Chronic oral LOAEL prediction by using a commercially available computational QSAR tool
- 274 Downloads
In the absence of toxicological data, as it is the case for, e.g. naturally occurring substances and chemicals underlying the new European chemicals legislation, distinct tools to derive quantitative toxicological data are of particular interest with regard to risk assessment of substances humans are repeatedly exposed. The software package TOPKAT 6.2 version 3.1 (Accelrys Inc., San Diego, USA) is a commercially available tool containing a (sub)chronic oral low observed adverse level (LOAEL) prediction model constructed by using structures and LOAELs of 393 chemicals contained in publicly accessible data banks. Applying this tool, we tested the prediction of (sub)chronic LOAELS for 807 industrial chemicals (purity ≥ 95%) by comparing the predicted values with their experimental LOAELs derived from repeated dose animal experiments performed according to standard guidelines. For 460 chemicals, a prediction could not be performed because of exclusion criteria defined in the system. They had either a lower LD50 as the predicted LOAEL (n = 214) were outside the optimum prediction space which defines the domain of applicability (n = 175), were used in the training data set (n = 155), were not known to the system (n = 50) or fulfilled other criteria for data exclusion (n = 21). Of the remaining 347 substances, 34 to 62% LOAELs were predicted within a range of 1/5 and fivefold of the experimental LOAEL (factor 5), whereas 84 and 99% of the predicted LOAELs were within a range of 1/100 and 100-fold indicating high uncertainty of the prediction. Hence, a refined prediction tool is highly warranted. However, the uncertainty of the prediction could be accounted for if an additional factor of 100 is applied in addition to standard default adjustment factor of 100 which would result in an adjustment factor of 10,000 to be able to use a predicted NOAEL for risk assessment..
KeywordsPrediction of LOAELs Intelligent testing strategy REACH Naturally occurring substances Repeated exposure
The work was supported by a grant of the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (UFO-Plan 202 65 423). The encouragement and support of the project by Prof. Dr. Uwe Lahl and Prof. Dr. Ulrich Schlottmann is gratefully acknowledged.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that they do not have conflict of interest related to the topic of the paper.
- ECETOC (1995) Assessment factors in human health risk assessment. In: Technical reports European Chemical Industry Ecology and Toxicology Centre. Technical Report 68, ECETOC, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
- ECETOC (1998) QSARs in the assessment of the environmental fate and effects of chemicals. In: Technical reports European Chemical Industry Ecology and Toxicology Centre. Technical Report, 74. ECETOC, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
- ECETOC (2003) QSARs, evaluation of the commercially available software for human health and environment endpoints with respect to chemical management applications. Technical Report 89, ECETOC, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
- ECHA (2008) Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment. Chapter R.6: QSAR and grouping of chemicals. ECHA, Helsinki, FinlandGoogle Scholar
- Grindon Ch, Combes R, Cronin MTD, Roberts DW, Garrod J (2006) A review of the status of alternative approaches to animal testing and the development of integrated testing strategies for assessing the toxicity of chemical under REACH—a summary of a DEFRA-funded project conducted by Liverpool John Moors University and FRAME. ATLA 34(Suppl 1):149–158PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hall LH, Mohney B, Kier LB (1991) The electro topological state—structure information at the atomic level for molecular graphs. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 31:76–82Google Scholar
- Kalberlah F, Schneider K (1998) Examination of the data as the basis for the quantification of extrapolation factors. Final report of the research project No. 116 06 113 of the Federal Environmental Agency 797Google Scholar
- Mumtaz MM, Knauf LA, Reisman DJ, Peirano WB, DeRosa CT, Gombar VK, Enslein K, Carter JR, Blake BW, Huque KI (1995) Assessment of effect levels of chemicals from quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models. I. Chronic lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL). Toxicol Lett 79:131–143CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- OECD (1995) Test guideline 407. Repeated dose 28-day oral toxicity study in Rodents. In: OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicalsGoogle Scholar
- OECD (1998) Test guideline 408. Repeated dose 90-day oral toxicity study in Rodents. In: OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicalsGoogle Scholar
- OECD (2006) Report on the regulatory uses and applications in OECD member countries of (Q)SAR models in the assessment of new and existing chemicals. Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development. Paris, France. http://www.oecd.org/document/30/0,2340,en_2649_34365_1916638_1_1_1_1,00.html
- TOPKAT User Guide 6.2 (2004) Accelrys Inc., Burlington, MAGoogle Scholar
- Weininger D (1988) Smiles, a chemical language and information-system.1. Introduction to methodology and encoding rules. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 28:31–36Google Scholar
- Worth AP, Bassan A, Gallegos A, Netzeva TI, Patlewicz G, Pavan M, Tsakovska I, Vracko M (2005) The characterisation of (Q) SARs: preliminary guidance. JRC report EUR 21866 EN. European Chemicals Bureau, Joint Research Center, European Commission, Ispra, Italy. http://ecb.jrc.it/documents/QSAR/QSAR_characteisation_EUR_21866_EN.pdf
- Worth AP, Bassan A, de Bruijn J, Gallegos Saliner A, Netzeva TI, Patlewicz G, Pavan M, Tsakovska I, Eisenreich S (2006) The role of the European Chemicals Bureau in promoting the regulatory use of (Q) SAR methods. SAR QSAR Environ Res 18:111–125Google Scholar