Prediction of acute mammalian toxicity using QSAR methods: A case study of sulfur mustard and its breakdown products

Molecules

Volumn 17, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 8982-9001

  Ruiz, Patricia ^a   Begluitti, Gino ^b   Tincher, Terry ^b   Wheeler, John ^a   Mumtaz, Moiz ^a  

^a AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY   (United States)

^b NATIONAL CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

In silico modeling; LD 50; Mammalian oral; QSAR; Quantitative structure activity relationship; SAR; Sulfur mustard

Indexed keywords

HETEROCYCLIC COMPOUND; MUSTARD GAS; SULFUR DERIVATIVE;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; COMPUTER PROGRAM; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMAN; LD 50; MAMMAL; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION;

ANIMALS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HETEROCYCLIC COMPOUNDS; HUMANS; LETHAL DOSE 50; MAMMALS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; MUSTARD GAS; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; SOFTWARE; SULFUR COMPOUNDS;

EID: 84865459939     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14203049     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/molecules17088982     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Toxicological Profile for Sulfur Mustard; ATSDR: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2003.
2. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Monographs; IARC: Lyon, France, 1987; pp. 403-405.
3. Lu, F.; Kacew, S. Basic toxicology. In Fundamentals, Target Organs, and Risk Assessment; Taylor & Francis: New York, NY, USA, 2002.
4. Balls, M. Why modification of the LD50 test will not be enough. Lab. Anim. 1991, 25, 198-206.
5. Fiedler, H.; Hutzinger, O.; Giesy, J.P. Utility of the QSAR modeling system for predicting the toxicity of substances on the European inventory of existing commercial chemicals. Toxicol. Environ. Chem. 1990, 28, 167-188.
6. Cronin, M.T.; Dearden, J.C. QSAR in toxicology. Prediction of acute mammalian toxicity and interspecies correlations. QSAR 1995, 14, 117-120.
7. Greene, N. Computer systems for the prediction of toxicity: An update. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2002, 54, 417-431.
8. Tsakovska, I.; Lessigiarska, I.; Netzeva, T.; Worth, A.P. A mini review of mammalian toxicity (Q)SAR models. QSAR Comb. Sci. 2008, 27, 41-48.
9. Demchuk, E.; Ruiz, P.; Chou, S.; Fowler, B.A. SAR/QSAR methods in public health practice. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 2011, 254, 192-197.
10. Schultz, T.W.; Seward, J.R. Health-effects related structure-toxicity relationships: A paradigm for the first decade of the new millennium. Sci. Total Environ. 2000, 249, 73-84.
11. Simon-Hettich, B.; Rothfuss, A.; Steger-Hartmann, T. Use of computer-assisted prediction of toxic effects of chemical substances. Toxicology 2006, 224, 156-162.
12. Jaworska, J.S.; Comber, M.A.C.; van Leeuwen, C.J. Summary of a workshop on regulatory acceptance of (Q)SARs for human health and environmental endpoints. Environ. Health Perspect. 2003, 111, 1358-1360.
13. Ruiz, P.; Mumtaz, M.; Gombar, V. Assessing the toxic effects of ethylene glycol ethers using Quantitative Structure Toxicity Relationship models. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 2011, 254, 198-205.
14. Gombar, V.K. Quantiative structure-activity relationships in toxicology: From fundamentals to applications. Adv. Mol. Toxicol. 1997, 125-139.
15. Klopman, G.; Zhu, H.; Fuller, M.A.; Saiakhov, R.D. Searching for an enhanced predictive tool for mutagenicity. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 2004, 15, 251-263.
16. Richard, A.M.; Benigni, R. AI and SAR approaches for predicting chemical carcinogenicity: Survey and status report. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 2002, 13, 1-19.
17. Enslein, K. QSTR applications in acute, chronic, and developmental toxicity, and carcinogenicity. Adv. Mol. Toxicol. 1998, 141-164.
18. Cronin, M.T.; Walker, J.D.; Jaworska, J.S.; Comber, M.H.; Watts, C.D.; Worth, A.P. Use of QSARs in international decision-making frameworks to predict ecologic effects and environmental fate of chemical substances. Environ. Health Perspect. 2003, 111, 1376-1390.
19. McKinney, J.D.; Richard, A.; Waller, C.; Newman, M.C.; Gerberick, F. The Practice of Structure Activity Relationships (SAR) in Toxicology. Toxicol. Sci. 2000, 56, 8-17.
20. Richard, A.M. Commercial toxicology prediction systems: A regulatory perspective. Toxicol. Lett. 1998, 102-103, 611-616.
21. Gombar, V.K.; Jain, D.V.S. Quantification of molecular shape and its correlation with physico-chemical properties. Indian J. Chem. 1987, 24A, 554-555.
22. Enslein, K. The future of toxicity prediction with QSAR. In Vitro Toxicol. 1993, 6, 163-169.
23. Ruiz, P.; Faroon, O.; Moudgal, C.J.; Hansen, H.; De Rosa, C.T.; Mumtaz, M. Prediction of the health effects of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and their metabolites using quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR). Toxicol. Lett. 2008, 181, 53-65.
24. Gombar, V.K.; Enslein, K. Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) studies using electronic descriptors calculated from topological and Molecular Orbital (MO) methods. QSAR 1990, 9, 321-325.
25. Hall, L.H.; Mohney, B.; Kier, L.B. The electrotopological state: Structure information at the atomic level for molecular graphs. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1991, 31, 76-82.
26. Zheng, W.; Tropsha, A. Novel Variable Selection Quantitative Structure-Property relationship approach based on the k-Nearest-Neighbor principle. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1999, 40, 185-194.
27. Eriksson, L.; Jaworska, J.; Worth, A.P.; Cronin, M.T.; McDowell, R.M.; Gramatica, P. Methods for reliability, uncertainty assessment, and applicability evaluations of classifications and regression-based QSARs. Environ. Health Perspect. 2003, 111, 1361-1375.
28. Martin, T.M.; Harten, P.; Venkatapathy, R.; Das, S.; Young, D.M. A hierarchical clustering methodology for the estimation of toxicity. Toxicol. Mech. Methods 2008, 18, 251-266.
29. Tropsha, A.; Golbraikh, A. Predictive QSAR modeling workflow, model applicability domains, and virtual screening. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2007, 13, 3494-3504.
30. Zhu, H.; Martin, T.M.; Ye, L.; Sedykh, A.; Young, D.M.; Tropsha, A. Quantitative structureactivity relationship modeling of rat acute toxicity by oral exposure. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2009, 22, 1913-1921.
31. Golbraikh, A.; Shen, M.; Xiao, Z.; Xiao, Y.-D.; Lee, K.-H.; Tropsha, A. Rational selection of training and test sets for the development of validated QSAR models. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 2003, 17, 241-253.
32. Golbraikh, A.; Tropsha, A. Beware of q2! J. Mol. Graph. Model. 2002, 20, 269-276.
33. Breiman, L. Random Forests. Mach. Learn. 2001, 45, 5-32.
34. Papa, E.; Kovarich, S.; Gramatica, P. On the use of local and global QSPRs for the prediction of physico-chemical properties of polybrominated diphenyl ethers. Mol. Inform. 2011, 30, 232-240.
35. Li, J.Z.; Gramatica, P. Classification and virtual screening of androgen receptor antagonists. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2010, 50, 861-874.
36. Sazonovas, A.; Japertas, P.; Didziapetris, R. Estimation of reliability of predictions and model applicability domain evaluation in the analysis of acute toxicity (LD 50). SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 2010, 21, 127-148.
37. TOPKAT User Guide Version 6.2; Accelrys: San Diego, CA, USA, 2004.
38. T. E. S.T Tool, User's Guide for T.E.S.T, Version 4.0.;US EPA: Cincinatti, OH, USA, 2011.
39. User Manual Version 5.5; Simulation Plus Inc, S. P.: Lancaster, CA, USA, 2011.
40. Stedeford, T.; Zhao, Q.J.; Dourson, M.L.; Banasik, M.; Hsu, C.H. The application of non-default uncertainty factors in the US EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Part I: UFL, UFS, and "Other uncertainty factors™. J. Environ. Sci. Heal. C 2007, 25, 245-279.
41. Votano, J.R.; Parham, M.; Hall, L.H.; Kier, L.B.; Oloff, S.; Tropsha, A.; Xie, Q.; Tong, W. Three new consensus QSAR models for the prediction of Ames genotoxicity. Mutagenesis 2004, 19, 365-377.
42. Moore, D.R.J.; Breton, R.L.; MacDonald, D.B. A comparison of model performance for six quantitative structure-activity relationship packages that predict acute toxicity to fish. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2003, 22, 1799-1809.
43. Tong, W.; Hong, H.; Fang, H.; Xie, Q.; Perkins, R. Decision forest: Combining the predictions of multiple independent decision tree models. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 525-531.
44. Tunkel, J.; Mayo, K.; Austin, C.; Hickerson, A.; Howard, P. Practical considerations on the use of predictive models for regulatory purposes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39, 2188-2199.
45. Devillers, J.; Mombelli, E. Evaluation of the OECD QSAR Application Toolbox and Toxtree for estimating the mutagenicity of chemicals. Part 2. alpha-beta unsaturated aliphatic aldehydes. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 2010, 21, 771-783.
46. Fjodorova, N.; Novich, M.; Vrachko, M.; Smirnov, V.; Kharchevnikova, N.; Zholdakova, Z.; Novikov, S.; Skvortsova, N.; Filimonov, D.; Poroikov, V.; et al. Directions in QSAR modeling for regulatory uses in OECD member countries, EU and in Russia. J. Environ. Sci. Heal. C 2008, 26, 201-236.
47. Liu, H.; Papa, E.; Gramatica, P. QSAR prediction of estrogen activity for a large set of diverse chemicals under the guidance of OECD principles. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2006, 19, 1540-1548.
48. Canadian Center for Occupational Health & Safety. What is an LD50 and LC50. Available online: http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/LD50.html#-1-6 (accessed on 26 July 2012).
49. Barratt, M.D. Integrating computer prediction systems with in vitro methods towards a better understanding of toxicology. Toxicol. Lett. 1998, 102-103, 617-621.
50. National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Toxicity Testing and Assessment of Environmental Agents. In Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2007; p. xvii, 196.
51. Guidance Document on the Validation and International Acceptance of New or Updated Test Methods for Hazard Assessment, Series on Testing and Assessment. OECD: Paris, France, 2005; p. 96.
52. National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Applications of Toxicogenomic Technologies to Predictive Toxicology. In Applications of Toxicogenomic Technologies to Predictive Toxicology and Risk Assessment; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2007; p. xxii, 275.
53. Schrage, A.; Hempel, K.; Schulz, M.; Kolle, S.N.; van Ravenzwaay, B.; Landsiedel, R. Refinement and reduction of acute oral toxicity testing: A critical review of the use of cytotoxicity data. Atla.-Altern. Lab. Anim. 2011, 39, 273-295.
54. Worth, A.P.; Bassan, A.; De Bruijn, J.; Gallegos Saliner, A.; Netzeva, T.; Pavan, M.; Patlewicz, G.; Tsakovska, I.; Eisenreich, S. The role of the European Chemicals Bureau in promoting the regulatory use of (Q)SAR methods. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 2007, 18, 111-125.
55. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Report on the Regulatory Uses and Applications in OECD Member Countries of (Quantitative) Structure-Activity Relationship [(Q)SAR] Models in the Assessment of New and Existing Chemicals, Series on Testing and Assessment; OECD: Paris, France, 2006; p. 79.
56. Moudgal, C.J.; Lipscomb, J.C.; Bruce, R.M. Potential health effects of drinking water disinfection by-products using quantitative structure toxicity relationship. Toxicology 2000, 147, 109-131.
57. Venkatapathy, R.; Wang, C.Y.; Bruce, R.M.; Moudgal, C. Development of quantitative structureactivity relationship (QSAR) models to predict the carcinogenic potency of chemicals: I. Alternative toxicity measures as an estimator of carcinogenic potency. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 2009, 234, 209-221.
58. Romesburg, H.C. Cluster Analysis for Researchers; LULU Press: North Carolina, NC, USA, 1984.
59. Contrera, J.F.; Matthews, E.J.; Daniel Benz, R. Predicting the carcinogenic potential of pharmaceuticals in rodents using molecular structural similarity and E-state indices. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2003, 38, 243-259.
60. Netzeva, T.; Worth, A.P.; Aldenberg, T.; Benigni, R.; Cronin, M.T.; Gramatica, P.; Jaworska, J.; Kahn, S.; Klopman, G.; Marchant, C.A.; et al. Current status of methods for defining the applicability domain of (quantitative) structure-activity relationships. The report and recommendations of ECVAM Workshop 52. Altern. Lab. Anim. 2005, 33, 1-19.
61. Schultz, T.W.; Hewitt, M.; Netzeva, T.I.; Cronin, M.T.D. Assessing Applicability Domains of Toxicological QSARs: Definition, Confidence in Predicted Values, and the Role of Mechanisms of Action. QSAR Comb. Sci. 2007, 26, 238-254.
62. Tetko, I.V.; Sushko, I.; Pandey, A.K.; Zhu, H.; Tropsha, A.; Papa, E.; Oberg, T.; Todeschini, R.; Fourches, D.; Varnek, A. Critical Assessment of QSAR Models of Environmental Toxicity against Tetrahymena pyriformis: Focusing on Applicability Domain and Overfitting by Variable Selection. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48, 1733-1746.
63. Roy, P.P.; Kovarich, S.; Gramatica, P. QSAR Model Reproducibility and Applicability: A Case Study of Rate Constants of Hydroxyl Radical Reaction Models Applied to Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers and (Benzo-)Triazoles. J. Comput. Chem. 2011, 32, 2386-2396.
64. Pohl, H.R.; Chou, C.H.; Ruiz, P.; Holler, J.S. Chemical risk assessment and uncertainty associated with extrapolation across exposure duration. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2010, 57, 18-23.