Comparative study of biodegradability prediction of chemicals using decision trees, functional trees, and logistic regression

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

Volumn 33, Issue 12, 2014, Pages 2688-2693

  Chen, Guangchao ^a,b   Li, Xuehua ^a   Chen, Jingwen ^a   Zhang, Ya nan ^a   Peijnenburg, Willie J G M ^b,c  

^a DALIAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (China)

^b LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Biodegradability; Decision trees; Functional trees; In silico models; Logistic regression

Indexed keywords

BIODEGRADABILITY; BIODEGRADATION; DECISION TREES; INDICATORS (CHEMICAL); LOGISTIC REGRESSION; SOFTWARE TESTING;

C4.5 DECISION TREES; CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT; COMPARATIVE STUDIES; ESTIMATION PROGRAM; FUNCTIONAL TREES; IN-SILICO MODELS; PREDICTIVE ACCURACY; REGRESSION TREE MODELS;

ORGANIC CHEMICALS;

ORGANIC COMPOUND;

ALGORITHM; ASSESSMENT METHOD; BIODEGRADATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ECOLOGICAL MODELING; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; HETEROGENEITY; ORGANIC COMPOUND;

ARTICLE; BIODEGRADABILITY; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER MODEL; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DECISION TREE; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; FUNCTIONAL INNER REGRESSION TREE; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MACHINE LEARNING; PREDICTION; PREDICTIVE VALIDITY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STATISTICAL MODEL; BIOREMEDIATION; CHEMISTRY; METABOLISM; THEORETICAL MODEL;

BIODEGRADATION, ENVIRONMENTAL; DECISION TREES; LOGISTIC MODELS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; ORGANIC CHEMICALS;

EID: 84929129535     PISSN: 07307268     EISSN: 15528618     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/etc.2746     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Pavan M, Worth AP. 2006. Review of QSAR models for ready biodegradation. EUR 22355 EN. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy.
2. Rücker C, Kümmerer K. 2012. Modeling and predicting aquatic aerobic biodegradation-A review from a user's perspective. Green Chem 14:875-887.
3. Daginnus K. 2010. Characterisation of the REACH pre-registered substances list by chemical structure and physicochemical properties. EUR 24138 EN. European Commission. Brussels, Belgium.
4. Howard PH. 2000. Biodegradation. In Boethling RS, Mackay D, eds, Handbook of Property Estimation Methods for Chemicals: Environmental and Health Sciences. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp 281-311.
5. Howard PH, Hueber AE, Boethling RS. 1987. Biodegradation data evaluation for structure/biodegradation relations. Environ Toxicol Chem 6:1-10.
6. Howard PH, Boethling RS, Stiteler WM, Meylan WM, Hueber AE, Beauman JA, Larosche ME. 1992. Predictive model for aerobic biodegradability developed from a file of evaluated biodegradation data. Environ Toxicol Chem 11:593-603.
7. Boethling RS, Howard PH, Meylan W, Stiteler W, Beaumann J, Tirado N. 1994. Group contribution method for predicting probability and rate of aerobic biodegradation. Environ Sci Technol 28:459-465.
8. Tunkel J, Howard PH, Boethling RS, Stiteler W, Loonen H. 2000. Predicting ready biodegradability in the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry Test. Environ Toxicol Chem 19:2478-2485.
9. Loonen H, Lindgren F, Hansen B, Karcher W, Niemelä J, Hiromatsu K, Takatsuki M, Peijnenburg W, Rorije E, Struijś J. 1999. Prediction of biodegradability from chemical structure: Modeling of ready biodegradation test data. Environ Toxicol Chem 18:1763-1768.
10. Cheng F, Ikenaga Y, Zhou Y, Yu Y, Li W, Shen J, Du Z, Chen L, Xu C, Liu G, Lee PW, Tang Y. 2012. In silico assessment of chemical biodegradability. J Chem Inform Model 52:655-669.
11. Mansouri K, Ringsted T, Ballabio D, Todeschini R, Consonni V. 2013. Quantitative structure-activity relationship models for ready biodegradability of chemicals. J Chem Inform Model 53:867-878.
12. Yang Z, Tang WH, Shintemirov A, Wu QH. 2009. Association rule mining-based dissolved gas analysis for fault diagnosis of power transformers. Systems Man Cybernetics C Applic Rev 39:597-610.
13. Tan SB. 2006. An effective refinement strategy for KNN text classifier. Expert Systems Applic 30:290-298.
14. Martens D, Baesens B, Van Gestel T, Vanthienen J. 2007. Comprehensible credit scoring models using rule extraction from support vector machines. Eur J Operat Res 183:1466-1476.
15. Kleinbaum DG, Klein M. 2010. Introduction to logistic regression. In Logistic Regression (Statistics for Biology and Health). Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, USA.
16. Gama J. 2004. Functional trees. Mach Learn 55:219-250.
17. Witten IH, Frank E, Hall MA. 2011. Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques, 3rd ed. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, USA.
18. Quinlan JR. 1993. C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, USA.
19. National Institute of Technology and Evaluation. 2006. Biodegradation and Bioconcentration Database of the Existing Chemical Substances. [cited 2011 October 31]. Available from: http://www.safe.nite.go.jp/english/db.html.
20. Rosenberg SA, Hueber AE, Aronson D, Gouchie S, Howard PH, Meylan W, Tunkel JL. 2004. Syracuse Research Corporation's chemical information databases: Extraction and compilation of data related to environmental fate and exposure. Sci Tech Libr 23:73-87.
21. Judson R, Richard A, Dix D, Houck K, Elloumi F, Martin M, Cathey T, Transue TR, Spencer R, Wolf M. 2008. ACToR-Aggregated Computational Toxicology Resource. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 233:7-13.
22. Todeschini R, Consonni V. 2000. Handbook of Molecular Descriptors: Methods and Principles in Medicinal Chemistry. Wiley - VCH, New York, NY, USA.
23. Hall M, Frank E, Holmes G, Pfahringer B, Reutemann P, Witten IH. 2009. The WEKA data mining software: An update. SIGKDD Explorations 11:10-18.
24. Quinlan JR. 1986. Induction of decision trees. Mach Learn 1:81-106.
25. Landwehr N, Hall M, Frank E. 2005. Logistic model trees. Mach Learn 59:161-205.
26. Worth AP, Hartung H, van Leeuwen CJ. 2004. The role of the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) in the validation of (Q)SARs. SAR QSAR Environ Res 15:345-358.
27. Zhu H, Rusyn I, Richard A, Tropsha A. 2008. Use of cell viability assay data improves the prediction accuracy of conventional quantitative structure-activity relationship models of animal carcinogenicity. Environ Health Persp 116:506-513.
28. Jeliazkova N, Jaworska J. 2006. Ambit Discovery, version 0.04 (freeware). Ideaconsult Ltd, Bulgaria.
29. Baldi P, Brunak S, Chauvin Y, Andersen CA, Nielsen H. 2000. Assessing the accuracy of prediction algorithms for classification: An overview. Bioinformatics 16:412-424.
30. Osei-Bryson KM. 2004. Evaluation of decision trees: A multi-criteria approach. Comput Oper Res 31:1933-1945.
31. Gamberger D, Horvatić D, Sekušak S, Sabljić A. 1996. Applications of experts' judgement to derive structure biodegradation relationships. Environ Sci Pollut Res 3:224-228.
32. Kompare B. 1998. Estimating environmental pollution by xenobiotic chemicals using QSAR(QSBR) models based on artificial intelligence. Water Sci Technol 37:9-18.
33. Parsons JR, Sáez M, Dolfing J, de Voogt P. 2008. Biodegradation of perfluorinated compounds. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 196:53-71.
34. Rorije E, Loonen H, Müller M, Klopman G, Peijnenburg WJGM. 1999. Evaluation and application of models for the prediction of ready biodegradability in the MITI-I test. Chemosphere 38:1409-1417.
35. Klein DJ, Palacios JL, Randic M, Trinajstic N. 2004. Random walks and chemical graph theory. J Chem Inform Comput Sci 44:1521-1525.