Role of in silico genotoxicity tools in the regulatory assessment of pharmaceutical impurities

SAR and QSAR in Environmental Research

Volumn 23, Issue 3-4, 2012, Pages 257-277

  Fioravanzo, E ^a   Bassan, A ^a   Pavan, M ^a   Mostrag Szlichtyng, A ^b   Worth, A P ^c  

^a S IN Soluzioni Informatiche   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GDA SK   (Poland)

^c JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE   (Italy)

Author keywords

genotoxicity; in silico; mutagenicity; pharmaceutical impurity; QSAR; software evaluation

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL CHEMISTRY; COMPUTATIONAL METHODS; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS; EXPERT SYSTEMS; MOLECULAR GRAPHICS;

GENOTOXIC IMPURITIES; GENOTOXICITIES; IN-SILICO; LOW RATES; MUTAGENICITY; PHARMACEUTICAL IMPURITY; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; REGULATORY ASSESSMENT; SOFTWARE EVALUATION; TOXICOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT;

IMPURITIES;

EID: 84860315789     PISSN: 1062936X     EISSN: 1029046X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/1062936X.2012.657236     Document Type: Article

References (87)

1. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, ICH Harmonized Tripartite Guideline Impurities in new Drug Substances Q3A(R2), 2006. Available athttp://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Quality/Q3A_R2/Step4/Q3A_R2__Guideline.pdf
2. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, ICH Harmonized Tripartite Guideline Impurities in new Drug Products Q3B(R2), 2006. Available athttp://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Quality/Q3B_R2/Step4/Q3B_R2__Guideline.pdf
3. Roy, A, Nyarady, S and Matchett, M. 2009. Genotoxic and non-genotoxic impurities in pharmaceuticals. Current regulations, status and trend. Chimica Oggi, 27: 19-23.
4. Serafimova, R, Gatnik, MFuart and Worth, A. 2010. Review of QSAR Models and Software Tools for Predicting Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity, EUR 24427 EN: European Commission Joint Research Centre Report. Available at http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/14330/1/jrc%20report_genotoxicity%20qsar.pdf
5. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, ICH Harmonized Tripartite Guideline Impurities for Residual Solvents, ICH Q3C (R4), 2009. Available athttp://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500002674.pdf
6. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, ICH Harmonized Tripartite Guidance on Genotoxicity Testing and Data Interpretation for Pharmaceuticals Intended for Human Use, S2 (R1), 2008. Available athttp://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm074931.pdf
7. Tweats, D. 2010. Future approaches for genotoxicity testing of drugs and impurities. Toxicol. Lett., 196: S11-S14.
8. Guideline on the limits of genotoxic impurities CPMP/SWP/5199/02; EMA/CHMP/QWP/251344/2006. Available athttp://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500002903.pdf
9. Barlow, SM, Kozianowski, G, Wurtzen, G and Schlatter, J. 2001. Threshold of toxicological concern for chemical substances in the diet. Food Chem. Toxicol., 39: 893-905.
10. Kroes, R, Renwick, AG, Cheeseman, M, Kleiner, J, Mangelsdorf, I, Piersma, A, Schilter, B, Schlatter, J, van Schothorst, F, Vos, JG and Würtzen, G. 2004. Structure-based thresholds of toxicological concern (TTC): Guidance for application to substances present at low levels in the diet. Food Chem. Toxicol., 42: 65-83.
11. Munro, IC, Kennepohl, E and Kroes, R. 1999. A procedure for safety evaluation of flavouring substances. Food Chem. Toxicol., 37: 207-232.
12. Snodin, D. 2009. Genotoxic impurities in drug substances. Org. Process Res. Dev., 13: 409-409.
13. Müller, L, Mauthe, RJ, Riley, CM, Andino, MM, Antonis, DD, Beels, C, DeGeorge, J, De Knaep, AGM, Ellison, D, Fagerland, JA, Frank, R, Fritschel, B, Galloway, S, Harpur, E, Humfrey, CDN, Jacks, AS, Jagota, N, Mackinnon, J, Mohan, G, Ness, DK, O'Donovan, MR, Smith, MD, Vudathala, G and Yotti, L. 2006. A rationale for determining, testing, and controlling specific impurities in pharmaceuticals that possess potential for genotoxicity. Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 44: 198-211.
14. CDER (FDA) (2008), Guidance for Industry. Genotoxic and Carcinogenic Impurities in Drug Substances and Products: Recommended Approaches. Available athttp://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm079235.pdf
15. EMA/CHMP/SWP/431994/2007, Questions & Answers on the CHMP Guideline on the Limits of Genotoxic Impurities. Available athttp://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500002907.pdf
16. Miller, EC and Miller, JA. 1981. Mechanisms of chemical carcinogenesis. Cancer, 47(S1): 1055-1064.
17. Benigni, R and Bossa, C. 2008. Structure alerts for carcinogenicity, and the Salmonella assay system: A novel insight through the chemical relational databases technology. Mutat. Res. Rev. Mutat. Res., 659: 248-261.
18. Enoch, SJ and Cronin, MTD. 2010. A review of the electrophilic reaction chemistry involved in covalent DNA binding. Crit. Rev. Toxicol., 40: 728-748.
19. Bailey, AB, Chanderbhan, R, Collazo-Braier, N, Cheeseman, MA and Twaroski, ML. 2005. The use of structure-activity relationship analysis in the food contact notification program. Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 42: 225-235.
20. Kazius, J, McGuire, R and Bursi, R. 2005. Derivation and validation of toxicophores for mutagenicity prediction. J. Med. Chem., 48: 312-320.
21. Munro, IC, Ford, RA, Kennepohl, E and Sprenger, JG. 1996. Thresholds of toxicological concern based on structure-activity relationships. Drug Metab. Rev., 28: 209-217.
22. Ashby, J and Tennant, RW. 1988. 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. Genet. Toxicol., 204: 17-115.
23. Ashby, J. 1985. Fundamental structural alerts to potential carcinogenicity or noncarcinogenicity. Environ. Mutagen., 7: 919-921.
24. Matthews, EJ, Kruhlak, NL, Benz, RD, Contrera, JF, Marchant, CA and Yang, C. 2008. 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., 18: 189-206.
25. Contrera, JF, Matthews, EJ and Benz, RD. 2001. Predicting the carcinogenic potential of pharmaceuticals in rodents using molecular structural similarity and E-state indices. Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 38: 243-259.
26. Benz, RD. 2007. Toxicological and clinical computational analysis and the US FDA/CDER. Expert Opin. Drug. Metab. Toxicol., 3: 109-124.
27. Matthews, EJ and Contrera, JF. 2007. In silico approaches to explore toxicity end points: Issues and concerns for estimating human health effects. Expert Opin. Drug. Metab. Toxicol., 3: 125-134.
28. Gombar, VK, Mattioni, BE, Zwickl, C and Deahl, JT. 2006. Computational approaches for assessment of toxicity: A historical perspective and current status. Comp. Toxicol.,: 183-215.
29. Klopman, G. 1984. Artificial intelligence approach to structure-activity studies. Computer automated structure evaluation of biological activity of organic molecules. J. Am. Chem. Soc., 106: 7315-7321.
30. Klopman, G. 1992. MULTICASE 1. A hierarchical computer automated structure evaluation program. QSAR, 11: 176-184.
31. Molconn-Z, released by eduSoft. Available athttp://www.edusoft-lc.com/molconn/
32. Valerio, LJ and Long, A. 2010. The in silico prediction of human-specific metabolites from hepatotoxic drugs. Curr. Drug Disc. Technol., 7: 170-187.
33. Contrera, JF, Matthews, EJ, Kruhlak, NL and Benz, RD. 2005. In silico screening of chemicals for bacterial mutagenicity using electrotopological E-state indices and MDL QSAR software. Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 43: 313-323.
34. Sazonovasa, A, Japertasa, P and Didziapetrisa, R. 2010. Estimation of reliability of predictions and model applicability domain evaluation in the analysis of acute toxicity (LD50). SAR QSAR Environ Res., 21: 127-148.
35. Didziapetris, R, Lanevskij, K and Japertas, P. 2008. Trainable QSAR model of Ames genotoxicity. Toxicol Lett., 180: S152-S153.
36. Bentzien, JR, Hickey, ER, Kemper, RA, Brewer, ML, Dyek, JD, East, SP and Whittaker, M. 2010. An in silico method for predicting Ames activities of primary aromatic amines by calculating the stabilities of nitrenium ions. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 50: 274-297.
37. Bercu, JP, Morton, SM, Deahl, JT, Gombar, VK, Callis, CM and van Lier, RBL. 2010. In silico approaches to predicting cancer potency for risk assessment of genotoxic impurities in drug substances. Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 57: 300-306.
38. Contrera, JF. 2010. Improved in silico prediction of carcinogenic potency (TD50) and the risk specific dose (RSD) adjusted Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) for genotoxic chemicals and pharmaceutical impurities. Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 9: 133-141.
39. Pérez-Garrido, A, Helguera, AM, López, GC, Cordeiro, MNDS and Escudero, AG. 2010. A topological substructural molecular design approach for predicting mutagenesis end-points of [alpha], [beta]-unsaturated carbonyl compounds. Toxicol., 268: 64-77.
40. Pfuhler, S, Kirst, A, Aardema, M, Banduhn, N, Goebel, C, Araki, D, Costabel-Farkas, M, Dufour, E, Fautz, R, Harvey, J, Hewitt, NJ, Hibatallah, J, Carmichael, P, Macfarlane, M, Reisinger, K, Rowland, J, Schellauf, F, Schepky, A and Scheel, J. 2010. A tiered approach to the use of alternatives to animal testing for the safety assessment of cosmetics: Genotoxicity. A COLIPA analysis. Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 57: 315-324.
41. Prabu, S and Suriyaprakash, T. 2010. Impurities and its importance in pharmacy. Int. J. Pharm. Sci. Rev. Res., 3: 66-71.
42. Rao, N, Kiran, S and Prasanthi, N. 2010. Pharmaceutical impurities: An overview. Indian J. Pharm. Educ. Res., 44: 301-310.
43. Robinson, DI. 2010. Control of genotoxic impurities in active pharmaceutical ingredients: A review and perspective. Org. Process Res. Dev., 14: 946-959.
44. Snodin, DJ. 2010. Genotoxic impurities: From structural alerts to qualification. Org. Process Res. Dev., 14: 960-976.
45. Sushko, I, Novotarskyi, S, Körner, R, Pandey, AK, Kovalishyn, VV, Prokopenko, VV and Tetko, IV. 2010. Applicability domain for in silico models to achieve accuracy of experimental measurements. J. Chemom., 24: 202-208.
46. Callis, CM, Bercu, JP, DeVries, KM, Dow, LK, Robbins, DK and Varie, DL. 2010. Risk assessment of genotoxic impurities in marketed compounds administered over a short-term duration: Applications to oncology products and implications for impurity control limits. Org. Process Res. Dev., 14: 986-992.
47. Thayer, A. 2010. Genotoxic impurities. Chem. Eng. News, 88: 16-26.
48. Worth, A, Lapenna, S, Piparo, ELo, Mostrag-Szlichtyng, A and Serafimova, R. The applicability of software tools for genotoxicity and carcinogenicity prediction: case studies relevant to the assessment of pesticides, European Commission Joint Research Centre Report, EUR 24640 EN, 2010
49. Frid, AA and Matthews, EJ. 2009. Prediction of drug-related cardiac adverse effects in humans-B: Use of QSAR programs for early detection of drug-induced cardiac toxicities. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 56: 276-289.
50. Hansen, K, Mika, S, Schroeter, T, Sutter, A, ter Laak, A, Steger-Hartmann, T, Heinrich, N and Muller, KR. 2009. Benchmark data set for in silico prediction of Ames mutagenicity. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 49(9): 2077-2081.
51. Rothenbacher, T and Schwack, W. 2009. Nontargeted multicomponent analytical screening of plastic food contact materials using fast interpretation of deliverables via expert structure-activity relationship software. J AOAC Int., 92: 941-950.
52. Roy, A, Nyarady, S and Matchett, M. 2009. Genotoxic and non-genotoxic impurities in pharmaceuticals. Current regulations, status and trend. Chimica Oggi/Chemistry Today, 27: 19-23.
53. Snodin, D and Vudathala, G. 2009. Genotoxic impurities: A case for a regulatory rethink. American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS) News Magazine,: 20-27.
54. Snyder, RD. 2009. An update on the genotoxicity and carcinogenicity of marketed pharmaceuticals with reference to in silico predictivity. Environ. Mol. Mutag., 50: 435-450.
55. Venkatapathya, R, Wang, CY, Bruce, RM and Moudgal, C. 2009. Development of quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models to predict the carcinogenic potency of chemicals: I. Alternative toxicity measures as an estimator of carcinogenic potency. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol., 234: 209-221.
56. Benigni, R and Bossa, C. 2008. Predictivity of QSAR. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 48: 971-980.
57. Benigni, R and Bossa, C. 2008. Predictivity and reliability of QSAR models: The case of mutagens and carcinogens. Toxicol. Mech. Method., 18: 137-147.
58. Benigni, R, Bossa, C, Richard, A and Yang, C. 2008. A novel approach: Chemical relational databases, and the role of the ISSCAN database on assessing chemical carcinogenicity. Ann. Ist. Super Sanita., 44: 48-56.
59. Contrera, JF, Matthews, EJ, Kruhlak, NL and Benz, RD. 2008. In silico screening of chemicals for genetic toxicity using MDL-QSAR, nonparametric discriminant analysis, E-state, connectivity, and molecular property descriptors. Toxicol. Mech. Method., 18: 207-216.
60. Cotterill, JV, Chaudhry, MQ, Matthews, W and Watkins, RW. 2008. In silico assessment of toxicity of heat-generated food contaminants. Food Chem. Toxicol., 46: 1905-1918.
61. Custer, LL and Sweder, KS. 2008. The role of genetic toxicology in drug discovery and optimization. Curr. Drug Metab., 9: 978-985.
62. Kulkarni, S and Zhu, J. 2008. Integrated approach to assess the domain of applicability of some commercial (Q)SAR models. SAR QSAR Environ. Res., 19: 39-54.
63. Mayer, J, Cheeseman, MA and Twaroski, ML. 2008. Structure-activity relationship analysis tools: Validation and applicability in predicting carcinogen. Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 50: 50-58.
64. Yang, C, Hasselgren, CH, Boyer, S, Arvidson, K, Aveston, S, Dierkes, P, Benigni, R, Benz, RD, Contrera, J, Kruhlak, NL, Matthews, EJ, Han, X, Jaworska, J, Kemper, RA, Rathman, JF and Richard, AM. 2008. Understanding genetic toxicity through data mining: The process of building knowledge by integrating multiple genetic toxicity database. Toxicol. Mech. Method., 18: 277-295.
65. Benigni, R, Netzeva, TI, Benfenati, E, Bossa, C, Franke, R, Helma, C, Hulzebos, E, Marchant, C, Richard, A, Woo, YT and Yang, C. 2007. The expanding role of predictive toxicology: An update on the (Q)SAR models for mutagens and carcinogens. J. Environ. Sci. Health C Environ. Carcinog. Ecotoxicol. Rev., 25: 53-97.
66. Contrera, JF, Kruhlak, NL, Matthews, EJ and Benz, RD. 2007. Comparison of MC4PC and MDL-QSAR rodent carcinogenicity predictions and the enhancement of predictive performance by combining QSAR models. Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 49: 172-182.
67. Kruhlak, NL, Contrera, JF, Benz, RD and Matthews, EJ. 2007. Progress in QSAR toxicity screening of pharmaceutical impurities and other FDA regulated products. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev., 59: 43-55.
68. Kulkarni, SA, Moir, D and Zhu, J. 2007. Influence of structural and functional modifications of selected genotoxic carcinogens on metabolism and mutagenicity-a review. SAR QSAR Environ. Res., 18: 459-514.
69. Mazzatorta, P, Tran, L, Schilter, B and Grigorov, M. 2006. Integration of structure-activity relationship and artificial intelligence systems to improve in silico prediction of Ames test mutagenicity. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 47: 34-38.
70. Benigni, R and Bossa, C. 2006. Structure-activity models of chemical carcinogens: State of the art, and new directions. Ann. Ist. Super Sanita., 42: 118-126.
71. Dobo, KL, Greene, N, Cyr, MO, Caron, S and Ku, WW. 2006. The application of structure-based assessment to support safety and chemistry diligence to manage genotoxic impurities in active pharmaceutical ingredients during drug development. Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 44: 282-293.
72. Snyder, RD, Ewing, D and Hendry, LB. 2006. DNA intercalative potential of marketed drugs testing positive in in vitro cytogenetics assays. Mutat. Res. Genet. Toxicol. Environ. Mutagen., 609: 47-59.
73. Veith, G. 2006. Roles for QSAR in risk assessment. ALTEX - Alternativen zu Tierexperimenten, 23 Supplement: 369-372.
74. Benigni, R. 2005. Structure-activity relationship studies of chemical mutagens and carcinogens: A mechanistic investigations and prediction approaches. Chem. Rev., 105: 1767-1800.
75. Crettaz, P and Benigni, R. 2005. Prediction of the rodent carcinogenicity of 60 pesticides by the DEREK for Windows expert system. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 45: 1864-1873.
76. Hall, LH and Hall, LM. 2005. QSAR modeling based on structure-information for properties of interest in human health. SAR QSAR Environ. Res., 16: 13-41.
77. Hayashi, M, Kamata, E, Hirose, A, Takahashi, M, Morita, T and Ema, M. 2005. In silico assessment of chemical mutagenesis in comparison with results of Salmonella microsome assay on 909 chemicals. Mutat. Res. Genet. Toxicol. Environ. Mutagen., 588: 129-135.
78. Helguera, AM, Perez, MC, Combes, RD and Gonzalez, MP. 2005. The prediction of carcinogenicity from molecular structure. Curr. Comput. Aided Drug Des., 1: 237-255.
79. Honrao, M. Impurity profile: a review, Pharm. Rev. 3 (2005)
80. Hulzebos, E, Sijm, D, Traas, T, Posthumus, R and Maslankiewicz, L. 2005. Validity and validation of expert (Q)SAR systems. SAR QSAR Environ. Res., 16: 385-401.
81. Jacobs, A. 2005. Prediction of 2-year carcinogenicity study results for pharmaceutical products: How are we doing?. Toxicol. Sci., 88: 18-23.
82. Snyder, RD and Hendry, LB. 2005. Toward a greater appreciation of noncovalent chemical/DNA interactions: Application of biological and computational approaches. Environ. Mol. Mutag., 45: 100-105.
83. Snyder, RD and Smith, MD. 2005. Computational prediction of genotoxicity: Room for improvement. Drug Disc. Today, 10: 1119-1124.
84. Serafimova, R, Todorov, M, Pavlov, T, Kotov, S, Jacob, E, Aptula, A and Mekenyan, O. 2007. Identification of the structural requirements for mutagenicity, by incorporating molecular flexibility and metabolic activation of chemicals. ii. general Ames mutagenicity model. Chem. Res. Toxicol., 20: 662-676.
85. Jacobson-Kram, D and Contrera, JF. 2007. Genetic toxicity assessment: Employing the best science for human safety evaluation part i: Early screening for potential human mutagens. Toxicol. Sci., 96: 16-20.
86. McGovern, T and Jacobson-Kram, D. 2006. Regulation of genotoxic and carcinogenic impurities in drug substances and products. Trends Anal. Chem., 25: 790-795.
87. Müller, L, Mauthe, RJ, Riley, CM, Andino, MM, Antonis, DD, Beels, C, DeGeorge, J, Knaep, AGMDe, Ellison, D, Fagerland, JA, Frank, R, Fritschel, B, Galloway, S, Harpur, E, Humfrey, CDN, Jacks, AS, Jagota, N, Mackinnon, J, Mohan, G, Ness, DK, O'Donovan, MR, Smith, MD, Vudathala, G and Yotti, L. A rationale for determining, testing, and controlling specific impurities in pharmaceuticals that possess potential for genotoxicity, Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 44 (2006),pp. 198-211