Use of Structure Activity Relationship (SAR) Evaluation as a Critical Tool in the Evaluation of the Genotoxic Potential of Impurities

Genotoxic Impurities: Strategies for Identification and Control

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 97-120

  Glowienke, Susanne ^a   Hasselgren, Catrin ^b  

^a NOVARTIS PHARMA AG   (Switzerland)

^b ASTRAZENECA R AND D   (Sweden)

Author keywords

ICSAS method for structural alerts (modified); TOPKAT (Toxicity Prediction by Komputer Assisted Technology) TOPKAT using Kier Hall electrotopological states (E states), and shape, symmetry, MW, and logP as descriptors; Use of structure activity relationship (SAR) evaluation a critical tool in evaluation of genotoxic potential of impurities

Indexed keywords

EID: 84870543214     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1002/9780470929377.ch4     Document Type: Chapter

References (38)

1. Benigni A, Richard A. 1998. Quantitative structure-based modeling applied to characterization and prediction of chemical toxicity. Methods Enzymol. 14: 264-276.
2. Greene N. 2002. Computer systems for the prediction of toxicity: An update. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 54 (3): 417-431.
3. Dearden JC. 2003. In silico prediction of drug toxicity. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 17 (2-4): 119-127.
4. McKinney JD, Richard A, Waller C, et al. 2000. The practice of structure activity relationships (SAR) in toxicology. Toxicol. Sci. 56 (1): 8-17.
5. Benigni R, ed. 2003. Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) Models of Mutagens and Carcinogens. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
6. Ashby J. 1985. Fundamental structural alerts to potential carcinogenicity or noncarcinogenicity. Environ. Mutagen. 7: 919-921.
7. Ashby J, 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. 204: 17-115.
8. Tennant RW, Ashby J. 1991. Classification according to chemical structure, mutagenicity to Salmonella and level of carcinogenicity of a further 39 chemicals tested for carcinogenicity by the U.S. National Toxicology Program. Mutat. Res. 257: 209-227.
9. Ashby J, Tennant RW. Definitive relationships among chemical structure, carcinogenicity and mutagenicity for 301 chemicals tested by the U.S. NTP. Mutat. Res. 257: 229-306.
10. Kazius J, McGuire R, Bursi R. 2005. Derivation and validation of toxicophores for mutagenicity prediction. J. Med. Chem. 48: 312-320.
11. Yang C, Hasselgren C, 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, Richard AM. 2008. Understanding genetic toxicity through data mining: the process of building knowledge by integrating multiple genetic toxicity databases. Toxicol. Mech. Methods 18 (2-3): 277-295.
12. EMA. 2007. Guideline on the Limits of Genotoxic Impurities, CPMP/SWP/5199/02, EMEA/CHMP/QWP/251344/2006. Jan.
13. FDA. 2008. FDA Draft Guidance, Guidance for Industry, Genotoxic and Carcinogenic Impurities in Drug Substances and Products: Recommended Approaches, posted December 2008.
14. Greene N, Judson PN, Langowski JJ, Marchant CA. 1999. Knowledge-based expert systems for toxicity and metabolism prediction: DEREK, StAR, and METEOR. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 10: 299-313.
15. Sanderson DM, Earnshaw CG. 1991. Computer prediction of possible toxic action from chemical structure: The DEREK system. Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 10: 261-273.
16. Ridings JE, Barratt MD, Cary R, et al. 1996. Computer prediction of possible toxic action from chemical structure: An update on the DEREK system. Toxicology 106: 267-279.
17. LHASA Website. Available at http://www.lhasalimited.org (accessed September 20, 2010).
18. Long A, Combes RD. 1995. Using DEREK to predict the activity of some carcinogens and mutagens found in foods. Toxicol. in Vitro 9: 563-569.
19. Williams RV, Marchant CA, Covey-Crump EM, et al. 2008. Validating alerts in Derek for Windows presented at SCARLET Workshop on In Silico Methods for Carcinogenicity & Mutagenicity. April 2-4, 2008, Milan, Italy.
20. Marchant CA, Covey-Crump EM, Elizabeth M, et al. 2008. Validating Alerts for the Prediction of Mutagenicity Presented at SOT 47th Annual Meeting. 16th-20th March 2008, Washington, USA.
21. Marchant CA, Briggs K, Long A. 2008. In Silico tools for sharing data and knowledge on toxicity and metabolism: Derek for Windows, Meteor, and Vitic. Toxicol. Mechan. Methods. 18 (2 & 3): 177-187.
22. Judson PN, Cooke PA, Doerrer NG, et al. 2005. Towards the creation of an international toxicology information centre. Toxicology 213 (1-2): 117-128.
23. MCASE website. Available at http://www.multicase.com (accessed September 20, 2010).
24. Klopmann G. 1992. MULTICASE. 1. A hierarchical computer automated structure evaluation program. Quant. Struct. Act. Relat. 11: 176-184.
25. Klopmann G. 1984. Artificial intelligence approach to structure-activity studies, computer automated structure evaluation of biological activity of organic molecules. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 106: 7315-7320.
26. Klopman G, Mc Gonigal MJ. 1981. Computer simulation of physical-chemical properties of organic molecules 1. Molecular system identification. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 21: 48.
27. Matthews EJ, Contrera JF. 1998. A new highly specific method for predicting the carcinogenic potential of pharmaceuticals in rodents using enhanced MCASE QSAR-ES software. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 28: 242-264.
28. Matthews EJ, Kruhlak NL, Weaver JL, et al. 2004. Assessment of the health effects of chemicals in humans: II. Construction of an adverse effects database for QSAR modeling. Curr. Drug Discov. Technol. 1 (4): 243-254.
29. Matthews EJ, Kruhlak N, Cimino MC, et al. 2006. An analysis of genetic toxicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, and carcinogenicity data: I. Identification of carcinogens using surrogate endpoints. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 44 (2): 83-96.
30. Email communication from MCASE as of May 18, 2004.
31. Matthews EJ, Contrera JF. 1998. A new highly specific method for predicting the carcinogenic potential of pharmaceuticals in rodents using enhanced MCASE QSAR-ES software. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 28 (3): 242-264.
32. Klopman G, Zhu H, Fuller MA, Saiakhov RD. 2004. Searching for an enhanced predictive tool for mutagenicity. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 15 (4): 251-263.
33. Accelrys website. Available at http://accelrys.com/(accessed September 20, 2010).
34. Kier LB. 1986. Shape indices of orders one and three from molecular graphs. Quant. Struct. Activ. Relat. 5: 1-7.
35. Hall LH, Mohney B, Kier LB. 1991. The electrotopological state: Structure information at the atomic level. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 31: 76-82.
36. Dobo K, Greene W, Cyr MO, et al. 2006. The application of structure-based assessment to support safety and chemistry diligence to manage genotoxic impurities in active pharmaceutical ingredients during drug development. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 44: 282-293.
37. Kirkland DL, Muller L. 2000. Interpretation of the biological relevance of genotoxicity test results: The importance of thresholds. Mutat. Res. 464: 137-147.
38. Synder R. 2009. An update on the genotoxicity and carcinogenicity of marketed pharmaceuticals with reference to in silico predictivity. Environ. Molec. Mutagen. 50 (6): 435-450.