Predictive modeling of estrogen receptor binding agents using advanced cheminformatics tools and massive public data

Frontiers in Environmental Science

Volumn 4, Issue MAR, 2016, Pages

  Ribay, Kathryn ^a   Kim, Marlene T ^a,b   Wang, Wenyi ^b   Pinolini, Daniel ^b   Zhu, Hao ^a,b  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b USA   (United States)

Author keywords

Bioassay profiling; Biosimilarity; Endocrine disrupting chemicals; Estrogen receptor ; QSAR modeling

Indexed keywords

EID: 85062093670     PISSN: None     EISSN: 2296665X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fenvs.2016.00012     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Blair, R. M., Fang, H., Branham, W. S., Hass, B. S., Dial, S. L., Moland, C. L., et al. (2000). The estrogen receptor relative binding affinities of 188 natural and xenochemicals: structural diversity of ligands. Toxicol. Sci. 54, 138-153. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/54.1.138
2. Breiman, L. (2001). Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45, 5-32. doi: 10.1023/A:1010933404324
3. Committee on Toxicity Testing Assessment of Environmental Agents N.R.C. (2007). Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Cruz-Monteagudo, M., Medina-Franco, J., Pérez-Castillo, Y., Nicolotti, O., Cordeiro, M. N., and Borges, F. (2014). Activity cliffs in drug discovery: Dr Jekyll or Mr Hyde? Drug Discov. Today 19, 1069-1080. doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2014.02.003
4. Dalgaard, P. (2008). Introductory Statistics with R. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.
5. Deng, C. L., Chen, X. X., Lu, H. Y., Yang, X., Luan, F., and Cordeiro, M. (2014). Prediction of the Estrogen Receptor Binding Affinity for both hER(alpha) and hER(beta) by QSAR Approaches. Lett. Drug Des. Disc. 11, 265-278. doi: 10.2174/15701808113109990067
6. Ding, D., Xu, L., Fang, H., Hong, H., Perkins, R., Harris, S., et al. (2010). The EDKB: an established knowledge base for endocrine disrupting chemicals. BMC Bioinformatics 11(Suppl 6):S5. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-11-S6-S5
7. Golbraikh, A., Shen, M., Xiao, Z., Xiao, Y. D., Lee, K. H., and Tropsha, A. (2003). Rational selection of training and test sets for the development of validated QSAR models. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 17, 241-253. doi: 10.1023/A:1025386326946
8. Hall, J. M., Couse, J. F., and Korach, K. S. (2001). The multifaceted mechanisms of estradiol and estrogen receptor signaling. J. Biol. Chem. 276, 36869-36872. doi: 10.1074/jbc.r100029200
9. Hong, H., Tong, W., Fang, H., Shi, L., Xie, Q., Wu, J., et al. (2002). Prediction of estrogen receptor binding for 58,000 chemicals using an integrated system of a tree-based model with structural alerts. Environ. Health Perspect. 110, 29-36. doi: 10.1289/ehp.0211029
10. Johnson, S. R. (2008). The trouble with QSAR (or how I learned to stop worrying and embrace fallacy). J. Chem. Inf. Model. 48, 25-26. doi: 10.1021/ci700332k
11. Kim, M., Huang, R., Sedykh, A., Zhang, J., Xia, M., and Zhu, H. (2016). Mechanism profiling of hepatotoxicity caused by oxidative stress using the antioxidant response element reporter gene assay models and big data. Environ. Health Perspect. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1509763.
12. Kim, M. T., Sedykh, A., Chakravarti, S. K., Saiakhov, R. D., and Zhu, H. (2014). Critical evaluation of human oral bioavailability for pharmaceutical drugs by using various cheminformatics approaches. Pharm. Res. 31, 1002-1014. doi: 10.1007/s11095-013-1222-1
13. Li, J., and Gramatica, P. (2010). The importance of molecular structures, endpoints' values, and predictivity parameters in QSAR research: QSAR analysis of a series of estrogen receptor binders. Mol. Divers. 14, 687-696. doi: 10.1007/s11030-009-9212-2
14. Liu, H., Papa, E., and Gramatica, P. (2008). Evaluation and QSAR modeling on multiple endpoints of estrogen activity based on different bioassays. Chemosphere 70, 1889-1897. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2007.07.071
15. Lo Piparo, E., and Worth, A. (2010). Review of QSAR Models and Software Tools for Predicting Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity. Luxemborg: Publications Office of the European Union. doi: 10.2788/9628
16. Low, Y., Sedykh, A., Fourches, D., Golbraikh, A., Whelan, M., Rusyn, I., et al. (2013). Integrative chemical-biological read-across approach for chemical hazard classification. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 26, 1199-1208. doi: 10.1021/tx400110f
17. Maggiora, G. M. (2006). On outliers and activity cliffs-why QSAR often disappoints. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46, 1535-1535. doi: 10.1021/ci060117s
18. Métivier, R., Penot, G., Hübner, M. R., Reid, G., Brand, H., Kos, M., et al. (2003). Estrogen receptor-alpha directs ordered, cyclical, and combinatorial recruitment of cofactors on a natural target promoter. Cell 115, 751-763. doi: 10.1016/S0092-8674(03)00934-6
19. Mitchell, J. B. O. (2014). Machine learning methods in chemoinformatics. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Mol. Sci. 4, 468-481. doi: 10.1002/wcms.1183
20. Mueller, S. O., and Korach, K. S. (2001). Estrogen receptors and endocrine diseases: lessons from estrogen receptor knockout mice. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 1, 613-619. doi: 10.1016/S1471-4892(01)00105-9
21. National Center for Biotechnology Information (2015). PubChem BioAssay Database; AID=743077. (Accessed September 15, 2015).
22. Ng, H. W., Luo, H., Ye, H., Ge, W., Tong, W., Hong, H., et al. (2015). Development and validation of decision forest model for estrogen receptor binding prediction of chemicals using large data sets. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 28, 2343-2351. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.5b00358
23. Patlewicz, G., Ball, N., Becker, R. A., Booth, E. D., Cronin, M. T. D., Kroese, D., et al. (2014). Read-across approaches-Misconceptions, promises and challenges ahead. Arch. Med. Vet. 46, 387-396. doi: 10.14573/altex.1410071
24. Purcell, D. J., Jeong, K. W., Bittencourt, D., Gerke, D. S., and Stallcup, M. R. (2011). A distinct mechanism for coactivator versus corepressor function by histone methyltransferase G9a in transcriptional regulation. J. Biol. Chem. 286, 41963-41971. doi: 10.1074/jbc.m111.298463
25. Schug, T. T., Janesick, A., Blumberg, B., and Heindel, J. J. (2011). Endocrine disrupting chemicals and disease susceptibility. J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol. 127, 204-215. doi: 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2011.08.007
26. Scior, T., Medina-Franco, J., Do, Q. T., Martínez-Mayorga, K., Rojas, J., and Bernard, P. (2009). How to recognize and workaround pitfalls in QSAR studies: a critical review. Curr. Med. Chem. 16, 4297-4313. doi: 10.2174/092986709789578213
27. Sedykh, A., Zhu, H., Tang, H., Zhang, L., Richard, A., Rusyn, I., et al. (2011). Use of in vitro HTS-derived concentration-response data as biological descriptors improves the accuracy of QSAR models of in vivo toxicity. Environ. Health Perspect. 119, 364-370. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1002476
28. Serafimova, R., Todorov, M., Nedelcheva, D., Pavlov, T., Mekenyan, O., Akahori, Y., et al. (2007). QSAR and mechanistic interpretation of estrogen receptor binding. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 18, 389-421. doi: 10.1080/10629360601053992
29. Shanle, E. K., and Xu, W. (2011). Endocrine disrupting chemicals targeting estrogen receptor signaling: identification and mechanisms of action. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 24, 6-19. doi: 10.1021/tx100231n
30. Solimeo, R., Kim, M., Zhu, H., Zhang, J., and Sedykh, A. (2012). Predicting chemical ocular toxicity using a combinatorial QSAR approach. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 25, 2763-2769. doi: 10.1021/tx300393v
31. Taha, M. O., Tarairah, M., Zalloum, H., and Abu-Sheikha, G. (2010). Pharmacophore and QSAR modeling of estrogen receptor ß ligands and subsequent validation and in silico search for new hits. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 28, 383-400. doi: 10.1016/j.jmgm.2009.09.005
32. Tropsha, A., and Golbraikh, A. (2007). Predictive QSAR modeling workflow, model applicability domains, and virtual screening. Curr. Pharm. Des. 13, 3494-3504. doi: 10.2174/138161207782794257
33. Tsuchiya, Y., Nakajima, M., and Yokoi, T. (2005). Cytochrome P450-mediated metabolism of estrogens and its regulation in human. Cancer Lett. 227, 115-124. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2004.10.007
34. Vapnik, V. (2000). The Nature of Statistical Learning theory. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.
35. Vedani, A., Dobler, M., and Smieško, M. (2012). VirtualToxLab - A platform for estimating the toxic potential of drugs, chemicals and natural products. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 261, 142-153. doi: 10.1016/j.taap.2012.03.018
36. Walker, T., Grulke, C. M., Tropsha, A., and Pozefsky, D. (2010). Chembench: a cheminformatics workbench. Bioinformatics 26, 3000-3001. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq556
37. Wang, W., Kim, M., Sedykh, A., and Zhu, H. (2015). Developing enhanced blood-brain barrier permeability models: integrating external bio-assay data in QSAR modeling. Pharm. Res. 32, 3055-3065. doi: 10.1007/s11095-015-1687-1
38. Willett, P. (2006). Similarity-based virtual screening using 2D fingerprints. Drug Discov. Today 11, 1046-1053. doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2006.10.005
39. Zang, Q., Rotroff, D. M., and Judson, R. S. (2013). Binary classification of a large collection of environmental chemicals from estrogen receptor assays by quantitative structure-activity relationship and machine learning methods. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 53, 3244-3261. doi: 10.1021/ci400527b
40. Zhang, J., Zhu, H., and Hsieh, J. H. (2014). Profiling animal toxicants by automatically mining public bioassay data: a big data approach for computational toxicology. PLoS ONE 9:e99863. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099863
41. Zhang, L., Sedykh, A., Tripathi, A., Zhu, H., Afantitis, A., Mouchlis, V. D., et al. (2013). Identification of putative estrogen receptor-mediated endocrine disrupting chemicals using QSAR- and structure-based virtual screening approaches. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 272, 67-76. doi: 10.1016/j.taap.2013.04.032
42. Zheng, W., and Tropsha, A. (2000). Novel variable selection quantitative structure-property relationship approach based on the k-nearest-neighbor principle. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 40, 185-194. doi: 10.1021/ci980033m
43. Zhu, H., Martin, T. M., Ye, L., Sedykh, A., Young, D. M., and Tropsha, A. (2009). Quantitative structure-activity relationship modeling of rat acute toxicity by oral exposure. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 22, 1913-1921. doi: 10.1021/tx900189p
44. Zhu, H., Rusyn, I., Richard, A., and Tropsha, A. (2008b). Use of cell viability assay data improves the prediction accuracy of conventional quantitative structure-activity relationship models of animal carcinogenicity. Environ. Health Perspect. 116, 506-513. doi: 10.1289/ehp.10573
45. Zhu, H., Tropsha, A., Fourches, D., Varnek, A., Papa, E., Gramatical, P., et al. (2008a). Combinatorial QSAR modeling of chemical toxicants tested against Tetrahymena pyriformis. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 48, 766-784. doi: 10.1021/ci700443v
46. Zhu, H., Zhang, J., Kim, M. T., Boison, A., Sedykh, A., and Moran, K. (2014). Big data in chemical toxicity research: the use of high-throughput screening assays to identify potential toxicants. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 27, 1643-1651. doi: 10.1021/tx500145h