Comparison of in silico models for prediction of Daphnia magna acute toxicity

SAR and QSAR in Environmental Research

Volumn 25, Issue 8, 2014, Pages 673-694

  Golbamaki, A ^a   Cassano, A ^a,c   Lombardo, A ^a   Moggio, Y ^a   Colafranceschi, M ^b   Benfenati, E ^a  

^a MARIO NEGRI INSTITUTE FOR PHARMACOLOGICAL RESEARCH   (Italy)

^b ISTITUTO SUPERIORE DI SANITÀ   (Italy)

^c INSTITUT NATIONAL DE L ENVIRONNEMENT INDUSTRIEL ET DES RISQUES INERIS   (France)

Author keywords

aquatic acute toxicity; Daphnia magna; in silico models; LC50; QSAR

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL CHEMISTRY; FORECASTING; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; MOLECULAR GRAPHICS; SOFTWARE TESTING;

ACUTE TOXICITY; AQUATIC ACUTE TOXICITY; DAPHNIA MAGNA; ECOLOGICAL STRUCTURE; EUROPEAN LEGISLATION; IN-SILICO MODELS; LC50; MODEL DISCOVERIES; MODELING PACKAGES; QSAR;

TOXICITY;

DAPHNIA MAGNA;

WATER POLLUTANT;

ANIMAL; CHEMISTRY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DAPHNIA; DRUG EFFECTS; PROCEDURES; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; REPRODUCIBILITY; THEORETICAL MODEL; TOXICITY; TOXICITY TESTING; WATER POLLUTANT;

ANIMALS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DAPHNIA; MODELS, THEORETICAL; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SOFTWARE; TOXICITY TESTS, ACUTE; WATER POLLUTANTS, CHEMICAL;

EID: 84907428805     PISSN: 1062936X     EISSN: 1029046X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/1062936X.2014.923041     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, Off. J. Eur. Union L267 (2010), pp. 33–79.
2. European Commission (EC) Regulation No 1907/2006 of the European parliament and of the council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, Off. J. Eur. Union L396 (2006), pp. 1–849.
3. Environment Directorate, OECD, Guidance Document on the Validation of (Quantitative)Structure-Activity Relationships [(Q)SAR] Models, ENV/JM/MONO(2007) 2, OECD, Paris, 2007.
4. P. Gramatica, Principles of QSAR models validation: Internal and external, QSAR Comb. Sci. 26 (2007), pp. 694–701.
5. C. Porcelli, E. Boriani, A. Roncaglioni, A. Chana, and E. Benfenati, Regulatory perspectives in the use and validation of QSAR. A case study: DEMETRA model for Daphnia toxicity, Environ. Sci. Technol. 42 (2008), pp. 491–496.
6. M.G. Barron, C.R. Jackson, and J.A. Awkerman, Evaluation of in silico development of aquatic toxicity species sensitivity distributions, Aquat. Toxicol. 116–117 (2012), pp. 1–7.
7. M. Moosus and U. Maran, Quantitative structure-activity relationship analysis of acute toxicity of diverse chemicals to Daphnia magna with whole molecule descriptors, SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 22 (2011), pp. 757–774.
8. A.P. Toropova, A.A. Toropov, E. Benfenati, and G. Gini, QSAR models for toxicity of organic substances to Daphnia magna built up by using the CORAL freeware, Chem. Biol. Drug Des. 79 (2012), pp. 332–338.
9. European Commission (EC) Regulation No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008, on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, Off. J. Eur. L268 (2008), pp. 14–19.
10. OECD, Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals. Section 2: Effects on Biotic Systems. Daphnia sp., Acute Immobilisation Test, Test 202, OECD, Paris, 2004.
11. OECD, Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals. Section 2: Effects on Biotic Systems, Daphnia magna, Reproduction Test, Test 211, OECD, Paris, 2012.
12. E. Benfenati, E. Boriani, M. Craciun, L. Malazizi, D. Neagu, and A. Roncaglioni, Databases for pesticides ecotoxicity, in Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships (QSAR) for Pesticides Regulatory Purposes, E. Benfenati, ed., Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2007, pp. 59–81.
13. US Environmental Protection Agency, Substances and Toxics, USEPA, Washington DC, 2012; available at http://www2.epa.gov/science-and-technology/substances-and-toxics-science.
14. ACD/Lab, Aquatic Toxicity Prediction Module. ACD/Percepta. Data Sheet, ACD/Labs, Toronto, 2012; available at http://www.acdlabs.com/download/docs/datasheets/datasheet_aquatic_toxicity.pdf.
15. US Environmental Protection Agency, ECOTOX Database, USEPA, Washington DC, 2012; available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/.
16. ADMET Predictor, User Manual v.6.0. ADMET Property Estimation and Model Building, 2012.
17. K. Mayo-Bean, K. Moran, B. Meylan, and P. Ranslow, Methodology Document for the ECOlogical Structure-Activity Relationship Model (ECOSAR). Class Program. Estimating Toxicity of Industrial Chemicals to Aquatic Organisms using the ECOSAR (Ecological Structure Activity Relationship) Class Program, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, 2012; available at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/tools/ecosartechfinal.pdf.
18. US Environmental Protection Agency, ECOSAR (Ecological Structure Activity Relationships) v.1.00; software information available at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/tools/21ecosar.htm.
19. TerraBase, Inc., TerraQSAR™ – Daphnia, Daphnia magna 48-hr LC50 Estimation Software, User Manual, v.1.1, TerraBase, Inc., Hamilton, Ontario, 2008; available at http://www.terrabase-inc.com/TerraQSAR-Daphnia.pdf.
20. US Environmental Protection Agency, T.E.S.T. v.4.0.1 (Toxicity Estimation Software Tool) User’s Guide. A Program to Estimate Toxicity from Molecular Structure, USEPA, Washington DC, 2012; available at http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/qsar/TEST-user-guide-v41.pdf.
21. Accelrys, Inc., TOPKAT v.6.1, User Guide, Accelrys, Inc., San Diego, CA, 2001.
22. VEGA Guide to 48 hour Daphnia magna LC50 Model v.1.0.4. Available through the help menu of the VEGA software freely downloadable from: http://www.vega-qsar.eu/download.html.
23. R. Perkins, H. Fang, W. Tong, and W.J. Welsh, Quantitative structure-activity relationship methods: perspectives on drug discovery and toxicology, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 22 (2003), pp. 1666–1679.
24. M. Pavan, A.P. Worth, and T.I. Netzeva, Comparative Assessment of QSAR Models for Aquatic Toxicity, JRC Rep. No. 21750 EN, European Chemicals Bureau, Ispra, Italy, 2005.
25. A. Picado, S. Chankova, A. Fernandes, F. Simões, D. Leverett, I. Johnson, R. Hernan, A.M. Pires, and J. Matos, Genetic variability in Daphnia magna and ecotoxicological evaluation, Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 67 (2006), pp. 406–410.
26. S. Raimondo, D.N. Vivian, C. Delos, and M.G. Barron, Protectiveness of species sensitivity distribution hazard concentrations for acute toxicity used in endangered species risk assessment, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 27 (2008), pp. 2599–2607.
27. H.J.M. Verhaar, C.J. van Leeuwen, and J.L.M. Hermens, Classifying environmental pollutants. 1: Structure-Activity Relationships for prediction of aquatic toxicity in predictions of the aquatic toxicity of high-production volume-chemicals, Chemosphere 25 (1992), pp. 471–491.
28. P. Reuschenbach, M. Silvani, M. Dammann, D. Warnecke, and T. Knacker, ECOSAR model performance with a large test set of industrial chemicals, Chemosphere 71 (2008), pp. 1986–1995.
29. ECETOC, (Q)SARs: Evaluation of the commercially available software for human health and environmental endpoints with respect to chemical management applications, Tech. Rep. No. 89, ISSN-0773-8072-89, European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals, Brussels, 2003.
30. W.T. Schultz and M.T.D. Cronin, Essential and desirable characteristics of ecotoxicity quantitative structure–activity relationships, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 22 (2003), pp. 599–607.
31. J.D. Walker, J. Jaworska, M.H.I. Comber, T.W. Schultz, and J.C. Dearden, Guidelines for developing and using quantitative structure–activity relationships, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 22 (2003), pp. 1653–1665.
32. I. Lessigiarska, A.P. Worth, B. Sokull-Klüttgen, S. Jeram, J.C. Dearden, T.I. Netzeva, and M.T.D. Cronin, QSAR investigation of a large dataset for fish, algae, and Daphnia toxicity, SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 15 (2004), pp. 413–431.
33. K.L.E. Kaiser, Neural networks for effect prediction in environmental and health Issues using large datasets, Quant. Struct.-Act. Rel. 22 (2003), pp. 1–6.
34. D.R.J. Moore, R.L. Breton, and D.B. MacDonald, A comparison of model performance for six quantitative structure–activity relationship packages that predict acute toxicity to fish, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 22 (2003), pp. 1799–1809.
35. OECD, Chapter 3.3 Guidance for the use of structure activity relationships (SAR) in the HPV Chemicals Programme, in Manual for Investigation of HPV Chemicals, OECD, Paris, 2004; available at http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/risk-assessment/49191971.pdf.