Advertisement

Archives of Toxicology

, Volume 84, Issue 9, pp 681–688 | Cite as

Chronic oral LOAEL prediction by using a commercially available computational QSAR tool

  • Bernd Rupp
  • Klaus E. Appel
  • Ursula Gundert-RemyEmail author
Regulatory Toxicology

Abstract

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..

Keywords

Prediction of LOAELs Intelligent testing strategy REACH Naturally occurring substances Repeated exposure 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

References

  1. Bacilieri M, Moro S (2006) Ligand-based drug design methodologies in drug discovery process: an overview. Curr Drug Discov Technol 3:155–165CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Cronin MT, Dearden JC, Walker JD, Worth AP (2003) Quantitative structure-activity relationships for human health effects: commonalities with other endpoints. Environ Toxicol Chem 22:1829–1843CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Dearden J (2003) In silico prediction of drug toxicity. J Comput Aided Mol Des 17:119–127CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Debnath AK (2005) Application of 3D-QSAR techniques in anti-HIV-1 drug design—an overview. Curr Pharm Des 11:3091–3110CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. ECHA (2008) Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment. Chapter R.6: QSAR and grouping of chemicals. ECHA, Helsinki, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  9. Enslein K, Gombar VK, Blake BW, Maibach HI, Hostynek JJ, Sigman CC, Bagheri D (1997) A quantitative structure-toxicity relationships model for the dermal sensitization guinea pig maximization assay. Food Chem Toxicol 35:1091–1098CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Eriksson L, Jaworska JS, Worth AP, Cronin MTD, McDowell RM, Gramatica P (2003) Methods for reliability, uncertainty assessment, and applicability evaluations of classification and regression based QSARs. Environ Health Perspect 111:1361–1375CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Gerner I, Schlede E (2002) Introduction of in vitro data into local irritation/corrosion testing strategies by means of SAR considerations: assessment of chemicals. Toxicol Lett 127:169–175CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Gerner I, Barratt MD, Zinke S, Schlegel K, Schlede E (2004) Development and prevalidation of a list of structure-activity relationship rules to be used in expert systems for prediction of the skin-sensitising properties of chemicals. Altern Lab Anim 32:487–509PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Gombar VK (1999) Reliable assessment of logP of compounds of pharmaceutical relevance. SAR QSAR Environ Res 10:371–380CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gombar VK, Enslein K (1996) Assessment of n-octanol/water partition coefficient: when is the assessment reliable? J Chem Inf Comput Sci 36:1127–1134PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Gombar VK, Enslein K, Blake BW (1995) Assessment of developmental toxicity potential of chemicals by quantitative structure-toxicity relationship models. Chemosphere 31:2499–2510CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Guner OF (2002) History and evolution of the pharmacophore concept in computer-aided drug design. Curr Top Med Chem 2:1321–1332CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Hartung T, Rovida C (2009) Chemical regulators have overreached. Nature 460:1080–1081CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Höfer T, Gerner I, Gundert-Remy U, Liebsch M, Schulte A, Spielmann H, Vogel R, Wettig K (2004) Animal testing and alternative approaches for the human health risk assessment under the proposed new European chemicals regulation. Arch Toxicol 78:549–564CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Jaworska JS, Comber M, Auer C, Van Leeuwen CJ (2003) Summary of a workshop on regulatory acceptance of (Q)SARs for human health and environmental endpoints. Environ Health Perspect 111:1358–1360CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Mazzatorta P, Estevez MD, Coulet M, Schilter B (2008) Modeling oral rat chronic toxicity. J Chem Inf Model 48:1949–1954CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. McGrath J, Parkerton T, Hellweger F, Di Toro D (2005) Validation of the narcosis target lipid model for petroleum products: gasoline as a case study. Environ Tox Chem 24:2382–2394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moudgal CJ, Venkatapathy R, Choudhury H, Bruce RM, Lipscomb JC (2003) Application of QSTRs in the selection of a surrogate toxicity value for a chemical of concern. Environ Sci Technol 37:5228–5235CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Munroe IC, Ford RA, Kennepohl E, Sprenger JG (1996) Correlation of structural class with no-observed-effect levels: proposal for establishing threshold of concerns. Food Chem Toxicol 34:829–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. OECD (1995) Test guideline 407. Repeated dose 28-day oral toxicity study in Rodents. In: OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicalsGoogle Scholar
  29. OECD (1998) Test guideline 408. Repeated dose 90-day oral toxicity study in Rodents. In: OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicalsGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Ooms F (2000) Molecular modeling and computer aided drug design. Examples of their applications in medicinal chemistry. Curr Med Chem 7:141–158PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Tilaoui L, Schilter B, Tran L-A, Mazzatorta P, Grigorov M (2007) Integrated computational methods for prediction of lowest observable adverse effect level of food-borne molecules. QSAR Comb Sci 26:102–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. TOPKAT User Guide 6.2 (2004) Accelrys Inc., Burlington, MAGoogle Scholar
  34. Venkatapathy R, Moudgal CJ, Bruce RM (2004) Assessment of the oral rat chronic lowest observed adverse effect level model in TOPKAT, a QSAR software package for toxicity prediction. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 44:1623–1629PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. Yang GF, Huang X (2006) Development of quantitative structure-activity relationships and its application in rational drug design. Curr Pharm Des 12:4601–4611CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhong S, Macias AT, MacKerell AD Jr (2007) Computational identification of inhibitors of protein-protein interactions. Curr Top Med Chem 7:63–82CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernd Rupp
    • 1
    • 2
  • Klaus E. Appel
    • 1
  • Ursula Gundert-Remy
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Federal Institute for Risk AssessmentBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Leibniz-Institute for Molecular PharmacologyBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Department of ToxicologyInstitute for Clinical Pharmacology and ToxicologyBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations