Validation and extension of a similarity-based approach for prediction of acute aquatic toxicity towards Daphnia magna

SAR and QSAR in Environmental Research

Volumn 25, Issue 12, 2014, Pages 1013-1036

  Cassotti, M ^a   Consonni, V ^a   Mauri, A ^a   Ballabio, D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MILANO BICOCCA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Daphnia magna; QSAR; REACH; similarity; toxicity; validation

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL CHEMISTRY; FORECASTING; MOLECULAR GRAPHICS; MOLECULES;

ACUTE TOXICITY; AQUATIC TOXICITY; DAPHNIA MAGNA; PERFORMANCE; POOR PERFORMANCE; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP MODELING; REACH; SIMILARITY; VALIDATION;

TOXICITY;

DAPHNIA MAGNA;

WATER POLLUTANT;

ALGORITHM; ANIMAL; CHEMICAL MODEL; CHEMISTRY; DAPHNIA; DRUG EFFECTS; FORECASTING; PROCEDURES; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; TOXICITY; TOXICITY TESTING; VALIDATION STUDY; WATER POLLUTANT;

ALGORITHMS; ANIMALS; DAPHNIA; FORECASTING; MODELS, CHEMICAL; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; TOXICITY TESTS, ACUTE; WATER POLLUTANTS, CHEMICAL;

EID: 84919837974     PISSN: 1062936X     EISSN: 1029046X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/1062936X.2014.977818     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. European Union, Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Off. J. Eur. Union L396 (2006), pp. 1–849.
2. M. Cassotti, D. Ballabio, V. Consonni, A. Mauri, I.V. Tetko, and R. Todeschini, Prediction of acute aquatic toxicity toward Daphnia magna by using the GA-kNN method, Altern. Lab. Anim. 42 (2014), pp. 31–41.
3. Organization for Economic Development and Co-operation (OECD), Guidance document on the validation of (quantitative) structure-activity relationships [(Q)SAR] models, ENV/JM/MONO(2007)2, OCED Publishing, Paris. 2007.
4. A. Golbamaki, A. Cassano, A. Lombardo, Y. Moggio, M. Colafranceschi, and E. Benfenati, Comparison of in silico models for prediction of Daphnia magna acute toxicity, SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 25 (2014), pp. 673–694.10.1080/1062936X.2014.923041
5. Chemical Properties Estimation Software System (ChemProp), UFZ Department of Ecological Chemistry, Leipzig, 2013; software available at www.ufz.de/index.php?en=6738.
6. R. Kühne and R.-U. Ebert P. C. von der Ohe, N. Ulrich, W. Brack, and G. Schüürmann, Read-across prediction of the acute toxicity of organic compounds toward the water flea Daphnia magna’, Mol. Inform. 32 (2013), pp. 108–120.10.1002/minf.201200085
7. US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), ECOTOX Database, Release 4.0; available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/.
8. European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC), TR 091 – ECETOC Aquatic Toxicity (EAT) database, 2003; available at www.ecetoc.org/technical-reports.
9. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), The OECD QSAR Toolbox for Grouping Chemicals into Categories, 2013; available at: www.qsartoolbox.org.
10. R.J. Bernot, M.A. Brueseke, M.A. Evans-White, and G.A. Lamberti, Acute and chronic toxicity of imidazolium-based ionic liquids on Daphnia magna, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 24 (2009), pp. 87–92.
11. W.F. Randall, W.H. Dennis, and M.C. Warner, Acute toxicity of dechlorinated ddt, chlordane and lindane to bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and Daphnia magna, Bull. Environ. Contam. Tox. 21 (1979), pp. 849–854.10.1007/BF01685516
12. H. Sanderson and M. Thomsen, Comparative analysis of pharmaceuticals versus industrial chemicals acute aquatic toxicity classification according to the United Nations classification system for chemicals. Assessment of the (Q) SAR predictability of pharmaceuticals acute aquatic toxicity and their predominant acute toxic mode-of-action, Toxicol. Lett. 187 (2009), pp. 84–93.10.1016/j.toxlet.2009.02.003
13. A. Jemec, T. Tišler, D. Drobne, K. Sepčić, D. Fournier, and P. Trebše, Comparative toxicity of imidacloprid, of its commercial liquid formulation and of diazinon to a non-target arthropod, the microcrustacean Daphnia magna, Chemosphere 68 (2007), pp. 1408–1418.10.1016/j.chemosphere.2007.04.015
14. E. Zou and M. Fingerman, Effects of estrogenic xenobiotics on molting of the water flea, Daphnia magna, Ecotox. Environ. Saf. 38 (1997), pp. 281–285.10.1006/eesa.1997.1589
15. S.D. Costanzo, A.J. Watkinson, E.J. Murby, D.W. Kolpin, and M.W. Sandstrom, Is there a risk associated with the insect repellent DEET (N, N-diethyl-m-toluamide) commonly found in aquatic environments?, Sci. Total Environ. 384 (2007), pp. 214–220.10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.05.036
16. C.A. Staples and J.W. Davis, An examination of the physical properties, fate, ecotoxicity and potential environmental risks for a series of propylene glycol ethers, Chemosphere 49 (2002), pp. 61–73.10.1016/S0045-6535(02)00176-5
17. J.C. Martins, M.L. Saker, L.F.O. Teles, and V.M. Vasconcelos, Oxygen consumption by Daphnia magna Straus as a marker of chemical stress in the aquatic environment, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26 (2007), pp. 1987–1991.10.1897/07-051R.1
18. P.C. von der Ohe, R. Kühne, R.-U. Ebert, R. Altenburger, M. Liess, and G. Schüürmann, Structural Alerts – A new classification model to discriminate excess toxicity from narcotic effect levels of organic compounds in the acute daphnid assay, Chem. Res. Toxicol. 18 (2005), pp. 536–555.10.1021/tx0497954
19. E.S. Williams, J.P. Berninger, and B.W. Brooks, Application of chemical toxicity distributions to ecotoxicology data requirements under REACH, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 30 (2011), pp. 1943–1954.10.1002/etc.583
20. K. Nørgaard and N. Cedergreen, Pesticide cocktails can interact synergistically on aquatic crustaceans, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 17 (2010), pp. 957–967.10.1007/s11356-009-0284-4
21. G.D. di Delupis, A. Macrí, C. Civitareale, and L. Migliore, Antibiotics of zootechnical use: Effects of acute high and low dose contamination on Daphnia magna Straus, Aquat. Toxicol. 22 (1992), pp. 53–59.10.1016/0166-445X(92)90035-L
22. B. Ferrari, R. Mons, B. Vollat, B. Fraysse, N. Paxēaus, R.L. Giudice, A. Pollio, and J. Garric, Environmental risk assessment of six human pharmaceuticals: Are the current environmental risk assessment procedures sufficient for the protection of the aquatic environment?, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 23 (2004), pp. 1344–1354.10.1897/03-246
23. K. Foit, O. Kaske, and M. Liess, Competition increases toxicant sensitivity and delays the recovery of two interacting populations, Aquat. Toxicol. 106–107 (2012), pp. 25–31.10.1016/j.aquatox.2011.09.012
24. H. Ochoa-Acuña, W. Bialkowski, G. Yale, and L. Hahn, Toxicity of soybean rust fungicides to freshwater algae and Daphnia magna, Ecotoxicology 18 (2009), pp. 440–446.10.1007/s10646-009-0298-1
25. O. Horn, S. Nalli, D. Cooper, and J. Nicell, Plasticizer metabolites in the environment, Water Res. 38 (2004), pp. 3693–3698.10.1016/j.watres.2004.06.012
26. K. Kyriakopoulou, P. Anastasiadou, and K. Machera, Comparative toxicities of fungicide and herbicide formulations on freshwater and marine species, Bull. Environ. Contam. Tox. 82 (2009), pp. 290–295.10.1007/s00128-008-9614-3
27. DRAGON 6 (Software for Molecular Descriptor Calculation), Talete srl, Milan, 2012; software available at www.talete.mi.it.
28. F. Sahigara, K. Mansouri, D. Ballabio, A. Mauri, V. Consonni, and R. Todeschini, Comparison of different approaches to define the applicability domain of QSAR models, Molecules 17 (2012), pp. 4791–4810.10.3390/molecules17054791
29. F. Sahigara, D. Ballabio, R. Todeschini, and V. Consonni, Defining a novel k-nearest neighbours approach to assess the applicability domain of a QSAR model for reliable predictions, J. Cheminform. 5 (2013), p. 27.10.1186/1758-2946-5-27
30. R.P. Sheridan, B.P. Feuston, V.N. Maiorov, and S.K. Kearsley, Similarity to molecules in the training set is a good discriminator for prediction accuracy in QSAR, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 44 (2004), pp. 1912–1928.10.1021/ci049782w
31. J.R. Niemelä, E.B. Wedebye, N.G. Nikolov, G.E. Jensen, and T. Ringsted, The advisory list for self-classification of dangerous substances, Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Copenhagen, 2010; available at http://eng.mst.dk/topics/chemicals/assessment-of-chemicals/the-advisory-list-for-selfclassification/.
32. M.R. Berthold, N. Cebron, F. Dill, T.R. Gabriel, T. Kötter, T. Meinl, P. Ohl, C. Sieb, K. Thiel, and B. Wiswedel, KNIME: The Konstanz Information Miner, in Studies in Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2007, pp. 319–326.
33. MathWorks Inc., MATLAB, Natick, MA, USA; software available at www.mathworks.com.
34. P. Willett, V. Winterman, and D. Bawden, Implementation of nearest-neighbor searching in an online chemical structure search system, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 26 (1986), pp. 36–41.10.1021/ci00049a008
35. P. Willett, Similarity-based virtual screening using 2D fingerprints, Drug Discov. Today 11 (2006), pp. 1046–1053.10.1016/j.drudis.2006.10.005
36. C.W. Yap, PaDEL-descriptor: An open source software to calculate molecular descriptors and fingerprints, J. Comput. Chem. 32 (2011), pp. 1466–1474.10.1002/jcc.v32.7
37. H.L. Morgan, The generation of a unique machine description for chemical structures-a technique developed at chemical abstracts service, J. Chem. Doc. 5 (1965), pp. 107–113.10.1021/c160017a018
38. D. Rogers and M. Hahn, Extended-connectivity fingerprints, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 50 (2010), pp. 742–754.10.1021/ci100050t
39. K. Mansouri, T. Ringsted, D. Ballabio, R. Todeschini, and V. Consonni, Quantitative structure–activity relationship models for ready biodegradability of chemicals, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 53 (2013), pp. 867–878.10.1021/ci4000213
40. F. Cheng, Y. Ikenaga, Y. Zhou, Y. Yu, W. Li, J. Shen, Z. Du, L. Chen, C. Xu, G. Liu, P.W. Lee, and Y. Tang, In silico assessment of chemical biodegradability, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 52 (2012), pp. 655–669.10.1021/ci200622d
41. S. Lozano, M.-P. Halm-Lemeille, A. Lepailleur, S. Rault, and R. Bureau, Consensus QSAR related to global or MOA models: Application to acute toxicity for fish, Mol. Inform. 29 (2010), pp. 803–813.10.1002/minf.v29.11
42. I.B. Stoyanova-Slavova, S.H. Slavov, B. Pearce, D.A. Buzatu, R.D. Beger, and J.G. Wilkes, Partial least square and k-nearest neighbor algorithms for improved 3D quantitative spectral data–activity relationship consensus modeling of acute toxicity, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 33 (2014), pp. 1271–1282.10.1002/etc.v33.6
43. N. Baurin, J.-C. Mozziconacci, E. Arnoult, P. Chavatte, C. Marot, and L. Morin-Allory, 2D QSAR consensus prediction for high-throughput virtual screening. An application to COX-2 inhibition modeling and screening of the NCI database, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 44 (2004), pp. 276–285.10.1021/ci0341565
44. J.R. Votano, M. Parham, L.H. Hall, L.B. Kier, S. Oloff, A. Tropsha, Q. Xie, and W. Tong, Three new consensus QSAR models for the prediction of Ames genotoxicity, Mutagenesis 19 (2004), pp. 365–377.10.1093/mutage/geh043
45. M. Ganguly, N. Brown, A. Schuffenhauer, P. Ertl, V.J. Gillet, and P.A. Greenidge, Introducing the consensus modeling concept in genetic algorithms: Application to interpretable discriminant analysis, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46 (2006), pp. 2110–2124.10.1021/ci050529l
46. M. Hewitt, M.T.D. Cronin, J.C. Madden, P.H. Rowe, C. Johnson, A. Obi, and S.J. Enoch, Consensus QSAR models: Do the benefits outweigh the complexity?, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 47 (2007), pp. 1460–1468.10.1021/ci700016d
47. ChemAxon Ltd, Marvin Suite, 2012; software available at www.chemaxon.com.
48. Milano Chemometrics and QSAR Research Group, Acute aquatic toxicity to Daphnia magna dataset; available at http://michem.disat.unimib.it/chm/download/toxicity.htm.
49. V. Consonni, D. Ballabio, and R. Todeschini, Comments on the definition of the Q2 parameter for qsar validation, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 49 (2009), pp. 1669–1678.10.1021/ci900115y
50. A. Golbraikh and A. Tropsha, Beware of q2!, J. Mol. Graph. Model. 20 (2002), pp. 269–276.10.1016/S1093-3263(01)00123-1
51. European CHemical Agency (ECHA), available at http://echa.europa.eu/information-on-chemicals.
52. A. Colombo, E. Benfenati, M. Karelson, and U. Maran, The proposal of architecture for chemical splitting to optimize QSAR models for aquatic toxicity, Chemosphere 72 (2008), pp. 772–780.10.1016/j.chemosphere.2008.03.016
53. 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. 757–774.10.1080/1062936X.2011.623317
54. K.S. Akers, G.D. Sinks, and T.W. Schultz, Structure–toxicity relationships for selected halogenated aliphatic chemicals, Environ. Toxicol. Phar. 7 (1999), pp. 33–39.10.1016/S1382-6689(98)00048-9
55. European Union, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council. 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. Union L353 (2008), pp. 1–1355.
56. K.E. Day and R.J. Maguire, Acute toxicity of isomers of the pyrethroid insecticide deltamethrin and its major degradation products to Daphnia magna, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 9 (1990), pp. 1297–1300.10.1002/etc.v9:10
57. I. Jolliffe, Principal component analysis, in Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science, B.S. Everitt and D.C. Howell, eds., John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, 2005. doi: 10.1002/0470013192.bsa501.
58. P. Jaccard, Nouvelles recherches sur la distribution florale, Bull. Société Vaudoise Sci. Nat. 44 (1908), pp. 223–270.
59. R. Leardi and A.L. González, Genetic algorithms applied to feature selection in PLS regression: How and when to use them, Chemometr. Intell. Lab. Syst. 41 (1998), pp. 195–207.10.1016/S0169-7439(98)00051-3
60. J.H. Holland, Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence, MIT Press, Bradford Books, Cambridge, MA, 1992.
61. S. Kar and K. Roy, QSAR modeling of toxicity of diverse organic chemicals to Daphnia magna using 2D and 3D descriptors, J. Hazard. Mater. 177 (2010), pp. 344–351.10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.12.038
62. K.L.E. Kaiser and S.P. Niculescu, Modeling acute toxicity of chemicals to Daphnia magna: A probabilistic neural network approach, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 20 (2001), pp. 420–431.10.1002/etc.v20:2
63. Discovery Studio TOPKAT, Accelrys, Inc.; software available at http://accelrys.com/products/discovery-studio/admet.html.
64. ACD/Tox Suite, ACD/LabsInc.; software available at www.acdlabs.com/products/pc_admet/tox/tox/.
65. TM, Simulations Plus, Inc.; software available at www.simulations-plus.com/Products.aspx?pID=13.
66. ECOSAR (Ecological Structure Activity Relationships), US Environmental Protection Agency; software available at www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/tools/21ecosar.htm.
67. TM. TerraBase, Inc.; software available at www.terrabase-inc.com.
68. T.E.S.T. (Toxicity Estimation Software Tool), US Environmental Protection Agency; software available at www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/qsar/qsar.html#TEST.
69. VEGA Non-Interactive Client, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri. Milan, Italy; software available at www.vega-qsar.eu.