In Silico Toxicology - Current Approaches and Future Perspectives to Predict Toxic Effects with Computational Tools

Predictive Toxicology: From Vision to Reality

Volumn , Issue , 2015, Pages 11-32

  Steger Hartmann, Thomas ^a  

^a BAYER PHARMA AG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Ecotoxicology; Hazard identification; in silico toxicology; Risk assessment

Indexed keywords

EID: 84926402109     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1002/9783527674183.ch02     Document Type: Chapter

References (44)

1. Steger-Hartmann, T. and Scott, B. (2014) Chapter 36: Computer-based prediction models in regulatory toxicology, in Handbook of Regulatory Toxicology (eds F.-X. Reichl and M. Schwenk), Springer, Heidelberg.
2. Simon-Hettich, B., Rothfuss, A., and Steger-Hartmann, T. (2006) Use of computer-assisted prediction of toxic effects of chemical substances. Toxicology, 224, 156-162.
3. Steger-Hartmann, T. (2013) Guest editorial: advances in computational toxicology. Mol. Inform., 32 (1), 9 (special issue).
4. Faustman, E.M. and Omenn, G.S. (2013) Risk assessment, in Casarett and Doull's Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons, 8th edn (ed. C.D. Klaassen), McGraw-Hill Medical Publishing Division, New York, pp. 123-125.
5. Ashby, J. and Tennant, R.W. (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.
6. Knudson, A.G., Hethcote, H.W., and Brown, B.W. (1975) Mutation and childhood cancer: a probabilistic model for the incidence of retinoblastoma. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 72, 5116-5120.
7. Müller, L., Mauthe, R.J., Riley, C.M., Andino, M.M., De Antonis, D., Beels, C., DeGeorge, J., De Knaep, A.G.M., Ellison, D., Fagerland, J.A., Frank, R., Fritschel, B., Galloway, S., Harpur, E., Humfrey, C.D.N., Jacks, A.S.J., Jagota, N., Mackinnon, J., Mohan, G., Ness, D.K., O'Donovan, M.R., Smith, M.D., Vudathala, G., and Yotti, L. (2006) A rationale for determining, testing, and controlling specific impurities in pharmaceuticals that possess potential for genotoxicity. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 44, 198-211.
8. Kroes, R., Renwick, A.G., Cheeseman, M., Kleiner, J., Mangelsdorf, I., Piersma, A., Schilter, B., Schlatter, J., van Schothorst, F., Vos, J.G., and Würtzen, G. (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.
9. Hansen, K., Mika, S., Schroeter, T., Sutter, A., ter Laak, A., Steger-Hartmann, T., Heinrich, N., and Muller, K.R. (2009) Benchmark data set for in silico prediction of Ames mutagenicity. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 49, 2077-2081.
10. International Conference on Harmonisation (2013) Genotoxic impurities M7: assessment and control of DNA reactive (mutagenic) impurities in pharmaceuticals to limit potential carcinogenic risk. EMA/CHMP/ICH/83812/2013.
11. Sutter, A., Amberg, A., Boyer, S., Brigo, A., Contrera, J.F., Custer, L.L., Dobo, K.L., Gervais, V., Glowienke, S., Gompel, J.V., Greene, N., Muster, W., Nicolette, J., Reddy, M.V., Thybaud, V., Vock, E., White, A.T., and Müller, L. (2013) Use of in silico systems and expert knowledge for structure-based assessment of potentially mutagenic impurities. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 67 (1), 39-52.
12. Greaves, P. (2012) Histopathology of Preclinical Toxicity Studies: Interpretation and Relevance in Drug Safety Evaluation, 4th edn, Academic Press, London.
13. Hanumegowda, U.M., Wenke, G., Regueiro-Ren, A., Yordanova, R., Corradi, J.P., and Adams, S.P. (2010) Phospholipidosis as a function of basicity, lipophilicity, and volume of distribution of compounds. Chem. Res. Toxicol., 23, 749-755.
14. Orogo, A.M., Choi, S.S., Minnier, B.L., and Kruhlak, N.L. (2012) Construction and consensus performance of (Q)SAR models for predicting phospholipidosis using a dataset of 743 compounds. Mol. Inform., 31 (19), 725-739.
15. Benigni, R. and Zito, R. (2004) The second national toxicology program comparative exercise on the prediction of rodent carcinogenicity: definitive results. Mutat. Res., 566, 49-63.
16. Benigni, R., Bossa, C., Jeliazkova, N., Netzeva, T., and Worth, A. (2008) The Benigni/Bossa rulebase for mutagenicity and carcinogenicity - a module of Toxtree. EUR 23241 EN. Available at http://ihcp.jrc.ec.europa.eu/our_labs/predictive_toxicology/doc/EUR_23241_EN.pdf (last accessed June 20, 2014).
17. Dimitrov, S.D., Low, L.K., Patlewicz, G.Y., Kern, P.S., Dimitrova, G.D., Comber, M. H., Niemla, J., Bailey, P.T., and Mekenyan, O.G. (2005) Skin sensitization: modeling based on skin metabolism simulation and formation of protein conjugates. Int. J. Toxicol., 24, 189-204.
18. Teubner, W., Mehling, A., Schuster, P.X., Guth, K., Worth, A., Burton, J., van Ravenzwaay, B., and Landsiedel, R. (2013) Computer models versus reality: how well do in silico models currently predict the sensitization of a substance. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 67 (3), 468-485.
19. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2002) OECD Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals: Acute Dermal Irritation/Corrosion. OECD/OCDE 404.
20. Gerner, I., Zinke, S., Graetschel, G., and Schlede, E. (2000) Development of a decision support system for the introduction of alternative methods into local irritancy/corrosivity testing strategies. Creation of fundamental rules for a decision support system. Altern. Lab. Anim., 28 (5), 665-698.
21. Joint Research Centre, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection (2013) ToxTree. Available at http://ihcp.jrc.ec.europa.eu/our_labs/predictive_toxicology/qsar_tools/toxtree (last accessed June 20, 2014).
22. Kochev, N., Monev, V., and Bangov, I. (2003) Searching chemical structures, in Chemoinformatics - A Textbook (eds J. Gasteiger and T. Engel), John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, pp. 291-316.
23. Gerner, I., Liebsch, M., and 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.
24. Cramer, G.M., Ford, R.A., and Hall, R.L. (1976) Estimation of toxic hazard - decision tree approach. Food Cosmet. Toxicol., 16, 255-276.
25. Contrera, J.F., Matthews, E.J., Kruhlak, N. L., and Benz, R.D. (2004) Estimating the safe starting dose in phase I clinical trials and no observed effect level based on QSAR modeling of the human maximum recommended daily dose. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 40, 185-206.
26. Zhu, X.W., Sedykh, A., and Liu, S.S. (2014) Hybrid in silico models for drug-induced liver injury using chemical descriptors and in vitro cell-imaging information. J. Appl. Toxicol., 34 (3), 281-288.
27. Food and Drug Administration (2009) Guidance for Industry: Drug-Induced Liver Injury: Premarketing Clinical Evaluation. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER).
28. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2013) Adverse Outcome Pathways, Molecular Screening and Toxicogenomics. Available at http://www.oecd.org/env/ehs/testing/molecularscreeningandtoxicogenomics .htm (last accessed June 20, 2014).
29. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2012) The Adverse Outcome Pathway for Skin Sensitisation Initiated by Covalent Binding to Proteins. Part 1: Scientific Evidence. OECD Environment, Health and Safety Publications, Series on Testing and Assessment, No. 168.
30. Vinken, M. (2013) The adverse outcome pathway concept: a pragmatic tool in toxicology. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 312, 158-165.
31. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Available at http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/basic-ref/glossary/risk.html (last accessed June 20, 2014).
32. Food and Drug Administration (2005) Guidance for Industry: Estimating the Maximum Safe Starting Dose in Initial Clinical Trials for Therapeutics in Adult Healthy Volunteers. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).
33. National Toxicology Program. Available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/? objectid=72016E39-BDB7-CEBAFF0CB5AFEA7887A2 (last accessed June 20, 2014).
34. Judson, P.N., Cooke, P.A., Doerrer, N.G., Greene, N., Hanzlik, R.P., Hardy, C., Hartmann, A., Hinchliffe, D., Holder, J., Müller, L., Steger-Hartmann, T., Rothfuss, A., Smith, M., Thomas, K., Vessey, J.D., and Zeiger, E. (2005) Towards the creation of an international toxicology information centre. Toxicology, 213, 117-128.
35. The Carcinogenic Potency Database. Available at http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cpdb/(last accessed June 20, 2014).
36. International Uniform Chemical Information Database. Available at http://iuclid.eu/index.php? fuseaction=home.iuclidHome (last accessed June 20, 2014).
37. Bitsch, A., Jacobi, S., Melber, C., Wahnschaffe, U., Simetska, N., and Mangelsdorf, I. (2006) REPDOSE: a database on repeated dose toxicity studies of commercial chemicals - a multifunctional tool. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 46, 202-210.
38. Briggs, K., Cases, M., Heard, D.J., Pastor, M., Pognan, F., Sanz, F., Schwab, C.F., Steger-Hartmann, T., Sutter, A., Watson, D.K., and Wichard, J.D. (2012) Inroads to predict in vivo toxicology - an introduction to the eTOX project. Int. J. Mol., 13, 3820-3846.
39. Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium. Available at www.cdisc.org/(last accessed June 20, 2014).
40. Hayashi, M. and Sakuratani, Y. (2012) Development of an evaluation support system for estimating repeated-dose toxicity of chemicals based on chemical structure, in New Horizons in Predictive Toxicology: Current Status and Application (ed. A.G.E. Wilson), RSC Publishing, Cambridge, pp. 26-37.
41. World Health Organization (2010) Characterization and Application of Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Models in Risk Assessment. IPCS Harmonization Project Document No. 9.
42. Niklas, J., Diaz Ochoa, J.G., Bucher, J., and Mauch, K. (2013) Quantitative evaluation and prediction of drug effects and toxicological risk using mechanistic multiscale models. Mol. Inform., 32, 14-23.
43. OECD (2007) Guidance Document on the Validation of (Quantitative) Structure- Activity Relationship [(Q)SAR] Models. OECD Environment Health and Safety Publications, Series on Testing and Assessment, No. 69 (ENV/JM/MONO (2007)2).
44. Hewitt, M. and Ellison, C.M. (2010) Developing the applicability domain of in silico models: relevance, importance and methods, in In Silico Toxicology: Principles and Applications (eds M.T.D. Cronin and J.C. Madden), RSC Publishing, Cambridge, pp. 301-333.