Carcinogenesis predictions using ILP

  • A. Srinivasan
  • R. D. King
  • S. H. Muggleton
  • M. J. E. Sternberg
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1297)

Abstract

Obtaining accurate structural alerts for the causes of chemical cancers is a problem of great scientific and humanitarian value. This paper follows up on earlier research that demonstrated the use of Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) for predictions for the related problem of mutagenic activity amongst nitroaromatic molecules. Here we are concerned with predicting carcinogenic activity in rodent bioassays using data from the U.S. National Toxicology Program conducted by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. The 330 chemicals used here are significantly more diverse than the previous study, and form the basis for obtaining Structure-Activity Relationships (SARs) relating molecular structure to cancerous activity in rodents. We describe the use of the ILP system Progol to obtain SARs from this data. The rules obtained from Progol are comparable in accuracy to those from expert chemists, and more accurate than most state-of-the-art toxicity prediction methods. The rules can also be interpreted to give clues about the biological and chemical mechanisms of carcinogenesis, and make use of those learnt by Progol for mutagenesis. Finally, we present details of, and predictions for, an ongoing international blind trial aimed specifically at comparing prediction methods. This trial provides ILP algorithms an opportunity to participate at the leading-edge of scientific discovery.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J. Ashby and R.W. Tennant. Definitive relationships among chemical structure, carcinogenicity and mutagenicity for 301 chemicals tested by the U.S. NTP. Mutation Research, 257:229–306, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Bahler and D. Bristol. The induction of rules for predicting chemical carcinogenesis. In Proceedings of the.26th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Los Alamitos, 1993. IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. Bahler and D. Bristol. The induction of rules for predicting chemical carcinogenesis in rodents. In L. Hunter, D. Searls, and J. Shavlick, editors, Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology-93, pages 29–37. MA:AAI/MIT, Cambridge, MA, 1993.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. Bakale and R.D. McCreary. Prospective ke screening of potential carcinogens being tested in rodent bioassays by the US National Toxicology Program. Mutagenesis, 7:91–94, 1992.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Benigni. Predicting chemical carcinogenesis in rodents: the state of the art in the light of a comparative exercise. Mutation Research, 334:103–113, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D.W. Bristol, J.T. Wachsman, and A. Greenwell.The NIEHS Predictive-Toxicology Evaluation Project. Environmental Health Perspectives, pages 1001–1010, 1996. Supplement 3.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A.K. Debnath, R.L Lopez de Compadre, G. Debnath, A.J. Schusterman, and C. Hansch. Structure-Activity Relationship of Mutagenic Aromatic and Heteroaromatic Nitro compounds. Correlation with molecular orbital energies and hydrophobicity. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 34(2):786–797, 1991.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    K. Enslein, B.W. Blake, and H.H. Borgstedt. Predicition of probability of carcinogenecity for a set of ntp bioassays. Mutagenesis, 5:305–306, 1990.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J.E. Huff, J.K. Haseman, and D.P. Rall. Scientific concepts, value and significance of chemical carcinogenesis studies. Ann Rev Pharmacol Toxicol, 31:621–652, 1991.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    T.D. Jones and C.E. Easterly. On the rodent bioassays currently being conducted on 44 chemicals: a RASH analysis to predict test results from the National Toxicology Program. Mutagenesis, 6:507–514, 1991.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R.D. King, S. Muggleton, A.Srinivasan, C. Feng, R.A. Lewis, and M.J.E. Sternberg. Drug design using inductive logic programming. In Proceedings of the.26th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Los Alamitos, 1993. IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R.D. King, S.H. Muggleton, A. Srinivasan, and M.J.E. Sternberg.Structureactivity relationships derived by machine learning: The use of atoms and their bond connectivities to predict mutagenicity by inductive logic programming. Proc. of the National Academy of Sciences, 93:438–442, 1996.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R.D. King, S.H. Muggleton, and M.J.E. Sternberg. Drug design by machine learning: The use of inductive logic programming to model the structure-activity relationships of trimethoprim analogues binding to dihydrofolate reductase. Proc. of the National Academy of Sciences, 89(23):11322–11326, 1992.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    R.D. King and A. Srinivasan. Prediction of rodent carcinogenicity bioassays from molecular structure using inductive logic programming. Environmental Health Perspectives, 104(5):1031–1040, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    H. Kubini. QSAR: Hansch Analysis and Related Approaches. VCH, New York, 1993.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D.F.V. Lewis, C. Ionnides, and D.V. Parke. A prospective toxicity evaluation (COMPACT) on 40 chemicals currently being tested by the National Toxicology Program. Mutagenesis, 5:433–436, 1990.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    S. Muggleton. Inverse Entailment and Progol. New Gen. Comput., 13:245–286, 1995.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    H.S. Rosenkranz and G. Klopman. Predicition of the carcinogenecity in rodents of chemicals currently being tested by the US National Toxicology Program. Mutagenesis, 5:425–432, 1990.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    D.M. Sanderson and C.G. Earnshaw. Computer prediction of possible toxic action from chemical structure. Human Exp Toxicol, 10:261–273, 1991.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    A. Srinivasan, Ross D. King, and Stephen Muggleton.The role of background knowledge: using a problem from chemistry to examine the performance of an ILP program. Under review (available from the first author), 1996.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. Srinivasan, S.H. Muggleton, R.D. King, and M.J.E. Sternberg. Mutagenesis: ILP experiments in a non-determinate biological domain. In S. Wrobel, editor, Proceedings of the Fourth International Inductive Logic Programming Workshop. Gesellschaft fur Mathematik and Datenverarbeitung MBH, 1994. GMD-Studien Nr 237.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    A. Srinivasan, S.H. Muggleton, R.D. King, and M.J.E. Sternberg. Theories for mutagenicity: a study of first-order and feature based induction. Artificial Intelligence, 85:277–299, 1996.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    R.W. Tennant, J. Spalding, S. Stasiewicz, and J. Ashby. Prediction of the outcome of rodent carcinogenicity bioassays currently being conducted on 44 chemicals by the National Toxicology Program. Mutagenesis, 5:3–14, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Srinivasan
    • 1
  • R. D. King
    • 2
  • S. H. Muggleton
    • 1
  • M. J. E. Sternberg
    • 3
  1. 1.Oxford University Comp. Lab.OxfordUK
  2. 2.Dept. of Comp. Sc.University of Wales AberystwythCeredigionUK
  3. 3.Biomolecular Modelling Lab., ICRFLondonUK

Personalised recommendations