From QSAR to QSIIR: Searching for enhanced computational toxicology models

Methods in Molecular Biology

Volumn 930, Issue , 2013, Pages 53-65

  Zhu, Hao ^a,b  

^a USA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Biological descriptors; Chemical descriptors; Compounds; Computational toxicology; HTS; Predictive model; QSAR; QSIIR

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REVIEW; TOXICITY TESTING; TOXICOLOGY;

ANIMALS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMANS; MODELS, MOLECULAR; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; ROC CURVE; TOXICITY TESTS; TOXICOLOGY;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 84870531264     PISSN: 10643745     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-62703-059-5_3     Document Type: Review

References (60)

1. Kola I, Landis J (2004) Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates? Nat Rev Drug Discov 3(8):711-715
2. Inglese J, Auld DS, Jadhav A, Johnson RL, Simeonov A, Yasgar A, Zheng W, Austin CP (2006) Quantitative high-throughput screening: A titration-based approach that efficiently identifies biological activities in large chemical libraries. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103 (31):11473-11478
3. Cheeseman MA (2005) Thresholds as a unifying theme in regulatory toxicology. Food Addit Contam 22(10):900-906
4. Riley RJ, Kenna JG (2004) Cellular models for ADMET predictions and evaluation of drugdrug interactions. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 7(1):86-99
5. Dix DJ, Houck KA, Martin MT, Richard AM, Setzer RW, Kavlock RJ (2007) The ToxCast program for prioritizing toxicity testing of environmental chemicals. Toxicol Sci 95(1): 5-12
6. Yang C, Valerio LG Jr, Arvidson KB (2009) Computational toxicology approaches at the US Food and Drug Administration. Altern Lab Anim 37(5):523-531
7. Valerio LG Jr (2009) In silico toxicology for the pharmaceutical sciences. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 241(3):356-370
8. Dash A, Inman W, Hoffmaster K, Sevidal S, Kelly J, Obach RS, Griffith LG, Tannenbaum SR (2009) Liver tissue engineering in the evaluation of drug safety. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 5(10):1159-1174
9. Park MV, Lankveld DP, Loveren H van, Jong WH de (2009) The status of in vitro toxicity studies in the risk assessment of nanomaterials. Nanomedicine (Lond) 4(6):669-685
10. Durham SK, Pearl GM (2001) Computational methods to predict drug safety liabilities. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 4(1):110-115
11. Jacobson-Kram D, 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(1):16-20
12. Muster W, Breidenbach A, Fischer H, Kirchner S, Muller L, Pahler A (2008) Computational toxicology in drug development. Drug Discov Today 13(7-8):303-310
13. Bailey AB, Chanderbhan R, Collazo-Braier N, Cheeseman MA, Twaroski ML (2005) The use of structure-activity relationship analysis in the food contact notification program. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 42(2):225-235
14. Valerio L Jr (2008) Tools for evidence-based toxicology: Computational-based strategies as a viable modality for decision support in chemical safety evaluation and risk assessment. Hum Exp Toxicol 27(10):757-760
15. Snyder RD (2009) An update on the genotoxicity and carcinogenicity of marketed pharmaceuticals with reference to in silico predictivity. Environ Mol Mutagen 50(6):435-450
16. Zvinavashe E, Murk AJ, Rietjens IM (2009) On the number of EINECS compounds that can be covered by (Q)SAR models for acute toxicity. Toxicol Lett 184(1):67-72
17. Zvinavashe E, Murk AJ, Rietjens IM (2008) Promises and pitfalls of quantitative structureactivity relationship approaches for predicting metabolism and toxicity. Chem Res Toxicol 21 (12):2229-2236
18. Yang C, Benz RD, Cheeseman MA (2006) Landscape of current toxicity databases and database standards. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 9(1):124-133
19. Young DM, Martin TM, Venkatapathy R, Harten P (2008) Are the chemical structures in your QSAR correct.QSAR Comb Sci 27:1337-1345
20. Fourches D, Muratov E, Tropsha A (2010) Trust, but verify: On the importance of chemical structure curation in cheminformatics and QSAR modeling research. J Chem Inf Model 50(7):1189-1204
21. Richard AM, Williams CR (2002) Distributed structure-searchable toxicity (DSSTox) public database network: A proposal. Mutat Res 499 (1):27-52
22. Judson R, Richard A, Dix DJ, Houck K, Martin M, Kavlock R, Dellarco V, Henry T, Holderman T, Sayre P, Tan S, Carpenter T, Smith E (2009) The toxicity data landscape for environmental chemicals. Environ Health Perspect 117(5):685-695
23. Yang C, Richard AM, Cross KP (2006) The Art of data mining the minefields of toxicity databases to link chemistry to biology. Curr Comput Aided Drug Des 2:135-150
24. PubChem (2008) http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/
25. Knudsen TB, Martin MT, Kavlock RJ, Judson RS, Dix DJ, Singh AV (2009) Profiling developmental toxicity of 387 environmental chemicals using EPA's toxicity reference database (ToxRefDB). Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 85(5):406
26. Martin MT, Judson RS, Reif DM, Kavlock RJ, Dix DJ (2009) Profiling chemicals based on chronic toxicity results from the US EPA Tox-Ref database. Environ Health Perspect 117 (3):392-399
27. ToxRefDB (2010) http://actor.epa.gov/toxrefdb/ faces/Home.jsp
28. FDA Liver Side Effect (2010) http://www.fda. gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/ CDER/ ucm092203.htm
29. ChEMBL (2010) http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ chembldb/index.php
30. ToxCast (2010) http://www.epa.gov/comptox/ toxcast/
31. Fonger GC, Stroup D, Thomas PL, Wexler P (2000) TOXNET: A computerized collection of toxicological and environmental health information. Toxicol Ind Health 16(1):4-6
32. Shukla SJ, Huang R, Austin CP, Xia M (2010) The future of toxicity testing: A focus on in vitro methods using a quantitative highthroughput screening platform. Drug Discov Today 15(23-24):997-1007
33. Rogers D, Hopfinger AJ (1994) Application of genetic function approximation to quantitative structure-activity relationships and quantitative structure-property relationships. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 34:854-866
34. Kubinyi H (1994) Variable selection in QSAR studies. I. An evolutionary algorithm. Quant Struct Act Relat 13:285-294
35. So SS, Karplus M (1996) Evolutionary optimization in quantitative structure-activity relationship: An application of genetic neural networks. J Med Chem 39(7):1521-1530
36. So SS, Karplus M (1996) Genetic neural networks for quantitative structure-activity relationships: Improvements and application of benzodiazepine affinity for benzodiazepine/ GABAA receptors. J Med Chem 39(26): 5246-5256
37. Tropsha A, Gramatica P, Gombar VK (2003) The importance of being earnest: Validation is the absolute essential for successful application and interpretation of QSPR models. Quant Struct Act Relat Comb Sci 22:69-77
38. Golbraikh A, Tropsha A (2002) Predictive QSAR modeling based on diversity sampling of experimental datasets for the training and test set selection. J Comput Aided Mol Des 16(5-6):357-369
39. Norinder U (1996) Single and domain made variable selection in 3D QSAR applications. J Chemomet 10:95-105
40. Zefirov NS, Palyulin VA (2001) QSAR for boiling points of "small" sulfides. Are the "highquality structure-property- activity regressions" the real high quality QSAR models? J Chem Inf Comput Sci 41(4):1022-1027
41. Kubinyi H, Hamprecht FA, Mietzner T (1998) Three-dimensional quantitative similarityactivity relationships (3D QSiAR) from SEAL similarity matrices. J Med Chem 41(14): 2553-2564
42. Novellino E, Fattorusso C, Greco G (1995) Use of comparative molecular field analysis and cluster analysis in series design. Pharm Acta Helv 70:149-154
43. Golbraikh A, Tropsha A (2002) Beware of q2! J Mol Graph Model 20(4):269-276
44. Golbraikh A, Shen M, Xiao Z, Xiao YD, Lee KH, Tropsha A (2003) Rational selection of training and test sets for the development of validated QSAR models. J Comput Aided Mol Des 17(2-4):241-253
45. Stouch TR, Kenyon JR, Johnson SR, Chen XQ, Doweyko A, Li Y (2003) In silico ADME/Tox: Why models fail. J Comput Aided Mol Des 17(2-4):83-92
46. Johnson SR (2008) The trouble with QSAR (or how I learned to stop worrying and embrace fallacy). J Chem Inf Model 48(1): 25-26
47. Lombardo F, Gifford E, Shalaeva MY (2003) In silico ADME prediction: Data, models, facts and myths. Mini Rev Med Chem 3(8):861-875
48. Klopman G, Zhu H, Ecker G, Chiba P (2003) MCASE study of the multidrug resistance reversal activity of propafenone analogs. J Comput Aided Mol Des 17(5-6):291-297
49. Stoner CL, Gifford E, Stankovic C, Lepsy CS, Brodfuehrer J, Prasad JVNV, Surendran N (2004) Implementation of an ADME enabling selection and visualization tool for drug discovery. J Pharm Sci 93(5):1131-1141
50. Mayer P, Reichenberg F (2006) Can highly hydrophobic organic substances cause aquatic baseline toxicity and can they contribute to mixture toxicity? Environ Toxicol Chem 25 (10):2639-2644
51. Forsby A, Blaauboer B (2007) Integration of in vitro neurotoxicity data with biokinetic modelling for the estimation of in vivo neurotoxicity. Hum Exp Toxicol 26(4):333-338
52. Schirmer K, Tanneberger K, Kramer NI, Volker D, Scholz S, Hafner C, Lee LE, Bols NC, Hermens JL (2008) Developing a list of reference chemicals for testing alternatives to whole fish toxicity tests. Aquat Toxicol 90(2):128-137
53. Piersma AH, Janer G, Wolterink G, Bessems JG, Hakkert BC, Slob W (2008) Quantitative extrapolation of in vitro whole embryo culture embryotoxicity data to developmental toxicity in vivo using the benchmark dose approach. Toxicol Sci 101(1):91-100
54. Sjostrom M, Kolman A, Clemedson C, Clothier R (2008) Estimation of human blood LC50 values for use in modeling of in vitro-in vivo data of the ACuteTox project. Toxicol In Vitro 22(5):1405-1411
55. Zhu H, Ye L, Richard A, Golbraikh A, Wright FA, Rusyn I, Tropsha A (2009) A novel twostep hierarchical quantitative structure-activity relationship modeling work flow for predicting acute toxicity of chemicals in rodents. Environ Health Perspect 117(8):1257-1264
56. Sedykh A, Zhu H, Tang H, Zhang L, Richard A, Rusyn I, Tropsha A (2011) . Use of in vitro HTS-derived concentration-response data as biological descriptors improves the accuracy of QSAR models of in vivo toxicity. Environ Health Perspect 119:364-370
57. Zhu H, Rusyn I, Richard AM, Tropsha A (2008) Use of cell viability assay data improves the prediction accuracy of conventional quantitative structure activity relationship models of animal carcinogenicity. Environ Health Perspect 116(4):506-513
58. Thomas CJ, Auld DS, Huang R, Huang W, Jadhav A, Johnson RL, Leister W, Maloney DJ, Marugan JJ, Michael S, Simeonov A, Southall N, Xia M, Zheng W, Inglese J, Austin CP (2009) The pilot phase of the NIH Chemical Genomics Center. Curr Top Med Chem 9 (13):1181-1193
59. Xia M, Huang R,Witt KL, Southall N, Fostel J, Cho MH, Jadhav A, Smith CS, Inglese J, Portier CJ, Tice RR, Austin CP (2008) Compound cytotoxicity profiling using quantitative high-throughput screening. Environ Health Perspect 116(3):284-291
60. ICCVAM and NICEATM (2001) Report of the International Workshop on In Vitro Methods for Assessing Acute Systemic Toxicity. Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods and National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods Report 01-4499 National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD