Prediction of harmful human health effects of chemicals from structure

Challenges and Advances in Computational Chemistry and Physics

Volumn 8, Issue , 2010, Pages 305-325

  Cronin, Mark T D ^a  

^a LIVERPOOL JOHN MOORES UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

(Q)SAR; Harmful health effects; In silico toxicology

Indexed keywords

EID: 85073170608     PISSN: 25424491     EISSN: 25424483     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-9783-6_11     Document Type: Chapter

References (61)

1. van Leeuwen CJ, Vermeire T (eds) (2007) Risk assessment of chemicals: An introduction, 2nd edn. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands
2. Hester RE, Harrison RM (eds) (2006) Alternatives to animal testing. RSC Publishing, Cambridge
3. van Leeuwen CJ, Bro-Rasmussen F, Feijtel TCJ et al. (1996) Risk assessment and management of new and existing chemicals. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 2:243–299
4. European Union (2007) Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ L396, 30.12.2006). Off J Eur Union L 136:50
5. Schaafsma G, Kroese ED, Tielemans, ELJP et al. (2009) REACH, non-testing approaches and the urgent need for a change in mind set. Reg Tox Pharm 53:70–80
6. van Leeuwen CJ, Hansen BG, de Bruijn JHM (2007) Management of industrial chemicals in the European Union (REACH). In: Van Leeuwen CJ and Vermeire TG (eds), Risk Assessment of Chemicals An Introduction. 2nd edn, Springer Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 511–551
7. Cronin MTD (2005) Toxicological information for use in predictive modeling: quality, sources and databases. In Helma C (ed) Predictive toxicology. Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 93–133
8. Bassan A, Worth AP (2008) The integrated use of models for the properties and effects of chemicals by means of a structured workflow. QSAR Comb Sci 27:6–20
9. Cronin MTD, Schultz TW (2003) Pitfalls in QSAR. J Mol Struct (Theochem) 622:39–51
10. Dearden JC, Cronin MTD, Kaiser KLE (2009) How not to develop a quantitative structure–activity or structure–property relationship (QSAR/QSPR). SAR QSAR Environ Res 20:241–266
11. Young D, Martin T, Venkatapathy R et al. (2008) Are the chemical structures in your QSAR correct? QSAR Comb Sci 27:1337–1345
12. Klimisch HJ, Andreae E, Tillmann U (1997) A systematic approach for evaluating the quality of experimental and ecotoxicological data. Reg Tox Pharm 25:1–5
13. Cronin MTD, Basketter DA (1994) A multivariate QSAR analysis of a skin sensitization database. SAR QSAR Environ Res 2:159–179
14. Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, Kern PS et al. (2005) Compilation of historical local lymph node data for evaluation of skin sensitization alternative methods. Dermatitis 16:157–202
15. Roberts DW, Patlewicz G, Dimitrov SD et al. (2007) TIMES-SS—A mechanistic evaluation of an external validation study using reaction chemistry principles. Chem Res Toxicol 20:1321–1330
16. Patlewicz G, Aptula AO, Uriarte E et al. (2007) An evaluation of selected global (Q)SARs/expert systems for the prediction of skin sensitisation potential. SAR QSAR Environ Res 18:515–541
17. Patlewicz G, Aptula AO, Roberts DW et al. (2008) A minireview of available skin sensitization (Q)SARs/expert systems. QSAR Comb Sci 27:60–76
18. Roberts DW, Aptula AO, Cronin MTD et al. (2007) Global (Q)SARs for skin sensitisation – assessment against OECD principles. SAR QSAR Environ Res 18:343–365
19. Cronin MTD, Basketter DA (1993). A QSAR evaluation of an existing contact allergy database. In: Wermuth CG (ed) Trends in QSAR and molecular modelling 92. Escom, Leiden, pp. 297–298
20. Payne MP, Walsh PT (1994) Structure–activity relationships for skin sensitization potential: Development of structural alerts for use in knowledge-based toxicity prediction systems. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 34:154–161
21. Barratt MD, Basketter DA, Chamberlain M et al. (1994) An expert system rulebase for identifying contact allergens. Toxicol In Vitro 8:1053–1060
22. Aptula AO, Roberts DW (2006) Mechanistic applicability domains for nonanimal-based prediction of toxicological end points: General principles and application to reactive toxicity. Chem Res Toxicol 19:1097–1105
23. Roberts DW, Aptula AO, Patlewicz G (2007) Electrophilic chemistry related to skin sensitization. Reaction mechanistic applicability domain classification for a published data set of 106 chemicals tested in the mouse local lymph node assay. Chem Res Toxicol 20:44–60
24. Enoch SJ, Madden JC, Cronin MTD (2008) Identification of mechanisms of toxic action for skin sensitisation using a SMARTS pattern based approach. SAR QSAR Environ Res 19:555–578
25. Fedorowicz A, Singh H, Soderholm S et al. (2005) Structure–activity models for contact sensitization. Chem Res Toxicol 18:954–969
26. Li S, Adam Fedorowicz A, Singh H et al. (2005) Application of the random forest method in studies of local lymph node assay based skin sensitization data. J Chem Inf Model 45:952–964
27. Devillers J (2000) A neural network SAR model for allergic contact dermatitis. Toxicol Mech Meth 10:181–193
28. Ren Y, Liu H, Xue C et al. (2006) Classification study of skin sensitizers based on support vector machine and linear discriminant analysis. Anal Chim Acta 572:272–282
29. Basketter D, Darlenski R, Fluhr JW (2008) Skin irritation and sensitization: mechanisms and new approaches for risk assessment. 2. Skin sensitization. Skin Pharmacol Physiol 21:191–202
30. Basketter DA, Roberts DW, Cronin M et al. (1992) The value of the local lymph node assay in quantitative structure activity investigations. Contact Derm 27:137–142
31. Patlewicz G, Roberts DW, Walker JD (2003) QSARs for the skin sensitization potential of aldehydes and related compounds. QSAR Comb Sci 22:196–203
32. Patlewicz GY, Basketter DA, Pease CKS et al. (2004) Further evaluation of quantitative structure– activity relationship models for the prediction of the skin sensitization potency of selected fragrance allergens. Contact Derm 50:91–97
33. Enoch SJ, Cronin MTD, Schultz TW et al. (2008) Quantitative and mechanistic read across for predicting the skin sensitization potential of alkenes acting via Michael addition. Chem Res Toxicol 21:513–520
34. Miller MD, Yourtee DM, Glaros AG et al. (2005) Quantum mechanical structure−activity relationship analyses for skin sensitization. J Chem Inf Model 45:924–929
35. Estrada E, Patlewicz G, Chamberlain M et al. (2003) Computer-aided knowledge generation for understanding skin sensitization mechanisms: The TOPS-MODE approach. Chem Res Toxicol 16:1226–1235
36. Dearden JC, Barratt MD, Benigni R et al. (1997) The development and validation of expert systems for predicting toxicity. Altern Lab Anim 25:223–252
37. Helma C (ed) (2005) Predictive toxicology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL
38. Mohan CG, Gandhi T, Garg D (2007) Computer-assisted methods in chemical toxicity prediction. Mini-Rev Med Chem 7:499–507
39. Muster W, Breidenbach A, Fischer H et al. (2008) Computational toxicology in drug development. Drug Disc Today 13:303–310
40. Nigsch F, Macaluso NJM, Mitchell JBO et al. (2009) Computational toxicology: an overview of the sources of data and of modelling methods. Exp Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 5:1–14
41. Gallegos-Saliner A, Patlewicz G, Worth AP (2008) A review of (Q)SAR models for skin and eye irritation and corrosion. QSAR Comb Sci 27:49–59
42. Cronin MTD, Worth AP (2008) (Q)SARs for predicting effects relating to reproductive toxicity. QSAR Comb Sci 27:91–100
43. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2007) Guidance on grouping of chemicals. OECD Environment Health and Safety Publications Series on Testing and Assessment. No. 80. OECD, Paris, France. ENV/JM/MONO(2007)28 available from www.oecd.org.
44. Cunningham AR, Moss ST, Lype SA et al. (2008) Structure−activity relationship analysis of rat mammary carcinogens. Chem Res Toxicol 21:1970–1982
45. Koleva YK, Madden JC, Cronin MTD (2008) Formation of categories from structure–activity relationships to allow read-across for risk assessment: toxicity of an unsaturated carbonyl compounds. Chem Res Toxicol 21:2300–2312
46. Enoch SJ, Cronin MTD, Hewitt M (2009) Formation of structural categories to allow for read-across for teratogenicity. QSAR Comb Sci 28:696–708
47. Patlewicz G, Jeliazkova N, Gallegos-Saliner A et al. (2008) Toxmatch – A new software tool to aid in the development and evaluation of chemically similar groups. SAR QSAR Environ Res 19: 397–412
48. Gramatica P, Pilutti P, Papa E et al. (2004) Validated QSAR prediction of OH tropospheric degradation of VOCs: splitting into training-test sets and consensus modelling. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 44:1794–1802
49. Hewitt M, Cronin MTD, Madden JC et al. (2007) Consensus QSAR Models: Do the benefits outweigh the complexity? J Chem Inf Model 47:1460–1468
50. Matthews EJ, Kruhlak NL, Benz RD et al. (2008) Combined use of MC4PC, MDL-QSAR, BioEpisteme, Leadscope PDM, and Derek for Windows software to achieve high-performance, high-confidence, mode of action-based predictions of chemical carcinogenesis in rodents. Toxicol Mech Meth 18:189–206
51. Votano JR, Parham M, Hall LH et al. (2004) Three new consensus QSAR models for the prediction of Ames genotoxicity. Mutagenesis 19:365–377
52. Abshear T, Banik GM, D’Souza ML et al. (2006) A model validation and consensus building environment. SAR QSAR Environ Res 17:311–321
53. Grindon C, Combes R, Cronin MTD et al. (2006) Integrated testing strategies for use in the EU REACH system. Altern Lab Anim 34:407–427
54. Combes R, Grindon C, Cronin MTD et al. (2008) Integrated decision-tree testing strategies for acute systemic toxicity and toxicokinetics with respect to the requirements of the EU REACH legislation. Altern Lab Anim 36:45–63
55. Combes R, Grindon C, Cronin MTD et al. (2008) An integrated decision-tree testing strategy for eye irritation with respect to the requirements of the EU REACH legislation. Altern Lab Anim 36:81–92
56. Combes R, Grindon C, Cronin MTD et al. (2008) Integrated decision-tree testing strategies for developmental and reproductive toxicity with respect to the requirements of the EU REACH legislation. Altern Lab Anim 36:65–80
57. Combes R, Grindon C, Cronin MTD et al. (2008) An integrated decision-tree testing strategy for repeat dose toxicity with respect to the requirements of the EU REACH legislation. Altern Lab Anim 36:93–101
58. Grindon C, Combes R, Cronin MTD et al. (2007) Integrated decision-tree testing strategies for skin sensitisation with respect to the requirements of the EU REACH Legislation. Altern Lab Anim 35:683–697
59. Grindon C, Combes R, Cronin MTD et al. (2007) Integrated decision-tree testing strategies for skin corrosion and irritation with respect to the requirements of the EU REACH Legislation. Altern Lab Anim 35:673–682
60. Combes R, Grindon C, Cronin MTD et al. (2007) Proposed integrated decision-tree testing strategies for mutagenicity and carcinogenicity in relation to the EU REACH legislation. Altern Lab Anim 35:267–287
61. European Chemicals Agency (2008) Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment, EChA, Helsinki. Available from http://guidance.echa.europa.eu/docs/guidance: document/information_requirements_en.htm?time=1238407373