Quantitative Nanostructure-Activity Relationships: From Unstructured Data to Predictive Models for Designing Nanomaterials with Controlled Properties

Nanotoxicology: Progress toward Nanomedicine

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 115-133

  Fourches, Denis ^a   Tropsha, Alexander ^a  

^a University of North Carolina   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85053990501     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1201/b16562-13     Document Type: Chapter

References (66)

1. Jones R. Nanotechnology, energy and markets. Nat Nanotechnol 2009;4:75.
2. Demirdjian ZS. Nanotechnology: The new frontier for business and industry. J Am Acad Bus, Cambridge 2006;8:1-2.
3. Luther W. Industrial Application of Nanomaterials-Chances and Risks. Dusseldorf (Germany): Future Technologies Division of VDI Technologiezentrum; 2004.
4. van Zijverden M, Sips AJAM. Nanotechnology in Perspective. Risks to Man and the Environment RIVM Report 601785003. National Institute of Public Health; the Netherlands: Bilthoven; 2009; 138 pp.
5. Qu G, Bai Y, Zhang Y, Jia Q, Zhang W, Yan B. The effect of multiwalled carbon nanotube agglomeration on their accumulation in and damage to organs in mice. Carbon 2009;48:2060-9.
6. Bai Y, Zhang Y, Zhang J, Mu Q, Zhang W, Butch ER. Repeated administrations of carbon nanotubes in male mice cause reversible testis damage without affecting fertility. Nat Nanotechnol 2010;5:683-9.
7. Maynard AD, Aitken RJ, Butz T, Colvin V, Donaldson K, Oberdörster G, Philbert MA et al. Safe handling of nanotechnology. Nature 2006;444:267-9.
8. Service RF. Nanotoxicology. Nanotechnology grows up. Science 2004;304:1732-4.
9. Nel A, Xia T, Mädler L, Li N. Toxic potential of materials at the nanolevel. Science 2006;311:622-7.
10. Zhang LW, Bäumer W, Monteiro-Riviere NA. Cellular uptake mechanisms and toxicity of quantum dots in dendritic cells. Nanomedicine 2011;6:777-91.
11. Savolainen K, Pylkkänen L, Norppa H, Falck G, Lindberg H, Tuomi T, Vippola M et al. Nanotechnologies, engineered nanomaterials and occupational health and safety-A review. Safety Sci 2010;48:957-63.
12. Kavlock RJ, Austin CP, Tice RR. Toxicity testing in the 21st century: Implications for human health risk assessment. Risk Anal 2009;29:485-7.
13. Dix DJ, Houck KA, Martin MT, Richard AM, Setzer RW, Kavlock RJ. The ToxCast program for prioritizing toxicity testing of environmental chemicals. Toxicol Sci 2007;95:5-12.
14. Benigni R, Bossa C, Giuliani A, Tcheremenskaia O. Exploring in vitro/in vivo correlation: Lessons learned from analyzing phase I results of the US EPA’s ToxCast Project. J Environ Sci Health C: Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev 2010;28:272-86.
15. Thomas RS, Black MB, Li L, Healy E, Chu T-M, Bao W, Andersen ME, Wolfinger RD. A comprehensive statistical analysis of predicting in vivo hazard using high-throughput in vitro screening. Toxicol Sci 2012;128:398-417.
16. Arts JHE, Muijser H, Jonker D, van de Sandt JJM, Bos PMJ, Feron VJ. Inhalation toxicity studies: OECD guidelines in relation to REACH and scientific developments. Exp Toxicol Pathol 2008;60:125-33.
17. European Parliament EC. REACH regulation. Official Journal of the European Union 2007;L136:3-280.
18. Hartung T. Evidence-based toxicology-The toolbox of validation for the 21st century? ALTEX 2010;27:253-63.
19. Zhu H, Rusyn I, Richard A, Tropsha A. Use of cell viability assay data improves the prediction accuracy of conventional quantitative structure-activity relationship models of animal carcinogenicity. Environ Health Perspect 2008;116:506-13.
20. Zhu H, Tropsha A, Fourches D, Varnek A, Papa E, Gramatica P, Oberg T, Dao P, Cherkasov A, Tetko IV. Combinatorial QSAR modeling of chemical toxicants tested against Tetrahymena pyriformis. J Chem Inf Model 2008;48:766-84.
21. Fourches D, Barnes JC, Day NC, Bradley P, Reed JZ, Tropsha A. Cheminformatics analysis of assertions mined from literature that describe drug-induced liver injury in different species. Chem Res Toxicol 2010;23:171-83.
22. Rodgers AD, Zhu H, Fourches D, Rusyn I, Tropsha A. Modeling liver-related adverse effects of drugs using k-nearest neighbor quantitative structure-activity relationship method. Chem Res Toxicol 2010;23:724-32.
23. Fourches D, Pu D, Tropsha A. Exploring quantitative nanostructure-activity relationships (QNAR) modeling as a tool for predicting biological effects of manufactured nanoparticles. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 2011;14:217-25.
24. Puzyn T, Leszczynska D, Leszczynski J. Toward the development of “nano-QSARs”: Advances and challenges. Small 2009;5:2494-509.
25. Burello E, Worth A. Computational nanotoxicology: Predicting toxicity of nanoparticles. Nat Nanotechnol 2011;6:138-9.
26. Pulskamp K, Diabaté S, Krug HF. Carbon nanotubes show no sign of acute toxicity but induce intracellular reactive oxygen species in dependence on contaminants. Toxicol Lett 2007;168:58-74.
27. Foldbjerg R, Dang DA, Autrup H. Cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of silver nanoparticles in the human lung cancer cell line, A549. Arch Toxicol 2011;85:743-50.
28. Deng F, Olesen P, Foldbjerg R, Dang DA, Guo X, Autrup H. Silver nanoparticles up-regulate Connexin43 expression and increase gap junctional intercellular communication in human lung adenocarcinoma cell line A549. Nanotoxicology 2010;4:186-95.
29. Liu K-K, Zheng W-W, Wang C-C, Chiu Y-C, Cheng C-L, Lo Y-S, Chen C, Chao JI. Covalent linkage of nanodiamond-paclitaxel for drug delivery and cancer therapy. Nanotechnology 2010;21:315106.
30. Tahara K, Sakai T, Yamamoto H, Takeuchi H, Hirashima N, Kawashima Y. Improved cellular uptake of chitosan-modified PLGA nanospheres by A549 cells. Int J Pharm 2009;382:198-204.
31. Thomas DG, Pappu RV, Baker NA. NanoParticle Ontology for cancer nanotechnology research. J Biomed Inform 2011;44:59-74.
32. Thomas DG, Klaessig F, Harper SL, Fritts M, Hoover MD, Gaheen S, Stokes TH et al. Informatics and standards for nanomedicine technology. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 2011; 3:511-32.
33. 2 nanoparticles in synthetic and natural waters with variable pH, organic matter concentration and ionic strength. Environ Pollut 2011;159:970-6.
34. Li K, Chen Y. Effect of natural organic matter on the aggregation kinetics of CeO(2) nanoparticles in KCl and CaCl(2) solutions: Measurements and modeling. J Hazard Mater 2012;209-210:264-70.
35. 2 solutions: Measurements and modeling. J Nanopart Res 2011;13:6483-91.
36. Johnston BD, Scown TM, Moger J, Cumberland SA, Baalousha M, Linge K, van Aerle R, Jarvis K, Lead JR, Tyler CR. Bioavailability of nanoscale metal oxides TiO(2), CeO(2), and ZnO to fish. Environ Sci Technol 2010;44:1144-51.
37. Lin W, Huang Y-W, Zhou X-D, Ma Y. Toxicity of cerium oxide nanoparticles in human lung cancer cells. Int J Toxicol 2006;25:451-7.
38. Lin W, Stayton I, Huang Y, Zhou X-D, Ma Y. Cytotoxicity and cell membrane depolarization induced by aluminum oxide nanoparticles in human lung epithelial cells A549. Toxicol Environ Chem 2008;90:983-96.
39. 2 nanoparticles for Escherichia coli. Physico-chemical insight of the cytotoxicity mechanism. Environ Sci Technol 2006;40:6151-6.
40. Roh J-Y, Park Y-K, Park K, Choi J. Ecotoxicological investigation of CeO(2) and TiO(2) nanoparticles on the soil nematode Caenorhabditis elegans using gene expression, growth, fertility, and survival as endpoints. Environ Sci Pharmacol 2010;29:167-72.
41. 2 Nanoparticles on the Heart of Male Sprague-Dawley Rats. PhD Thesis. Available at: http://mds.marshall.edu/etd/48; 2011; in press.
42. 2 nanoparticles in aquatic ecotoxicity tests. Environ Sci Technol 2009;43:4537-46.
43. 2 nanoparticles via p38-Nrf-2 signaling pathway in human bronchial epithelial cell, Beas-2B. Toxicol Lett 2009;187:77-83.
44. Zhang XQ, Yin LH, Tang M, Pu YP. ZnO, TiO(2), SiO(2,) and Al(2)O(3) nanoparticles-induced toxic effects on human fetal lung fibroblasts. Biomed Environ Sci 2011;24:661-9.
45. 2 Nanoparticle Aggregation. 2009 International Conference on Advanced Materials, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Available at: http://www.sbpmat.org.br.
46. Baker NC, Hemminger BM. Mining connections between chemicals, proteins, and diseases extracted from Medline annotations. J Biomed Inform 2010;43:510-19.
47. Oberdörster G. Safety assessment for nanotechnology and nanomedicine: Concepts of nanotoxicology. J Intern Med 2010;267:89-105.
48. Oberdörster G, Oberdörster E, Oberdörster J. Nanotoxicology: An emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles. Environ Health Perspect 2005;113:823-39.
49. Glotzer SC, Solomon MJ. Anisotropy of building blocks and their assembly into complex structures. Nat Mater 2007;6:557-62.
50. Stone V, Nowack B, Baun A, van den Brink N, Kammer Fv, Dusinska M, Handy R et al. Nanomaterials for environmental studies: Classification, reference material issues, and strategies for physico-chemical characterisation. Sci Total Environ 2010;408:1745-54.
51. Shaw SY, Westly EC, Pittet MJ, Subramanian A, Schreiber SL, Weissleder R. Perturbational profiling of nanomaterial biologic activity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2008;105:7387-92.
52. Meng H, Xia T, George S, Nel AE. A predictive toxicological paradigm for the safety assessment of nanomaterials. ACS Nano 2009;3:1620-7.
53. Liu J, Hopfinger AJ. Identification of possible sources of nanotoxicity from carbon nanotubes inserted into membrane bilayers using membrane interaction quantitative structure-activity relationship analysis. Chem Res Toxicol 2008;21:459-66.
54. Liu J, Yang L, Hopfinger AJ. Affinity of drugs and small biologically active molecules to carbon nanotubes: A pharmacodynamics and nanotoxicity factor? Mol Pharm 2009;6:873-82.
55. Group QE. The report from the expert group on (Quantitative) Structure-Activity Relationships [(Q)SARs] on the principles for the validation of (Q)SARs. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2004;49:206.
56. Kortagere S, Lill M, Kerrigan J. Role of computational methods in pharmaceutical sciences. Methods Mol Biol 2012;929:21-48.
57. Fourches D, Pu D, Tassa C, Weissleder R, Shaw SY, Mumper RJ, Tropsha A. Quantitative nanostructure-activity relationship modeling. ACS Nano 2010;4:5703-12.
58. Todeschini R, Consonni V. Molecular Descriptors for Chemoinformatics. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH; 2009.
59. Zhang L, Fourches D, Sedykh A, Zhu H, Golbraikh A, Ekins S, Clark J et al. Discovery of novel antimalarial compounds enabled by QSAR-based virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model 2013;53:475-92.
60. Tropsha A. Best Practices for QSAR model development, validation, and exploitation. Mol Inf 2010;29:476-88.
61. Sushko I, Novotarskyi S, Körner R, Pandey AK, Cherkasov A, Li J, Gramatica P et al. Applicability domains for classification problems: Benchmarking of distance to models for Ames mutagenicity set. J Chem Inf Model 2010;50:2094-3111.
62. MOE. Chemical Computing Group. http://www.chemcomp.com/index.htm. Accesses September 2013; 2010.
63. Epa VC, Burden FR, Tassa C, Weissleder R, Shaw S, Winkler DA. Modeling biological activities of nanoparticles. Nano Lett 2012;12:5808-12.
64. Toropov AA, Toropova AP, Puzyn T, Benfenati E, Gini G, Leszczynska D, Leszczynski J. QSAR as a random event: Modeling of nanoparticles uptake in PaCa2 cancer cells. Chemosphere 2013;92:31-7.
65. Winkler DA, Mombelli E, Pietroiusti A, Tran L, Worth A, Fadeel B, McCall MJ. Applying quantitative structure-activity relationship approaches to nanotoxicology: Current status and future potential. Toxicology 2012; in press.
66. Liu R, Zhang HY, Ji ZX, Rallo R, Xia T, Chang CH, Nel A, Cohen Y. Development of structure-activity relationship for metal oxide nanoparticles. Nanoscale 2013;5:5644-53.