Mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, and other end points

Methods in Molecular Biology

Volumn 930, Issue , 2013, Pages 67-98

  Benigni, Romualdo ^a   Battistelli, Chiara Laura ^a   Bossa, Cecilia ^a   Colafranceschi, Mauro ^a   Tcheremenskaia, Olga ^a  

^a Water and Environment Department   (Italy)

Author keywords

Chemicals; Databases; Expert systems; Human health; Predictive toxicology; QSAR; Structural alerts; Structure activity; Toxicology

Indexed keywords

CARCINOGEN; MUTAGENIC AGENT;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOASSAY; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; TOXICITY TESTING;

ANIMALS; CARCINOGENS; ENDPOINT DETERMINATION; HUMANS; MUTAGENS; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; TOXICITY TESTS;

EID: 84870531794     PISSN: 10643745     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-62703-059-5_4     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Ariens EJ (1984) Domestication of chemistry by design of safer chemicals: Structure-activity relationships. Drug Metab Rev 15:425-504
2. Hansch C, Fujita T (1964) r-s-p Analysis. A method for the correlation of biological activity and chemical structure. J Am Chem Soc 86: 1616-1626
3. Hansch C, Hoekman D, Leo A et al (2002) Chem-bioinformatics: Comparative QSAR at the interface between chemistry and biology. Chem Rev 102:783-812
4. Livingstone DJ (2000) The characterization of chemical structures using molecular properties. A survey. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 40:195-209
5. Todeschini R, Lasagni M, Marengo E (1994) New molecular descriptors for 2D and 3D structures. Theory. J Chemom 8:263-272
6. Basak SC, Mills D (2009) Predicting the vapour pressure of chemicals from structure: A comparison of graph theoretic versus quantum chemical descriptors. SAR QSAR Environ Res 20:119-132
7. Estrada E (2008) Quantum chemical foundation of the topological substructural molecular design. J Phys Chem A 112:5208-5217
8. Perez-Garrido A, Helguera AM, Lopez GC et al (2010) A topological substructural molecular design approach for predicting mutagenesis end points of ab-unsaturated carbonyl compounds. Toxicology 268:64-77
9. Dunn WJ, Wold S (1980) Structure-activity analyzed by pattern recognition: The asymmetric case. J Med Chem 23:595-599
10. Wold S (1995) Chemometrics-what do we mean with it, and what do we want from it. Chemom Intell Lab Syst 30(1):109-115
11. Manallack DT, Ellis DD, Livingstone DJ (1994) Analysis of linear and nonlinear QSAR data using neural networks. J Med Chem 37:3758-3767
12. Carlsson L, Helgee EA, Boyer S (2009) Interpretation of nonlinear QSAR models applied to Ames mutagenicity data. J Chem Inf Model 49: 2551-2558
13. Michielan L, Moro S (2010) Pharmaceutical perspectives of nonlinear QSAR strategies. J Chem Inf Model 50:961-978
14. Hansch C, Leo A (1995) Exploring QSAR. 1. Fundamentals and applications in chemistry and biology. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC
15. Benigni R (2003) Quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models of mutagens and carcinogens. CRC, Boca Raton, FL
16. Kubinyi H (1993) 3D QSAR in drug design: Theory, methods and applications. ESCOM, Leiden
17. Tute MS (1990) Hystory and objectives of quantitative drug design. In: Hansch C (ed) Comprehensive medicinal chemistry. Pergamon, Oxford, pp 1-31
18. Franke R (1984) Theoretical drug design methods. Elsevier, Amsterdam
19. Franke R, Gruska A (2003) General introduction to QSAR. In: Benigni R (ed) Quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models of mutagens and carcinogens. CRC, Boca Raton, FL, pp 1-40
20. Benigni R, Netzeva TI, Benfenati E et al (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
21. Woo YT, Lai DY, McLain JL et al (2002) Use of mechanism-based structure-activity relationships analysis in carcinogenic potential ranking for drinking water disinfection byproducts. Environ Health Perspect 110:75-87
22. Fung VA, Huff J, Weisburger EK, Hoel DG (1993) Predictive strategies for selecting 379 NCI/NTP chemicals evaluated for carcinogenic potential: Scientific and public health impact. Fund Appl Toxicol 20:413-436
23. Greene N, Judson PN, Langowski JJ et al (1999) Knowledge-based expert systems for toxicity and metabolism prediction: DEREK, StAR and METEOR. SAR QSAR Environ Res 10:299-314
24. Woo YT, Lai DY (2005) Oncologic: A mechanism based expert system for predicting the carcinogenic potential of chemicals. In: Helma C (ed) Predictive toxicology. Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton, FL, pp 385-413
25. Woo YT, Lai DY, Argus MF et al (1998) An integrative approach of combining mechanistically complementary short-term predictive tests as a basis for assessing the carcinogenic potential of chemicals. J Environ Sci Health C: Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev C16:101-122
26. Benigni R, Bossa C, Jeliazkova NG et al (2008) The Benigni/Bossa rulebase for mutagenicity and carcinogenicity-a module of Toxtree. EUR 23241 EN. Office for the Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxenbourg. EUR-Scientific and Technical Report Series. Ref Type: Report
27. Benigni R, Bossa C (2008) Structure alerts for carcinogenicity, and the Salmonella assay system: A novel insight through the chemical relational databases technology. Mutat Res Rev 659:248-261
28. Hansch C (1991) Structure-activity relationships of chemical mutagens and carcinogens. Sci Total Environ 109(110):17-29
29. Benigni R (2005) Structure-activity relationship studies of chemical mutagens and carcinogens: Mechanistic investigations and prediction approaches. Chem Rev 105:1767-1800
30. Enslein K, Gombar VK, Blake BW (1994) Use of SAR in computer-assisted prediction of carcinogenicity and mutagenicity of chemicals by the TOPKAT program. Mutat Res 305:47-61
31. Klopman G (1992) Multicase 1. A hierarchical computer automated structure evaluation program. Quant Struct Act Relat 11:176-184
32. Rosenkranz HS (2003) SAR in the assessment of carcinogenesis: The MultiCASE approach. In: Benigni R (ed) Quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models of chemical mutagens and carcinogens. CRC, Boca Raton, FL, pp 175-206
33. Helma C (2006) Lazy structure-activity relationships (lazar) for the prediction of rodent carcinogenicity and Salmonella mutagenicity. Mol Divers 10:147-158
34. Benigni R, Richard AM (1998) Quantitative structure-based modeling applied to characterization and prediction of chemical toxicity. Methods 14:264-276
35. Benigni R, Bossa C, Tcheremenskaia O et al (2010) Alternatives to the carcinogenicity bioassay: In silico methods, and the in vitro and in vivo mutagenicity assays. Exp Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 6:1-11
36. Serafimova R, Fuart Gatnik M, Worth A (2010) Review of the QSAR models and software tools for predicting genotoxicity and carcinogenicity. JRC Technical Report EUR 24427 EN. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxenbourg
37. Cronin MTD, Dearden JC (1995) QSAR in toxicology. 4. Prediction of non-lethal mammalian toxicological end points, and expert systems for toxicity prediction. Quant Struct Act Relat 14:518-523
38. Greene N (2002) Computer systems for the prediction of toxicity: An update. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 54:417-431
39. Hansch C (1977) On the predictive value of QSAR. In: Keverling Buisman JA (ed) Biological activity and chemical structure. Elsevier, Amsterdam
40. Hulzebos EM, Posthumus R (2003) (Q)SARs: Gatekeepers against risk on chemicals? SAR QSAR Environ Res 14:285-316
41. Martin YC (2006) What works and what does not: Lessons fromexperience in a pharmaceutical company. QSAR Combinat Sci 25:1192-1200
42. Pearl GM, Livingstone-Carr S, Durham SK (2001) Integration of computational analysis as a sentinel tool in toxicologic assessments. Curr Top Med Chem 1:247-255
43. Richard AM (1998) Commercial toxicology prediction systems: A regulatory perspective. Toxicol Lett 102-103:611-616
44. Snyder RD, Pearl GM, Mandakas G et al (2004) Assessment of the sensitivity of the computational programs DEREK, TOPKAT, and MCASE in the prediction of the genotoxicity of pharmaceutical molecules. Environ Mol Mutagen 43:143-158
45. Valerio LG, Arvidson KB, Chanderbhan RF et al (2007) Prediction of rodent carcinogenic potential of naturally occurring chemicals in the human diet using high-throughput QSAR predictive modeling. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 222:1-16
46. Zeiger E, Ashby J, Bakale G et al (1996) Prediction of Salmonella mutagenicity. Mutagen 11:474-484
47. Benigni R, Bossa C, Netzeva TI, et al (2007) Collection and evaluation of (Q)SAR models for mutagenicity and carcinogenicity. EUR 22772 EN. Office for the Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxenbourg. EUR-Scientific and Technical Research Series. 12-7-2007. Ref Type: Report
48. Woo YT, Lai DY, Argus MF et al (1995) Development of structure-activity relationship rules for predicting carcinogenic potential of chemicals. Toxicol Lett 79:219-228
49. Benigni R, Zito R (2003) Designing safer drugs: (Q)SAR-based identification of mutagens and carcinogens. Curr Top Med Chem 3:1289-1300
50. Ashby J (1985) Fundamental structural alerts to potential carcinogenicity or noncarcinogenicity. Environ Mutagen 7:919-921
51. Ashby J, Tennant RW (1988) Chemical structure, Salmonella mutagenicity and extent of carcinogenicity as indicators of genotoxic carcinogenesis among 222 chemicals tested by the U.S.NCI/NTP. Mutat Res 204:17-115
52. Piegorsch WW, Zeiger E (1991) Measuring intra-assay agreement for the Ames Salmonella assay. In: Rienhoff O, Lindberg DAB (eds) Statistical methods in toxicology. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 35-41
53. Benigni R, Bossa C (2008) Predictivity of QSAR. J Chem Inf Model 48:971-980
54. Mayer J, Cheeseman MA, Twaroski ML (2008) Structure activity relationship analysis tools: Validation and applicability in predicting carcinogens. Regulat Pharmacol Toxicol 50:50-58
55. Benigni R, Zito R (2004) The second National Toxicology Program comparative exercise on the prediction of rodent carcinogenicity: Definitive results. Mutat Res Rev 566:49-63
56. Cramer GM, Ford RA, Hall RL (1978) Estimation of toxic hazard-a decision tree approach. Food Cosmet Toxicol 16:255-276
57. Munro IC, Renwick AG, Danielewska-Nikiel B (2008) The threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) in risk assessment. Toxicol Lett 180: 151-156
58. Kroes R, Renwick AG, Cheeseman MA et al (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
59. Munro IC, Ford RA, Kennepohl E et al (1996) Correlation of structural class with No-Observed-Effect levels: A proposal for establishing a threshold of concern. Food Chem Toxicol 34:829-867
60. Verhaar HJM, Solbe J, Speksnijder J et al (2000) Classifying environmental pollutants: Part 3. External validation of the classification system. Chemosphere 40:875-883
61. Walker JD, Gerner I, Hulzebos E et al (2005) The Skin Irritation Corrosion Rules Estimation Tool (SICRET). QSAR Combinat Sci 24: 378-384
62. Gerner I, Schlegel K, Walker JD et al (2004) Use of physicochemical property limits to develop rules for identifying chemical substances with no skin irritation or corrosion potential. QSAR Combinat Sci 23:726-733
63. Hulzebos E, Walker JD, Gerner I et al (2005) Use of structural alerts to develop rules for identifying chemical substances with skin irritation or skin corrosion potential. QSAR Combinat Sci 24:332-342
64. Gerner I, Liebsch M, Spielmann H (2005) Assessment of the eye irritating properties of chemicals by applying alternatives to the Draize rabbit eye test: The use of QSARs and in vitro tests for the classification of eye irritation. Altern Lab Anim 33:215-237
65. Benigni R, Bossa C, Worth AP (2010) Structural analysis and predictive value of the rodent in vivo micronucleus assay results. Mutagen 25:335-341
66. Schultz TW (2007) Verification of the structural alerts for Michael acceptors. Chem Res Toxicol 20:1359-1363
67. Enoch SJ, Madden JC, Cronin MT (2008) Identification of mechanisms of toxic action for skin sensitisation using a SMARTS pattern based approach. SAR QSAR Environ Res 19:555-578
68. Aptula AO, Patlewicz G, Roberts DW (2005) Skin sensitization: Reaction mechanistic applicability domains for structure-activity relationships. Chem Res Toxicol 18:1420-1426
69. Rydberg P, Gloriam DE, Zaretzki J et al (2010) SMARTCyp: A 2D method for prediction of cytochrome P450-mediated drug metabolism. ACS Med Chem Lett 1:96-100
70. Serafimova R, Todorov M, Pavlov T et al (2007) Identification of the structural requirements for mutagencitiy, by incorporating molecular flexibility and metabolic activation of chemicals. II. General Ames mutagenicity model. Chem Res Toxicol 20:662-676
71. Hardy B, Douglas N, Helma C et al (2010) Collaborative development of predictive toxicology applications. J Cheminf 2:7
72. Valerio LG (2009) In silico toxicology for the pharmaceutical sciences. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 241:356-370
73. OECD (2007) Approaches to data gap filling in chemical categories. Chapter 3: Guidance on grouping of chemicals, vol 80. OECD Series on Testing and Assessment, Paris, pp 30-41
74. Richard AM, Yang C, Judson RS (2008) Toxicity data informatics: Supporting a new paradigm for toxicity prediction. Toxicol Mech Meth 18:103-118
75. Yang C, Benz RD, Cheeseman MA (2006) Landscape of current toxicity databases and database standards. Curr Opin Drug Discov Dev 9:124-133
76. Yang C, Richard AM, Cross KP (2006) The art of data mining the minefields of toxicity databases to link chemistry to biology. Curr Comput Aid Drug Des 2:135-150
77. Benigni R, Bossa C, Richard AM et al (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
78. Richard AM (2004) DSSTox web site launch: Improving public access to databases for building structure-toxicity prediction models. Preclinica 2:103-108
79. Judson R, Richard AM, Dix D et al (2008) ACToR-aggregated computational toxicology resource. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 233: 7-13
80. Dix DJ, Houck KA, Martin MT et al (2007) The ToxCast program for prioritizing toxicity testing of environmental chemicals. Toxicol Sci 95:5-12