Abstract
Continuous flow of toxic and persistent compounds to the environment is a global health issue. However, assessing the toxic effects of compounds is a difficult task, because some compounds may possess a combined effect during exposure. Moreover, toxicity evaluation by animal testing is long and costly. Alternatively, modeling of quantitative structure–activity relationships (QSAR) can be used to predict the acute toxicity of molecules. Properties of toxic compounds are computed and correlated using softwares and databases. Recently, this method has found potential applications for the risk assessment of several untested, toxic chemicals. This review focuses on quantitative structure–activity relationship modeling methods for the analysis of toxic compounds. Computational tool and databases are presented.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Awaleh MO, Soubaneh YD (2014) Waste water treatment in chemical industries: the concept and current technologies. Hydrol Current Res 5(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.4172/2157-7587.1000164
Basant N, Gupta S, Singh KP (2016) In silico prediction of the developmental toxicity of diverse organic chemicals in rodents for regulatory purposes. Toxicol Res 5(3):773–787. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5TX00493D
Battaglin WA, Kolpin DW (2009) Contaminants of emerging concern: introduction to a featured collection1. J Am Water Resour Assoc 45(1):1–3. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2008.00299.x
Boobis A, Gundert-Remy U, Kremers P, Macheras P, Pelkonen O (2002) In silico prediction of ADME and pharmacokinetics: report of an expert meeting organised by COST B15. Eur J Pharm Sci 17(4):183–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0928-0987(02)00185-9
Chen J, Harner T, Ding G, Quan X, Schramm KW, Kettrup A (2004) Universal predictive models on octanol–air partition coefficients at different temperatures for persistent organic pollutants. Environ Toxicol Chem 23(10):2309–2317. https://doi.org/10.1897/03-341
Chen L, Lu J, Zhang J, Feng KR, Zheng MY, Cai YD (2013) Predicting chemical toxicity effects based on chemical–chemical interactions. PLoS ONE 8(2):e56517. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056517
Cronin MT, Jaworska JS, Walker JD, Comber MH, Watts CD, Worth AP (2003) Use of QSARs in international decision-making frameworks to predict health effects of chemical substances. Environ Health Perspect 111(10):1391. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.5760
Doke SK, Dhawale SC (2015) Alternatives to animal testing: a review. Saudi Pharm. J. 23(3):223–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsps.2013.11.002
Gonella Diaza R, Manganelli S, Esposito A, Roncaglioni A, Manganaro A, Benfenati E (2015) Comparison of in silico tools for evaluating rat oral acute toxicity. SAR QSAR Environ Res 26(1):1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062936X.2014.977819
Halling-Sørensen B, Nielsen SN, Lanzky PF, Ingerslev F, Lützhøft HH, Jørgensen SE (1998) Occurrence, fate and effects of pharmaceutical substances in the environment—a review. Chemosphere 36(2):357–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-6535(97)00354-8
Hisaki T, Née Kaneko MA, Yamaguchi M, Sasa H, Kouzuki H (2015) Development of QSAR models using artificial neural network analysis for risk assessment of repeated-dose, reproductive, and developmental toxicities of cosmetic ingredients. J Toxicol Sci 40(2):163–180. https://doi.org/10.2131/jts.40.163
Hulzebos E, Walker JD, Gerner I, Schlegel K (2005) Use of structural alerts to develop rules for identifying chemical substances with skin irritation or skin corrosion potential. QSAR Comb Sci 24(3):332–342. https://doi.org/10.1002/qsar.200430905
Kruhlak NL, Contrera JF, Benz RD, Matthews EJ (2007) Progress in QSAR toxicity screening of pharmaceutical impurities and other FDA regulated products. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 59(1):43–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2006.10.008
Lapenna S, Gatnik MF, Worth AP (2010) Review of QSA R models and software tools for predicting acute and chronic systemic toxicity. Publ Off Eur Union, Luxembourg. https://doi.org/10.2788/60766
Li X, Chen J, Zhang L, Qiao X, Huang L (2006) The fragment constant method for predicting octanol–air partition coefficients of persistent organic pollutants at different temperatures. J Phys Chem Ref Data 35(3):1365–1384. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2203356
Li J, Lu Y, Shi Y, Wang T, Wang G, Luo W, Yan F (2011) Environmental pollution by persistent toxic substances and health risk in an industrial area of China. J Environ Sci 23(8):1359–1367. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(10)60554-2
Liao C, Sitzmann M, Pugliese A, Nicklaus MC (2011) Software and resources for computational medicinal chemistry. Future Med Chem 3(8):1057–1085. https://doi.org/10.4155/fmc.11.63
Luo J, Hu J, Wei X, Fu L, Li L (2015) Dehalogenation of persistent halogenated organic compounds: a review of computational studies and quantitative structure–property relationships. Chemosphere 131:17–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.02.013
Pavan M, Netzeva TI, Worth AP (2008) Review of literature-based quantitative structure–activity relationship models for bioconcentration. QSAR Comb Sci 27(1):21–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/qsar.200710102
Perocco P, Bolognesi S, Alberghini W (1983) Toxic activity of seventeen industrial solvents and halogenated compounds on human lymphocytes cultured in vitro. Toxicol Lett 16(1):69–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4274(83)90012-7
Pirhadi S, Sunseri J, Koes DR (2016) Open source molecular modeling. J Mol Graphics Modell 69:127–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmgm.2016.07.008
Raies AB, Vladimir BB (2016) In silico toxicology: computational methods for the prediction of chemical toxicity. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Comput Mol Sci 6(2):147–172. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcms.1240
Raunio H (2011) In silico toxicology–non-testing methods. Front Pharmacol 2:33. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2011.00033
Roberts DW (1991) QSAR issues in aquatic toxicity of surfactants. Sci Total Environ 109:557–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-9697(91)90209-W
Satpathy R (2018) Quantitative structure–activity modelling of toxic compounds. In: Nanotechnology, food security and water treatment. Springer, Cham. pp 313–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70166-0_10
Satpathy R, Konkimalla VB, Ratha J (2015a) Application of bioinformatics tools and databases in microbial dehalogenation research: a review. Appl Biochem Microbiol 51(1):11–20. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0003683815010147
Satpathy R, Konkimalla VB, Ratha J (2015b) In silico based prediction and correlation of dehalogenase enzyme activity of some haloalkane compounds by quantitative structure biodegradation relationship (QSBR) analysis. Curr. Environ. Eng. 2(2):122–126. https://doi.org/10.2174/221271780202160122192808
Settivari RS, Ball N, Murphy L, Rasoulpour R, Boverhof DR, Carney EW (2015) Predicting the future: opportunities and challenges for the chemical industry to apply 21st-century toxicity testing. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci 54(2):214–223
Tunkel J, Mayo K, Austin C, Hickerson A, Howard P (2005) Practical considerations on the use of predictive models for regulatory purposes. Environ Sci Technol 39(7):2188–2199. https://doi.org/10.1021/es049220t
Worth AP, Lapenna S, Serafimova R (2013) QSAR and metabolic assessment tools in the assessment of genotoxicity. Comput Toxic II:125–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-62703-059-5_6
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Satpathy, R. Quantitative structure–activity relationship methods for the prediction of the toxicity of pollutants. Environ Chem Lett 17, 123–128 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-018-0780-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-018-0780-1