An investigation into pharmaceutically relevant mutagenicity data and the influence on Ames predictive potential

Journal of Cheminformatics

Volumn 3, Issue 11, 2011, Pages

  McCarren, Patrick ^a   Springer, Clayton ^a   Whitehead, Lewis ^a  

^a NOVARTIS INSTITUTES FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84862667032     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17582946     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1758-2946-3-51     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Mirza A, Desai R, Reynisson J: Known drug space as a metric in exploring the boundaries of drug-like chemical space. Eur J Med Chem 2009, 44:5006-5011.
2. McCarren P, Bebernitz GR, Gedeck P, Glowienke S, Grondine MS, Kirman LC, Klickstein J, Schuster HF, Whitehead L: Avoidance of the Ames test liability for arylamines via computation. Bioorg & Med Chem 2011, 19:3173-3182.
3. Leach AG, Cann R, Tomasi S: Reaction energies computed with density functional theory correspond with a whole organism effect; modelling the Ames test for mutagenicity. Chem Commun 2009, 1094-1096.
4. 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, 24:843-854.
5. Naven RT, Louise-May S, Greene N: The computational prediction of genotoxicity. Epxert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2010, 6:797-807.
6. Waldron HA: A brief history of scrotal cancer. Br J Ind Med 1983, 40:390-401. (Pubitemid 14230673)
7. S2 (R1) Guidance on genotoxicity testing and data interpretation for pharmaceuticals intended for human use. Geneva, Switzerland: ICH; 2008, 28.
8. Fetterman BA, Kim BS, Margolin BH, Schildcrout JS, Smith MG, Wagner SM, Zeiger E: Predicting rodent carcinogenicity from mutagenic potency measured in the Ames Salmonella assay. Environ Mol Mutagen 1997, 29:312-322. (Pubitemid 27210433)
9. 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. Epxert Opin Drug Metab Toxic 2010, 6:809-819.
10. Mortelmans K, Zeiger E: The Ames Salmonella/microsome mutagenicity assay. Mutat Res-Fundam Mol Mech Mutag 2000, 455:29-60.
11. McCann J, Choi E, Yamasaki E, Ames BN: Detection of carcinogens as mutagens in the Salmonella/microsome test: assay of 300 chemicals. In Proc Natl Acad Sci. Volume 72. USA; 1975:5135-5139.
12. Mortelmans K: Isolation of plasmid pKM101 in the Stocker laboratory. Mutat Res-Rev Mutat 2006, 612:151-164. (Pubitemid 43767089)
13. Diehl MS, Willaby SL, Snyder RD: Comparison of the Results of a Modifed Miniscreen and the Standard Bacterial Reverse Mutation Assays. Environ Mol Mutagen 2000, 35:72-77. (Pubitemid 30620746)
14. Knight AW, Little S, Houck K, Dix D, Judson R, Richard A, McCarroll N, Akerman G, Yang C, Birrell L, Walmsley RM: Evaluation of high-throughput genotoxicity assays used in profiling the US EPA ToxCast (TM) chemicals. Regul Toxicol Pharm 2009, 55:188-199.
15. Westerink W M A, Stevenson J C R, Lauwers A, Griffioen G, Horbach GJ, Schoonen W G E J: Evaluation of the Vitotox (TM) and RadarScreen assays for the rapid assessment of genotoxicity in the early research phase of drug development. Mutagenesis Mutat Res-Genet Toxicol Environ Mutag 2009, 676:113-130.
16. Matthews EJ, Kruhlak NL, Cimino MC, Benz RD, Contrera JF: An analysis of genetic toxicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, and carcinogenicity data: I. Identification of carcinogens using surrogate endpoints. Regul Toxicol Pharm 2006, 44:83-96. (Pubitemid 43234284)
17. Hansen K, Stern RM: A survey of metal-induced Mutagenicity in vitro and in vivo. Toxicol Environ Chem 1984, 9:87-91. (Pubitemid 15154268)
18. Kenyon MO, Cheung JR, Dobo KL, Ku WW: An evaluation of the sensitivity of the Ames assay to discern low-level mutagenic impurities. Regul Toxicol Pharm 2007, 48:75-86. (Pubitemid 46795525)
19. Looker AR, Ryan MP, Neubert-Langille BJ, Naji R: Risk Assessment of Potentially Genotoxic Impurities within the Framework of Quality by Design. Org Process Res Dev 2010, 14:1032-1036.
20. Loeb LA, Harris CC: Advances in chemical carcinogenesis: a historical review and prospective. Cancer Res 2008, 68:6863-6872.
21. Kazius J, McGuire R, Bursi R: Derivation and Validation of Toxicophores for Mutagenicity Prediction. J Med Chem 2005, 48:312-320. (Pubitemid 40105270)
22. Sanderson DM, Earnshaw CG: Computer Prediction of Possible Toxic Action from Chemical Structure; The DEREK System. Hum Exp Toxicol 1991, 10:261-273.
23. Miller JA: Carcinogenesis by chemicals: an overview-GHA Clowes memorial lecture. Cancer Res 1970, 30:559.
24. Skipper PL, Kim MY, Sun H L P, Wogan GN, Tannenbaum SR: Monocyclic aromatic amines as potential human carcinogens: old is new again. Carcinogenesis 2010, 31:50-58.
25. Hillier SM, Marquis JC, Zayas B, Wishnok JS, Liberman RG, Skipper PL, Tannenbaum SR, Essigmann JM, Croy RG: DNA adducts formed by a novel antitumor agent 11β-dichloro in vitro and in vivo. Mol Cancer Ther 2006, 5:977-984. (Pubitemid 43724598)
26. Ridings JE, Barratt MD, Cary R, Earnshaw CG, Eggington CE, Ellis MK, Judson PN, Langowski JJ, Marchant CA, Payne MP, Watson WP, Yih TD: Computer prediction of possible toxic action from chemical structure: an update on the DEREK system. Toxicology 1996, 106:267-279. (Pubitemid 26038295)
27. Ashby J: Fundamental structural alerts to potential carcinogenicity or noncarcinogenicity. Environ Mutagen 1985, 7:919-921. (Pubitemid 16180586)
28. 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. (Pubitemid 121007619)
29. Kalgutkar AS, Gardner I, Obach RS, Shaffer CL, Callegari E, Henne KR, Mutlib AE, Dalvie DK, Lee JS, Nakai Y, O'Donnell JP, Boer J, Harriman SP: A Comprehensive Listing of Bioactivation Pathways of Organic Functional Groups. Curr Drug Metab 2005, 6:161-225. (Pubitemid 40753853)
30. Snyder R, Pearl G, Mandakas G, Choy W, Goodsaid F, Rosenblum I: Assessment of the sensitivity of the computational programs DEREK, TOPKAT, and MCASE in the prediction of the genotoxicity of pharmaceutical molecules. Environ Mol Mutagen 2004, 43:143-158. (Pubitemid 38649730)
31. Snyder R, Smith M: Computational prediction of genotoxicity: room for improvement. Drug Discov Today 2005, 10:1119-1124. (Pubitemid 41327787)
32. Glowienke S: S18: In silico assessment of safety concerns esp. of carcinogenic potential. Exp Toxicol Pathol 2009, 61:264-265.
33. Benigni R, Bossa C: Predictivity and Reliability of QSAR Models: The Case of Mutagens and Carcinogens. Toxicol Mech 2008, 18:137-147. (Pubitemid 351414963)
34. Debnath AK, Debnath G, Shusterman AJ, Hansch C: A QSAR investigation of the role of hydrophobicity in regulating mutagenicity in the ames test: 1. Mutagenicity of aromatic and heteroaromatic amines in Salmonella typhimurium TA98 and TA100. Environ Mol Mutagen 1992, 19:37-52.
35. Hatch FT, Colvin ME: Quantitative structure-activity relationships of mutagenic aromatic and heterocyclic amines. Mutat Res-Fundam Mol Mech Mutag 1997, 376:87-96. (Pubitemid 27248589)
36. Hansch C: Structure-activity relationships of chemical mutagens and carcinogens. Total Environ 1991, 109-110:17-29.
37. Zhang Q-Y, Aires-de-Sousa J: Random Forest Prediction of Mutagenicity from Empirical Physicochemical Descriptors. J Chem Inf Model 2006, 47:1-8.
38. Hansen K, Mika S, Schroeter T, Sutter A, ter Laak A, Steger-Hartmann T, Heinrich N, Müller K-R: Benchmark Data Set for in Silico Prediction of Ames Mutagenicity. J Chem Inf Model 2009, 49:2077-2081.
39. Benigni R, Bossa C, Netzeva T, Worth A: Collection and Evaluation of (Q) SAR Models for Mutagenicity and Carcinogenicity. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2007, 119.
40. Sushko I, Novotarskyi S, Korner R, Pandey AK, Cherkasov A, Li J, Gramatica P, Hansen K, Schroeter T, Muller K-R, Xi L, Liu H, Yao X, Oberg T, Hormozdiari F, Dao P, Sahinalp C, Todeschini R, Polishchuk P, Artemenko A, Kuz'min V, Martin TM, Young DM, Fourches D, Muratov E, Tropsha A, Baskin I, Horvath D, Marcou G, Muller C, Varnek A, Prokopenko VV, Tetko IV: Applicability Domains for Classification Problems: Benchmarking of Distance to Models for Ames Mutagenicity Set. J Chem Inf Model 2010, 50:2094-2111.
41. Leong MK, Lin S-W, Chen H-B, Tsai F-Y: Predicting Mutagenicity of Aromatic Amines by Various Machine Learning Approaches. Toxicol Sci 2010, 116:498-513.
42. Hardy B, Douglas N, Helma C, Rautenberg M, Jeliazkova N, Jeliazkov V, Nikolova I, Benigni R, Tcheremenskaia O, Kramer S, Girschick T, Buchwald F, Wicker J, Karwath A, Gütlein M, Maunz A, Sarimveis H, Melagraki G, Afantitis A, Sopasakis P, Gallagher D, Poroikov V, Filimonov D, Zakharov A, Lagunin A, Gloriozova T, Novikov S, Skvortsova N, Druzhilovsky D, Chawla S, Ghosh I, Ray S, Patel H, Escher S: Collaborative development of predictive toxicology applications. CheminformaticsJ Cheminf 2010, 2:7.
43. Benchmark Data Set for In Silico Prediction of Ames Mutagenicity., Sdf file available at [http://doc.ml.tu-berlin. de/toxbenchmark/], set 2, 6512 compounds.
44. Brambilla G, Martelli A: Update on genotoxicity and carcinogenicity testing of 472 marketed pharmaceuticals. Mutat Res-Rev Mutat 2009, 681:209-229.
45. Molecular Operating Environment. version 2009.10, Chemical Computing Group, Montreal, Canada.
46. Morgan HL: The Generation of a Unique Machine Description for Chemical Structures-A Technique Developed at Chemical Abstracts Service. J Chem Doc 1965, 5:107-113.
47. Rogers D, Hahn M: Extended-Connectivity Fingerprints. J Chem Inf Model 2010, 50:742-754.
48. Landrum G: RDKit [http://sourceforge.net/projects/rdkit], version Q3 2010.
49. Frisch MJ, Trucks GW, Schlegel HB, Scuseria GE, Robb MA, Cheeseman JR, Montgomery JA, Vreven T, Kudin KN, Burant JC, Millam JM, Iyengar SS, Tomasi J, Barone V, Mennucci B, Cossi M, Scalmani G, Rega N, Petersson GA, Nakatsuji H, Hada M, Ehara M, Toyota K, Fukuda R, Hasegawa J, Ishida M, Nakajima T, Honda Y, Kitao O, Nakai H, Klene M, Li X, Knox JE, Hratchian HP, Cross JB, Bakken V, Adamo C, Jaramillo J, Gomperts R, Stratmann RE, Yazyev O, Austin AJ, Cammi R, Pomelli C, Ochterski JW, Ayala PY, Morokuma K, Voth GA, Salvador P, Dannenberg JJ, Zakrzewski VG, Dapprich S, Daniels AD, Strain MC, Farkas O, Malick DK, Rabuck AD, Raghavachari K, Foresman JB, Cui J V O, Baboul AG, Clifford S, Cioslowski J, Stefanov BB, Liu G, Liashenko A, Piskorz P, Komaromi I, Martin RL, Fox DJ, Keith T, Al-Laham MA, Peng CY, Nanayakkara A, Challacombe M, Gill P M W, Johnson B, Chen W, Wong MW, Gonzalez C, Pople JA: Gaussian 03. Gaussian, Inc.: Wallingford, CT;, version Rev. E.01 2004.
50. Dewar M J S, Zoebisch EG, Healy EF, Stewart J J P: Development and use of quantum mechanical molecular models. 76. AM1: a new general purpose quantum mechanical molecular model. J Am Chem Soc 1985, 107:3902-3909.
51. MOPAC. Stewart JJP.;, version 7.1 1993.
52. Foster JP, Weinhold F: Natural hybrid orbitals. J Am Chem Soc 1980, 102:7211-7218.
53. Reed A, Weinstock R, Weinhold F: Natural population analysis. J Chem Phys 1985, 83:735-746.
54. Liaw A, Wiener M: Classification and Regression by randomForest. R News 2002, 2:18-22.
55. Team R D C: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: The R Foundation for Statistical Computing; Vienna, Austria;, version 2.6.2 2008.
56. Breiman L: Random Forests. Machine Learning 2001, 45:5-32. (Pubitemid 32933532)
57. pls: Partial Least Squares Regression (PLSR) and Principal Component Regression (PCR). Ron Wehrens and Bjørn-Helge Mevik;, version 2.1-0 2007 [http://mevik.net/work/software/pls.html].
58. caret: Classification and Regression Training. Max Kuhn. Contributions from Jed Wing, Steve Weston and Andre Williams;, version 3.21 2008 [http://caret.r-forge.r-project.org/Classification-and-Regression-Training.html] .
59. Sing T, Sander O, Beerenwinkel N, Lengauer T: ROCR: visualizing classifier performance in R. Bioinformatics 2005, 21:3940-3941 (Pubitemid 41535515)
60. Pipeline Pilot. Accelrys Software, Inc.: San Diego, CA 92121;, version 7.5 2008.
61. Kohonen T: Self-Organizing Maps. 3 edition. Berlin: Springer; 2001
62. Canvas. Schrodinger, LLC: New York, New York;, version 1.4 2011
63. Duan J, Dixon SL, Lowrie JF, Sherman W: Analysis and comparison of 2D fingerprints: Insights into database screening performance using eight fingerprint methods. J Mol Graphics Modell 2010, 29:157-170.
64. Wehrens R, Buydens L M C: Self-and Super-organising Maps in R: the kohonen package. J Stat Softw 2007, 21.
65. Benigni R, Bossa C, Netzeva T, Rodomonte A, Tsakovska I: Mechanistic QSAR of aromatic amines: New models for discriminating between homocyclic mutagens and nonmutagens, and validation of models for carcinogens. Environ Mol Mutagen 2007, 48:754-771 (Pubitemid 350305012)
66. Benigni R, Passerini L, Gallo G, Giorgi F, Cotta-Ramusino M: QSAR models for discriminating between mutagenic and nonmutagenic aromatic and heteroaromatic amines. Environ Mol Mutagen 1998, 32:75-83 (Pubitemid 28375828)
67. Bentzien J, Hickey ER, Kemper RA, Brewer ML: An in Silico Method for Predicting Ames Activities of Primary Aromatic Amines by Calculating the Stabilities of Nitrenium Ions. J Chem Inf Model 2010, 50:274-297
68. Borosky GL: Ultimate Carcinogenic Metabolites from Aromatic and Heterocyclic Aromatic Amines: A Computational Study in Relation to Their Mutagenic Potency. Chem Res Toxicol 2007, 20:171-180 (Pubitemid 46408853)
69. Colvin M, Seidl E, Nielsen I, Le Bui L, Hatch F: Deprotonation and hydride shifts in nitrenium and iminium forms of aminoimidazole-azaarene mutagens. Chem Biol Interact 1997, 108:39-66. (Pubitemid 28057416)
70. Shamovsky I, Ripa L, Börjesson L, Mee C, Nordén B, Hansen P, Hasselgren C, O'Donovan M, Sjö P: Explanation for Main Features of Structure-Genotoxicity Relationships of Aromatic Amines by Theoretical Studies of Their Activation Pathways in CYP1A2. J Am Chem Soc 2011, 133:16168-16185.
71. Sarkar FH, Radcliff G, Callewaert DM: Purified prostaglandin synthase activates aromatic amines to derivatives that are mutagenic to Salmonella typhimurium. Mutat Res 1992, 282:273-281
72. Balaban AT: Highly discriminating distance-based topological index. Chem Phys Lett 1982, 89:399-404.
73. Kier LB, Hall LH: Nature of structure-activity-relationships and their relation to molecular connectivity. Eur J Med Chem 1977, 12:307-312 (Pubitemid 8254319)
74. Wildman SA, Crippen GM: Prediction of Physicochemical Parameters by Atomic Contributions. Chem Inf Comput Sci 1999, 39:868-873
75. Pearlman RS, Smith KM: Metric Validation and the Receptor-Relevant Subspace Concept. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1999, 39:28-35. (Pubitemid 129676554)
76. Burden FR: Molecular identification number for substructure searches. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1989, 29:225-227.
77. Burden FR: A chemically intuitive molecular index based on the eigenvalues of a modified adjacency matrix. Quant Struct-Act Relat 1997, 16:309-314. (Pubitemid 27401784)
78. Gasteiger J, Marsili M: Iterative partial equalization of orbital electronegativity: a rapid access to atomic charges. Tetrahedron 1980, 36:3219-3222.
79. Hall LH, Kier LB: The molecular connectivity chi indexes and kappa shape indexes in structure-property modeling. Rev Comput Chem 1991, 2:367-422.
80. TOPKAT. Accelrys: San Diego, CA 92121;, version 6.2.