Toward a unifying strategy for the structure-based prediction of toxicological endpoints
- 565 Downloads
Most computational methods used for the prediction of toxicity endpoints are based on the assumption that similar compounds have similar biological properties. This principle can be exploited using computational methods like read across or quantitative structure–activity relationships. However, there is no general agreement about which method is the most appropriate for quantifying compound similarity neither for exploiting the similarity principle in order to obtain reliable estimations of the compound properties. Moreover, optimal similarity metrics and modeling methods might depend on the characteristics of the endpoints and training series used in each case. This study describes a comparative analysis of the predictive performance of diverse similarity metrics and modeling methods in toxicological applications. A collection of two quantitative (n = 660, n = 1114) and three qualitative (n = 447, n = 905, n = 1220) datasets representing very different endpoints of interest in drug safety evaluation and rigorous methods were used to estimate the external predictive ability in each case. The results confirm that no single approach produces the best results in all instances, and the best predictions were obtained using different tools in different situations. The trends observed in this study were exploited to propose a unifying strategy allowing the use of the most suitable method for every compound. A comparison of the quality of the predictions obtained by the unifying strategy with those obtained by standard prediction methods confirmed the usefulness of the proposed approach.
KeywordsIn silico toxicity prediction QSAR QSPR Read across Chemical domain
The research leading to these results has received support from the Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking, under Grant Agreement No. 115002 (eTOX), resources of which are composed of a financial contribution from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) and EFPIA companies’ in kind contributions.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Cherkasov A, Muratov EN, Fourches D et al (2014) QSAR modeling: where have you been? where are you going to? J Med Chem 57:4977–5010. doi: 10.1021/jm4004285
- Cortes C, Vapnik V (1995) Support-vector networks. Mach Learn 20:273–297Google Scholar
- Durán Á, Pastor M (2010) Pentacle. http://www.moldiscovery.com/software/pentacle
- EC (2015) REACH. European Community Regulation on chemicals and their safe use. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_intro.htm
- Kramer NI, Di Consiglio E, Blaauboer BJ, Testai E (2015) Biokinetics in repeated-dosing in vitro drug toxicity studies. Toxicol, VitrGoogle Scholar
- Kubinyi H (1998) Similarity and dissimilarity: a medicinal chemist’s view. Perspect Drug Discov Des 9-11:225–252. doi: 10.1023/A:1027221424359
- Landrum G RDKit: open-source cheminformatics. http://www.rdkit.org
- Liaw A, Wiener M (2002) Classification and regression by randomForest. R News 2:18–22Google Scholar
- MACCS Structural Keys (2011) Accelrys, San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
- Medina-Franco JL (2012) Scanning structure−activity relationships with structure−activity similarity and related maps: from consensus activity cliffs to selectivity switches. J Chem Inf Model 52:2485–2493. doi:10.1021/ci300362xGoogle Scholar
- Meyer D, Dimitriadou E, Hornik K et al (2014) e1071: Misc Functions of the Department of Statistics (e1071), TU WienGoogle Scholar
- NRC (2007) Toxicity testing in the 21st century: a vision and a strategy. The National Academies Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar