME Toxicity Committee (1991). Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2002; 30(4):365-406.
4. Tichý M Experimental toxicology in silico. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub 2005; 149:217-219.
5. Doweyko AM. QSAR: dead or alive? J Comput Aid Mol Des 2008; 22:81-89.
6. Free SM, Wilson JW. A mathematical contribution to structure-activity studies. J Med Chem 1964; 7:395-399.
7. Hansch C. Quantitative approach to biochemical structure-activity relationships. Accounts Chem Res 1969; 2:232-239.
8. Hansch C, Fujita T. ρ -σ, -π analysis. A method for the correlation of biological activity and chemical structure. J Am Chem Soc 1964; 86:1616-1626.
9. Toropov AA, Benfenati E. SMILES in QSPR/QSAR modeling: results and perspectives. Curr Drug Disc Technol 2007; 4:77-116.
10. Hansch C. Quantitative structure-activity relationships and the unnamed science. Accounts Chem Res 1993; 26:147-153.
11. Todeschini R, Consonni V. Handbook of Molecular Descriptors. New York: J Wiley, 2000:667.
12. Helguera AM, Cordeiro MNDS, Gonzàlez MP et al. Applications of 2D descriptors in drug design: A DRAGON Tale. Curr Top Med Chem 2008; 8:1628-1655.
13. Lipinski CA, Lombardo F, Dominy BW et al. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv Drug Deliver Rev 1997; 23:3-25.
14. Ghose AK, Viswanadhan VN, Wendoloski JJ. A knowledge-based approach in designing combinatorial or medicinal chemistry libraries for drug discovery, J Comb Chem 1999; 1:55-68.
15. Smyth MS, Martin J.H.J. X-Ray crystallography. J Clin Pathol-Mol Pa 2000; 53:8-4.
16. Rathi LG, Kashaw SK, Agrawal RK et al. Comparative molecular field analysis (COMFA): a modern approach towards drug design. Indian J Pharmacol Sci 2001; 63:367-370.
17. Livingstone DJ. Building QSAR models: a practical guide. In: Cronin M, Livingstone D, eds. Predicting Chemical Toxicity and Fate. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2004:151-170.
18. Zhang Z, Niu J, Zhi X. A QSAR model for predicting mutagenicity of nitronaphthalenes and methylnitronaphthalenes. B Environ Contam Tox 2008; 81:498-502.
19. Contrera JF, Matthews EJ, Kruhlak NL et al. In silico screening of chemicals for genetic toxicity using MDL-QSAR, nonparametric discriminant analysis, E-state, connectivity and molecular property descriptors. Toxicol Mech Meth 2008; 18:207-216.
20. Dearden JC. In silico prediction of aqueous solubility. Exp Opin Drug Dis 2006; 1:31-52.
21. Delaney JS. Predicting aqueous solubility from structure. Drug Discov Today 2004; 10:289-295.
22. Dorn SB, Degen GH, Bolt HM et al. Some molecular descriptors for nonspecific chromosomal genotoxicity based on hydrophobic interactions Arch Toxicol 2008; 82:333-338.
23. Duchowicz PR, Ocsachoque MA. Quantitative structure-toxicity models for heterogeneous aliphatic compounds. QSAR Comb Sci 2009; 28:281-295.
24. Wold S, Albano C, Dunn WJ III et al. Modeling data tables by principal components and PLS: class patterns and quantitative predictive relations. Analysis 1984; 12:477-485.
25. Benigni R, Guiliani A. Multivariate analyses in genetic toxicology. In: Devillers J, Karcher W, eds. Applied Multivariate Analysis. SAR and Environmental Studies. Dordecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1991:347-375.
26. Eriksson L, Jaworska J, Worth AP et al. Methods for reliability and uncertainty assessment and for applicability evaluations of classification- and regression-based QSARs-Mini-Monograph. Environ Health Persp 2003; 111:1361-1375.
27. Maran U, Sild S. QSAR modeling of mutagenicity of noncongeneric sets of organic compounds. In: Dubitzky W, Azuaje F, eds. Artificial Intelligence Methods and Tools for Systems Biology. Dordecht: Springer, 2004:19-35.
28. Votano JR, Parham M, Hall LM et al. QSAR modeling of human serum protein binding with several modeling techniques utilizing structure-information representation. J Med Chem 2006; 49:7169-7181.
29. Dearden JC, Barratt MD, Benigni R et al. The development and validation of expert systems for predicting toxicity. The report and recommendations of an ECVAM/ECB workshop (ECVAM workshop 24). Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 1997; 25(3):223-252.
30. Combes RD, Rodford R. The use of expert systems for toxicity prediction-illustrated with reference to the DEREK program. In: Cronin M, Livingstone D, eds. Predicting Chemical Toxicity and Fate. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2004:193-229.
31. Cronin MTD, Dearden JC. QSAR in toxicology. 4. Prediction of nonlethal mammalian toxicological endpoints and expert systems for toxicity prediction. QSARs 1995; 14: 518-523.
32. Sanderson D M, Earnshaw C G, Judson PN. Computer prediction of possible toxic action from chemical structure; the DEREK System. Hum Exp Toxicol 1991; 10:261-273.
33. Greene N. Computer prediction systems for toxicity; an update. Adv Drug Deliver Rev 2002; 54:417-431.
34. Coecke S, Ahr H, Blaauboer BJ et al. Metabolism: a bottleneck in in vitro toxicological test development. The report and recommendations of ECVAM Workshop 54. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2006; 34(1):49-84.
35. Saiakhov RD, Klopman G. MultiCASE expert systems and the REACH Initiative. Toxicol Mech Method 2008; 18:159-175.
36. Gombar VK, Enslein K, Hart JB et al. Estimation of maximum tolerated dose for long-term bioassays from acute lethal dose and structure by QSAR. Risk Anal 1991; 11:509-517.
37. 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. Regul Toxicol Pharm 2007; 47:225-239.
38. Lewis DVF. Computer-assisted methods in the evaluation of chemical toxicity. In: Lipkowitz KB, Boyd DB, eds. Reviews in Computational Chemistry, Vol 3. NewYork: VCH Publishers, 1992:173-222.
39. Mekenyan O, Dimitrov S, Schmeider P et al. In silico modeling of hazard endpoints: current problems and perspectives. SAR and QSAR Environ Res 2003; 14:361-371.
40. Jacob A, Pratuangdejkul J, Buffet S et al. In silico platform for xenobiotics ADME-T pharmacological properties modeling and prediction. Part II: the body in a Hilbertian space. Drug Discov Today 2009; 14:406-441.
41. Boobis A, Gudert-Remy U, Kremers P et al. In silico prediction of ADME and pharmacokinetics: report of an expert meeting organised by COST B 15. J Pharm Sci 2002; 17:183-193.
42. Payne MP. Computer-based methods for the prediction of chemical metabolism and biotransformation within biological organisms. In: Cronin M, Livingstone D, eds. Predicting Chemical Toxicity and Fate. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2004:205-227.
43. Zvinavashe E, Murk AJ, Rietjens I.M.C.M. Promises and pitfalls of quantitative structure-activity relationship approaches for predicting metabolism and toxicity. Chem Res Toxicol 2008; 21:2229-2236.
44. Weaver S, Gleeson MP. The importance of the domain of applicability in QSAR modeling. J Mol Graphics Model 2008; 26:1315-1326.
45. Netzeva TI, Worth AP, 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 Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2005 33 155-173
46. Mombelli E. An evaluation of the predictive ability of the QSAR software packages, DEREK, HAZARDEXPERT and TOPKAT, to describe chemically-induced skin irritation. Altern Lab Anim- ATLA. 2008, 36:15-24.
47. Wold S. Validation of QSARs. Quant Struct-Act Rel 2001; 10:191-193.
48. Tichy M, Rucki M. Validation of QSAR models for legislative purposes. Interdiscip Toxicol 2009; 2(3):184-186.
49. Balboacǎ SD, Jäntschi L. Modeling the property of compounds from structure: statistical methods for models validation. Environ Chem Lett 2008; 6:175-181.
50. Loonen H, Lindgren F, Hansen B et al. Prediction of biodegradability from chemical structure: modeling of ready biodegradation test data. Environ Toxicol Chem 1999; 18:1763-1768.
51. Gramatica P. Evaluation of different statistical approaches to the validation of Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships. Ispra: ECVAM, 2004:177. Available at: http://ihcp.jrc.ec.europa.eu/our
52. Combes R, Balls M. Intelligent testing strategies for chemicals testing-A case of more haste, less speed? Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2005; 33(3):289-297.
53. Tropsha A, Gramatica P, Gombar VK. The importance of being earnest: validation is the absolute essential for successful application and interpretation of QSPR Models. QSAR Comb Sci 2003; 22:69-77.
54. Roy PP, Leonard JT, Roy K. Exploring the impact of size of training sets for the development of predictive QSAR models. Chemometr Intell Lab Systems 2008; 31-42.
55. Massarelli I, Imbriani M, Coi A et al. Development of QSAR models for predicting hepatocarcinogenic toxicity of chemicals. Eur J Med Chem 2009; 44:1-7.
56. Parry JM. Detecting and predicting the activity of rodent carcinogens. Mutagenesis 1994; 9:3-5.
57. Zhu H, Tropsha A, Fourches D et al. Combinatorial QSAR modeling of chemical toxicants tested against Tetrahymena pyriformis. J Chem Inf Model 2008; 48:766-784.
58. Worth AP, Cronin M.T.D. Report of the workshop on the validation of QSARs and other computational prediction models. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2004; 32(Suppl 1):703-706.
59. Zvinavashe E, Murk AJ, Rietjens I.M.C.M. Promises and pitfalls of quantitative structure-activity relationship approaches for predicting metabolism and toxicity. Chem Res Toxicol 2008; 21:2229-2236.
60. Anon. The Report from the Expert Group on (Quantitative) Structure-Activity Relationships on the Principles for the Validation of (Q)SARs. OECD Series on Testing and Assessment Number 49. Paris: Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development, 2001:206.
61. Mekenyan O, Dimitrov S, Schmeider P et al. In silico modeling of hazard endpoints: current problems and perspectives. SAR and QSAR in Environ Res 2003; 14:361-371.
62. Bhogal N, Combes R, Balls M. Preclinical drug development planning. In: Gad S, ed. Preclinical Development Handbook: Toxicology. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2008:1-63.
63. Kapetanovic IM. Computer-aided drug discovery and development (CADDD): In silico chemico biological approach. Chem-Biol Interacts 2008; 171:165-176.
64. Muster W, Breidenbach A, Fischer H et al. Computational toxicology in drug development. Drug Discov Today 2008; 13:303-310.
65. Thaia K-M, Ecker GF. A binary QSAR model for classification of hERG potassium channel blockers. Bioorg Med Chem 2008; 16:4107-4119.
66. Gibson L, Naven RT, Patel ML et al. Recent advances in the prediction of HERG channel inhibition using Derek for Windows. Poster presented at the International Congress of Toxicology (ICT). 2007, Montreal.
67. Grindon C, Combes R, Cronin MT et al. Integrated decision-tree testing strategies for environmental toxicity with respect to the requirements of the EU REACH legislation. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2006; 34:651-664.
68. Contrera JF, Matthews EJ, Kruhlak NL et al. In silico screening of chemicals for genetic toxicity using MDL-QSAR, nonparametric discriminant analysis, E-state, connectivity and molecular property descriptors. Toxicol Mech Method 2008; 18:207-216.
69. Matthews EJ, Kruhlak NL, Benz RD et al. Combined Use of MC4PC, MDL-QSAR, BioEpisteme, Leadscope PDM and Derek for Windows software to achieve high-performance, high-confidence, mode of action- based predictions of chemical carcinogenesis in rodents. Toxicol Mech Method 2008; 18:189-206.
70. Benigni R, Worth A, Netzeva T et al. Structural motifs modulating the carcinogenic risk of aromatic amines. Envir Mol Mutagen 2009; 50:152-161.
71. Combes R, Grindon C, Cronin MT et al. Integrated decision-tree testing strategies for mutagenicity and carcinogenicity with respect to the requirements of the EU REACH legislation. Alterm Lab Anim-ATLA 2008; 36:Suppl 1:65-74.
72. Grindon C, Combes R, Cronin MTD et al. Integrated decision-tree testing strategy for skin sensitisation with respect to the requirements of the EU REACH Legislation. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2007; 35:683-697.
73. Fabjana E, Hulzebos E. An evaluation of selected valid and mechanistically based SARs for skin sensitisation. Toxicol In Vitro 2008; 22:468-490.
74. Liu H, Papa E, Walker JD et al. In silico screening of estrogen-like chemicals based on different nonlinear classification models. J Mol Graph Model 2007; 26:135-144.
75. Gallegos-Salinera A, Poater A, Jeliazkovad N et al. Toxmatch - A chemical classification and activity prediction tool based on similarity measures. Reg Toxicol Pharmacol 2008; 52:77-84.
76. Tsakovska I, Lessigiarska I, Netzeva T et al. A mini review of mammalian toxicity (Q)SAR models. QSAR Comb.Sci 2008; 27:41-48.
77. Grindon C, Combes R, Cronin MTD et al. An integrated decision-tree testing strategy for repeat dose toxicity with respect to the requirements of the EU REACH legislation. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2008; 36:93-101.
78. BéruBé K, Aufderheide M, Breheny D et al. In vitro models of inhalation toxicity and disease. The report of a FRAME workshop. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2009; 37:89-141.
79. Combes R, Dandrea J, Balls M. A critical assessment of the European Commissions proposals for the risk assessment and registration of chemical substances in the European Union. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2003; 31:353-364.
80. Grindon C. The new EU REACH regulation has finally been adopted: Is this the end of the campaign trail or just the beginning? Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2007; 35:239-242.
81. Combes R, Barratt M, Balls M. An overall strategy for the testing of chemicals for human hazard and risk assessment under the EU REACH system. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2003; 31(1):7-19.
82. van Leeuwen CJ, Patlewicz GY, Worth AP. Intelligent testing strategies. In: van Leeuwen CJ, Vermiere TG, eds. Risk Assessment of Chemicals, An Introduction, 2nd ed. Dordrecht: Springer, 2007:467-509.
83. Zachary M, Greenway GM. Comparative PBT screening using (Q)SAR tools within REACH legislation. SAR QSAR Environ Res 2009; 20:145-157.
84. Reuschenbach P, Silvani M, Dammann M et al. ECOSAR model performance with a large test set of industrial chemicals. Chemosphere 2008; 71:1986-95, 200.
85. Zvinavashe E, Murk AJ, Rietjens I.M.C.M. On the number of EINECS compounds that can be covered by (Q)SAR models for acute toxicity. Toxicol Letts 2008; 184:67-72.
86. Cramer GM, Ford RA, Hall RL. Estimation of toxic hazard: a decision-tree approach. Food Cosmet Toxicol 1978; 16:255-276.
87. Verhaar HJM, Solbe J, Speksnijder J et al. Classifying environmental pollutants: Part 3. External validation of the classification system. Chemosphere 2000; 40:875-883.
88. Gerner I, Graetschel G, Kahl J et al. Development of a decision support system for the introduction of alternative methods into local irritancy/corrosivity testing strategies. Development of a relational database. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2000; 28:11-28.
89. 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; 659:248-261.
90. Hong H, Tong W, Fang H et al. Prediction of estrogen receptor binding for 58,000 chemicals using an integrated system of tree-based model with structural alerts. Environ Health Persp 2002; 110:29-36.
91. Barratt MD. Principles of toxicity prediction from structure. In: Balls M, van Zeller AM, Halder ME, eds. Progress in Reduction, Refinement and Replacement in Animal Experimentation. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2002, 449-456.
92. Anon. Guidance on Grouping of Chemicals. OECD Environment Health and Safety Publications series on testing and assessment Number 80. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2007:99.
93. Matthews EJ, Contrera JF. In silico approaches to explore toxicity end points: issues and concerns for estimating human health effects. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2007; 3:125-134.
94. Anon. Technical Guidance Document to Industry on the Information Requirements for REACH PART 1 (of 4). General Issues REACH Implementation Project (RIP) 3.3 Phase 2. Helsinki: European Chemical Agency, 2007.
95. Combes R, Balls M, Illing P et al. Possibilities for a new approach to chemicals risk assessment-the report of a FRAME workshop. Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2006; 34:621-649.
96. Helguera AM, Pérez MAC, Combes R et al. The prediction of carcinogenicity from molecular structure. Curr Comp-Aided Drug Des 2005; 1:65-72.
97. Maggiora GM. On outliers and activity cliffs-why QSAR often disappoints. J Chem Inf Model 2006; 46:1535-1535.
98. Johnson SR. The trouble with QSAR (or how I learned to stop worrying and embrace fallacy). J Chem Inf Model 2008; 48:25-26.
99. Golbraikh A, Tropsha A. Beware of q2! J Mol Graphic Model 2002; 20:269-276.
100. Anon. What are cross-validation and bootstrapping? 2007. Available at: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ai-faq/neural-nets/part3/section-12.html
101. Anon. Sarchitect: Theory-Statistical Methods. 2006. Available at: http://www.strandls.com/sarchitect/documents/manual-html/stattheory.html.
102. Anon. Sarchitect: Building Models in Sarchitect. 2006. Available at: http://www.strandls.com/sarchitect/documents/manual-html/modelbuild.html.-rfseq 103
103. Efron B. Estimating the error rate of a prediction rule: Improvement on cross-validation. J Am Stat Assoc 1983; 78:316-331.
104. Grammatica P. Different approaches to QSAR models validation. 2007. Available at: http://echeminfo. colayer.net/html/abstracts/paolaabs.htm.
105. Faber NM, Rajkó R. An evergreen problem in multivariate calibration. Spectroscopy Euorope 2006; 18:24-28.
106. Toropov AA, Rasulev BF, Leszczynski J. QSAR modeling of acute toxicity by balance of correlations. Bioorg Med Chem 2008; 16:5999-6008.
107. Porcelli C, Roncaglioni A, Chana A et al. A comparison of DEMETRA individual QSARs with an index for evaluation of uncertainty. Chemosphere 2008; 71:1845-1852.
108. Enoch SJ, Cronin MTD, Madden JC et al. Formation of structural categories to allow for read-across for teratogenicity. QSAR Comb Sci 2009; 00:1-13.
109. Patlewicz G, Jeliazkova N, Gallegos-Salinera A et al. Toxmatch-a new software tool to aid in the development and evaluation of chemically similar groups. SAR and QSAR Environ Res 2008; 19:397-412.
110. Jaworska J, Nikolova-Jeliazkova N. How can structural similarity analysis help in category formation? SAR QSAR Environ Res 2007; 18:195-207.
111. Gallegos-Salinera A, Poater A, Jeliazkovad N et al. Toxmatch - A chemical classification and activity prediction tool based on similarity measures. Regul Toxicol Pharm 2008; 52:77-84.
112. Thatcher M, Payne G. Moving Towards Substance-based Toxicity Testing to Meet New OSPAR Requirements. Aberdeen: European Oilfield Speciality Chemicals Association, 2003: Available at: www.eosca.com/Docs/RSC%20CIO8.pdf.
113. Combes R, Balls M. Intelligent testing strategies for chemicals testing-A case of more haste, less speed? Altern Lab Anim-ATLA 2005; 33(3):289-297.
114. Anon. Guidance on Grouping of Chemicals. OECD Environment Health and Safety. Publications Series on Testing and Assessment Number 80. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2007:99.