Prediction of aquatic toxicity mode of action using linear discriminant and random forest models

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Volumn 53, Issue 9, 2013, Pages 2229-2239

  Martin, Todd M ^a   Grulke, Christopher M ^b   Young, Douglas M ^a   Russom, Christine L ^b   Wang, Nina Y ^b   Jackson, Crystal R ^c   Barron, Mace G ^c  

^a U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

^b U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

^c U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIRDS; COMPUTATIONAL CHEMISTRY; DECISION TREES; DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS; ECOLOGY; FORECASTING; INDICATORS (CHEMICAL); RANDOM FORESTS; TOXICITY;

ASSIGNMENT MODELS; CHEMICAL REGULATION; DIVERSE DATA SETS; ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT; LINEAR DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS; LINEAR DISCRIMINANTS; PREDICTION ACCURACY; WEIGHT OF EVIDENCES;

RISK ASSESSMENT;

AQUATIC SPECIES; BIOLOGY; DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS; DRUG EFFECTS; PROCEDURES; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; REPRODUCIBILITY; TOXICITY TESTING; ARTICLE; DRUG EFFECT; METHODOLOGY;

AQUATIC ORGANISMS; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TOXICITY TESTS;

EID: 84884540256     PISSN: 15499596     EISSN: 1549960X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci400267h     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. National Research Council, Toxicity testing in the 21st century: A vision and a strategy. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC; National Academy of Sciences: Washington, DC, 2007.
2. Auer, C. M.; Nabholz, J. V.; Baetchke, K. P. Mode of action and the assessment of chemical hazards in the presence of limited data: Use of structure-activity relationships (SAR) under TSCA, section 5 Environ. Health Perspect. 1990, 87, 183-197
3. Benigni, R.; Richard, A. M. QSARS of mutagens and carcinogens: Two case studies illustrating problems in the construction of models for noncongeneric chemicals Mutat. Res., Genet. Toxicol. 1996, 371, 29-46
4. Schultz, T. W.; Sinks, G. D.; Bearden, A. P. QSAR in aquatic toxicology: A mechanism of action approach comparing toxic potency to Pimephales promelas, Tetrahymena pyriformis, and Vibrio fischeri. In Comparative QSAR; Devillers, J., Ed.; Taylor & Francis: New York, 1998; pp 51-109.
5. Abernethy, S. G.; MacKay, D.; McCarty, L. S. "Volume fraction" correlation for narcosis in aquatic organisms: The key role of partitioning Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 1988, 7, 469-481
6. Cronin, M. T. D.; Schultz, T. W. Structure-toxicity relationships for phenols to Tetrahymena pyriformis Chemosphere 1996, 32, 1453-1468
7. Mekenyan, O. G.; Veith, G. D. Relationships between descriptors for hydrophobicity and soft electrophilicity in predicting toxicity SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 1993, 1, 335-344
8. Ren, S. Predicting three narcosis mechanisms of aquatic toxicity Toxicol. Lett. 2002, 133, 127-139
9. Aptula, A. O.; Netzeva, T. I.; Valkova, I. V.; Cronin, M. T. D.; Schultz, T. W.; Kühne, R.; Schüürmann, G. Multivariate discrimination between modes of toxic action of phenols Quant. Struct.-Act. Relat. 2002, 21, 12-22
10. Russom, C. L.; Bradbury, S. P.; Broderius, S. J.; Hammermeister, D. E.; Drummond, R. A. Predicting modes of toxic action from chemical structure: Acute toxicity in the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 1997, 16, 948-967
11. Mishra, R. K.; Garcia-Domenech, R.; Galvez, J. Getting discriminant functions of antibacterial activity from physicochemical and topological parameters J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2001, 41, 387-393
12. Ren, Y.; Liu, H.; Xue, C.; Yao, X.; Liu, M.; Fan, B. Classification study of skin sensitizers based on support vector machine and linear discriminant analysis Anal. Chim. Acta 2006, 572, 272-282
13. Schüürmann, G.; Aptula, A. O.; Kühne, R.; Ebert, R.-U. Stepwise discrimination between four modes of toxic action of phenols in the Tetrahymena pyriformis assay Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2003, 16, 974-987
14. Niu, B.; Jin, Y.; Lu, W.; Li, G. Predicting toxic action mechanisms of phenols using AdaBoost Learner Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 2009, 96, 43-48
15. Spycher, S.; Nendza, M.; Gasteiger, J. Comparison of different classification methods applied to a mode of toxic action data set QSAR Comb. Sci. 2004, 23, 779-791
16. Norinder, U.; Lidén, P.; Boström, H. Discrimination between modes of toxic action of phenols using rule based methods Mol. Diversity 2006, 10, 207-212
17. Yao, X. J.; Panaye, A.; Doucet, J. P.; Chen, H. F.; Zhang, R. S.; Fan, B. T.; Liu, M. C.; Hu, Z. D. Comparative classification study of toxicity mechanisms using support vector machines and radial basis function neural networks Anal. Chim. Acta 2005, 535, 259-273
18. Nendza, M.; Müller, M. Discriminating toxicant classes by mode of action: 2. Physico-chemical descriptors Quant. Struct.-Act. Relat. 2000, 19, 581-598
19. Michielan, L.; Pireddu, L.; Floris, M.; Moro, S. Support vector machine (SVM) as alternative tool to assign acute aquatic toxicity warning labels to chemicals Mol. Inf. 2010, 29, 51-64
20. Basak, S. C.; Grunwald, G. D.; Host, G. E.; Niemi, G. J.; Bradbury, S. P. A comparative study of molecular similarity, statistical, and neural methods for predicting toxic modes of action Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 1998, 17, 1056-1064
21. Du, H.; Wang, J.; Watzl, J.; Zhang, X.; Hu, Z. Classification structure-activity relationship (CSAR) studies for prediction of genotoxicity of thiophene derivatives Toxicol. Lett. 2008, 177, 10-19
22. Spycher, S.; Pellegrini, E.; Gasteiger, J. Use of structure descriptors to discriminate between modes of toxic action of phenols J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2005, 45, 200-208
23. US EPA. DSSTOX, EPA Fathead Minnow Acute Toxicity Database File. http://www.epa.gov/ncct/dsstox/sdf-epafhm.html (accessed 11/2/2012).
24. Breiman, L.; Cutler, A. http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/∼breiman/ RandomForests/cc-home.htm (accessed 1/2/2013).
25. US EPA. ASTER (ASsessment Tools for the Evaluation of Risk). http://www.epa.gov/med/Prods-Pubs/aster.htm (accessed 11/27/12).
26. Insecticide Resistance Action Committee (IRAC). IRAC MoA Classification Scheme. Prepared by the IRAC International MoA Working Group. http://www.irac-online.org/eClassification/ (accessed 3/20/13).
27. Herbicide Resistance Action Committee (HRAC). Classification of herbicides according to site of action.. http://www.hracglobal.com/Publications/ ClassificationofHerbicideSiteofAction.aspx (accessed 3/20/13).
28. Russom, C. L.; Anderson, E. B.; Greenwood, B. E.; Pilli, A. ASTER: an integration of the AQUIRE data base and the QSAR system for use in ecological risk assessments Sci. Total Environ. 1991, 109-110, 667-670
29. Young, D. M.; Martin, T. M.; Venkatapathy, R.; Harten, P. Are the chemical structures in your QSAR correct? QSAR Comb. Sci. 2008, 27, 1337-1345
30. Fukuto, T. R. Mechanism of action of organophosphorus and carbamate insecticides Environ. Health Perspect. 1990, 87, 245-254
31. Eriksson, L.; Jaworska, J. S.; Worth, A. P.; Cronin, M. T. D.; McDowell, R. M.; Gramatica, P. Methods for reliability and uncertainty assessment and for applicability evaluations of classification-and regression-based QSARs Environ. Health Perspect. 2003, 111, 1361-1375
32. The University of Waikato. WEKA-The Waikato Environment for Knowledge Analysis. http://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/∼ml/weka/ (accessed 10/24/12).
33. Witten, I. H. Data Mining: Practical machine learning tools and techniques; Morgan Kaufmann: San Francisco, 2005.
34. 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
35. US EPA. T.E.S.T. Version 4.1. http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/qsar/qsar. html#TEST (accessed 9/26/12).
36. US EPA. Molecular Descriptors Guide. http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/qsar/ MolecularDescriptorsGuide-v102.pdf (accessed 9/26/12).
37. Montgomery, D. C. In Introduction to linear regression analysis; John Wiley and Sons: New York, 1982; pp 141-143.
38. Walker, T.; Grulke, C. M.; Pozefsky, D.; Tropsha, A. Chembench: a cheminformatics workbench Bioinformatics 2010, 26, 3000-3001
39. UNC MML. ChemBench Web Portal. http://chembench.mml.unc.edu (accessed 3/19/2003).
40. Talete SRL. DRAGON for Windows and Linux. http://www.talete.mi.it/help/ dragon-help/ (accessed 9/18/2010).
41. Symyx MACCS Structural Keys; MDL Information Systems Inc.: San Ramon, CA, 2005.
42. Chemical Computing Group Inc. Molecular Operating Environment (MOE); 1010 Sherbooke St. West, Suite #910, Montreal, QC, Canada, H3A 2R7, 2012.
43. Mekenyan, O. G.; Veith, G. D. The electronic factor in QSAR: MO-parameters, competing interactions, reactivity and toxicity SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 1994, 2, 129-143
44. Schwoöbel, J. A. H.; Koleva, Y. K.; Enoch, S. J.; Bajot, F.; Hewitt, M.; Madden, J. C.; Roberts, D. W.; Schultz, T. W.; Cronin, M. T. D. Measurement and estimation of electrophilic reactivity for predictive toxicology. Chem. Rev. (Washington, DC, U. S.) 2011, 111, 2562-2596.
45. Kubat, M.; Holte, R.; Matwin, S. Learning when negative examples abound. In Machine Learning: ECML-97; Someren, M.; Widmer, G., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg, 1997; Vol. 1224, pp 146-153.
46. Dacheng, T.; Xiaoou, T.; Xuelong, L.; Xindong, W. Asymmetric bagging and random subspace for support vector machines-based relevance feedback in image retrieval Pattern Analysis Machine Intelligence, IEEE Trans. 2006, 28, 1088-1099
47. Pugazhenthi, D.; Rajagopalan, S. P. Unbalance quantitative structure activity relationship problem reduction in drug design J. Comput. Sci. 2009, 5, 764-772
48. Kondratovich, E.; Baskin, I. I.; Varnek, A. Transductive support vector machines: Promising approach to model small and unbalanced datasets Mol. Inf. 2013, 32, 261-266
49. Todeschini, R.; Consonni, V. In Handbook of Molecular Descriptors; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 2000; p 18.
50. Liu, S.; Cao, C.; Li, Z. Approach to estimation and prediction for normal boiling point (NBP) of alkanes based on a novel molecular distance-edge (MDE) vector, λ J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1998, 38, 387-394
51. Todeschini, R.; Consonni, V. In Handbook of Molecular Descriptors; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 2000; p 132.
52. Todeschini, R.; Consonni, V. In Handbook of Molecular Descriptors; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 2000; p 384.
53. US EPA. TEST User′s Guide. http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/qsar/TEST- user-guide-v41.pdf (accessed 11/27/12).
54. Verhaar, H. J. M.; van Leeuwen, C. J.; Hermens, J. L. M. Classifying environmental pollutants Chemosphere 1992, 25, 471-491
55. Jaworska, J.; Nikolova-Jeliazkova, N.; Aldenberg, T. QSAR applicabilty domain estimation by projection of the training set descriptor space: a review ATLA, Altern. Lab. Anim. 2005, 33, 445-459
56. US EPA OrganophosphorusCumulative Risk Assessment-2006 Update; U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0618-0002; (2006; p 522.
57. Kamlet, M. J.; Taft, R. W.; Abraham, M. H.; Veith, G. D.; Abraham, D. J. Solubility properties in polymers and biological media. 8. An analysis of the factors that influence toxicities of organic nonelectrolytes to the Golden Orfe fish (Leuciscus idus melanotus) Environ. Sci. Technol. 1987, 21, 149-155