Abstract
Today the registered chemical structures are about 28 millions, while experimental toxicity data are available for a few hundred thousands of them. Defining properties and effects for all the available chemicals is a huge task due to the cost of the experimentation and to legislative restrictions. Therefore, prediction is the only available solution, but it poses many challenges in terms of accuracy and interpretability. Predictive toxicology systems use statistics as well as methods based on machine learning (ML). While ML has been widely used in the pharmaceutical domain, its use in ecotoxicology is more limited. After reviewing the experiences in quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSARs) for modeling CMR (carcinogenic, mutagenic, reproductive) toxicity and PBT (persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic) chemicals, we look at the advancements of technology in ML. Recently, the investigation of the neural basis for many cognitive functions has provided the tools to create new systems that can think, solve problems, find patterns, and recognize images and texts; these new methods are named deep learning (DL). We modified the most successful DL architecture, implemented Toxception as a tool to generate QSAR models, and tested it in a real case, on a dataset of about 20,000 molecules tested for mutagenicity with the Ames test. The results obtained challenge the current state of the art. In addition, Toxception does not use any chemistry knowledge besides the 2D structures derived from SMILES. We conclude examining advantages, open challenges, and drawbacks of building QSARs with DL.
Key words
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
ToxTree: http://toxtree.sourceforge.net/
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
Rdkit. URL https://bit.ly/2OYLjj9
- 9.
Talos. URL https://bit.ly/2yL9gQJ
References
Judson J, Richard A, Dix DJ (2009) The toxicity data landscape for environmental chemicals. Environ Health Perspect 117(5):685–695
Gini G, Ferrari T, Cattaneo D, Golbamaki N, Manganaro A, Benfenati E (2013) Automatic knowledge extraction from chemical structures: the case of mutagenicity prediction. SAR QSAR Environ Res 24(5):365–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062936X.2013.773376
Collins FS, Gray GM, Bucher J (2008) Transforming environmental health protection. Science 319(5865):906–907. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1154619
Gini G, Katrizky A (eds) (1999) Predictive toxicology of chemicals: experiences and impact of AI tools, papers from the AAAI Spring Symposium on Predictive toxicology SS-99-01. AAAI Press, Menlo Park, 1999
Lo Y-C, Rensi SE, Torng W, Altman RB (2018) Machine learning in chemoinformatics and drug discovery. Drug Discov Today 23(8):1538–1546
Khan PM, Roy K (2018) Current approaches for choosing feature selection and learning algorithms in quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR). Expert Opin Drug Discovery 13(12):1075–1089. https://doi.org/10.1080/17460441.2018.1542428
Devinyak OT, Lesyk RB (2016) 5-Year trends in QSAR and its machine learning methods. Curr Comput Aided Drug Des, Las Vegas, NV, USA. 12(4):265–271
Zhang L, Tan J, Han D, Zhu H (2017) From machine learning to deep learning: progress in machine intelligence for rational drug discovery. Drug Discov Today 22(1):1680–1685
Lee Y, Buchanan BG, Mattison DM, Klopman G, Rosenkranz HS (1995) Learning rules to predict rodent carcinogenicity of non-genotoxic chemicals. Mutat Res 328:127–149
Bradbury SP, Feijtel TCJ, Van Leeuwen CJ (2004) Meeting the scientific needs of ecological risk assessment in a regulatory context. Environ Sci Technol 38(23):463A–470A
Mazzatorta P, Benfenati E, Lorenzini P, Vighi M (2004) QSAR in ecotoxicology: an overview of modern classification techniques. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 44:105–112
Helma C, King RD, Kramer S, Srinivasan A (2001) The predictive toxicology challenge 2000–2001. http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/-rnl/ptc/
Gini G, Benfenati E, Lorenzini M, Bruschi M, Grasso P (1999) Predictive carcinogenicity: a model for aromatic compounds, with nitrogen-containing substituents, based on molecular descriptors using artificial neural networks. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 39:1076–1080. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci9903096
Gini G, Lorenzini M, Benfenati E, Brambilla R, Malve’ L (2001) Mixing a symbolic and a subsymbolic expert to improve carcinogenicity prediction of aromatic compounds. Proceedings of second workshop on Multiple Classifier Systems (MCS 2001), Springer, pp 126–135
Rallo R, Espinosa G, Giralt F (2005) Using an ensemble of neural based QSARs for the prediction of toxicological properties of chemical contaminants. Process Saf Environ Prot 83(B4):387–392
Fjodorova N, Vračko M, Novič M, Roncaglioni A, Benfenati E (2010) New public QSAR model for carcinogenicity. Chem Cent J 4(Suppl 1):S3. https://doi.org/10.1186/1752-153X-4-S1-S3
Golbamaki A, Benfenati E, Golbamaki N, Manganaro A, Merdivan E, Gini G (2016) New clues on carcinogenicity-related substructures derived from mining two large datasets of chemical compounds. J Environ Sci Health C 34(2):97–113
Li N, Qi J, Wang P, Zhang X, Zhang T, Li H (2019, 2019) Quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) study of carcinogenicity of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in atmospheric particulate matter by random forest (RF). Anal Methods. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8AY02720J
Papamokos G, Silins I (2016) Combining QSAR modeling and text-mining techniques to link chemical structures and carcinogenic modes of action. Front Pharmacol. 30 Aug 2016. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2016.00284
Ferrari T, Gini G (2010) An open source multistep model to predict mutagenicity from statistic analysis and relevant structural alerts. Chem Cent J 4(Suppl 1):S2. online http://www.journal.chemistrycentral.com/
Gini G, Franchi AM, Manganaro A, Golbamaki A, Benfenati E (2014) ToxRead: a tool to assist in read across and its use to assess mutagenicity of chemicals, SAR and QSAR in environmental research. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062936X.2014.976267, pp 1–13, online December 2014
Toropov AA, Toropova AP, Martyanov SE, Benfenati E, Gini G, Leszczynska D, Leszczynski J (2011) Comparison of SMILES and molecular graphs as the representation of the molecular structure for QSAR analysis for mutagenic potential of polyaromatic amines. Chemom Intell Lab Syst 109:94–100
Maunz A, Gütlein M, Rautenberg M, Vorgrimmler D, Gebele D, Helma C (2013) Lazar: a modular predictive toxicology framework. Front Pharmacol 4:38. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2013.00038
Zhang Q-Y, Aires-de-Sousa J (2007) Random forest prediction of mutagenicity from empirical physicochemical descriptors. J Chem Inf Model 47(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci050520j
Maran U, Sid S (2003) QSAR Modeling of genotoxicity on non-congeneric sets of organic compounds. Artif Intell Rev 20:13–38
Cronin MTD, Worth AP (2008) (Q)SARs for predicting effects relating to reproductive toxicity. QSAR Comb Sci 27(1):91–100
Cassano A, Manganaro A, Martin T, Young D, Piclin N, Pintore M, Bigoni D, Benfenati E (2010) CAESAR models for developmental toxicity. Chem Cent J 4(Supp 1):S4. http://www.journal.chemistrycentral.com/content/4/S1/S4Cassano
Baker JR, Gamberger D, Mihelcic JR, Sabljic A (2004) Evaluation of artificial intelligence based models for chemical biodegradability prediction. Molecules 9(12):989–1003. https://doi.org/10.3390/91200989
Lombardo A, Pizzo F, Benfenati E, Manganaro A, Ferrari T, Gini G (2016) A new in silico classification model for ready biodegradability, based on molecular fragments. Chemosphere 108(2016):10–16
Miller TH, Gallidabino MD, MacRae JI, Owen SF, Bury NR, Barron LP (2019) Prediction of bioconcentration factors in fish and invertebrates using machine learning. Sci Total Environ 648:80–89
Lombardo A, Roncaglioni A, Boriani E, Milan C, Benfenati E (2010) Assessment and validation of the CAESAR predictive model for bioconcentration factor (BCF) in fish. Chem Cent J 4(Supp1):S1
Valsecchi C, Grisoni F, Consonni V, Ballabio D (2019) Structural alerts for the identification of bioaccumulative compounds. Integr Environ Assess Manag 15(1):19–28
Benfenati E, Roncaglioni A, Petoumenou MI, Cappelli CI, Gini G (2015) Integrating QSAR and read-across for environmental assessment. SAR QSAR Environ Res 26(7–9):605–618
Benfenati E (ed) (2007) Quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR) for pesticide regulatory purposes. Amsterdam Elsevier Science
Gini G, Ferrari T, Lombardo A, Cassano A, Benfenati E (2019) A new QSAR model for acute fish toxicity based on mined structural alerts. J Toxicol Risk Assess 5(1):016. https://doi.org/10.23937/2572-4061.1510016
Gini G, Craciun M, Benfenati E (2004) Combining unsupervised and supervised artificial neural networks to predict aquatic toxicity. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 44(6):1897–1902
Pintore M, Piclin N, Benfenati E, Gini G, Chretien JR (2003) Predicting toxicity against the fathead Minnow by Adaptive Fuzzy Partition. QSAR Comb Sci (Wiley-VCH) 22:210–219
Toropova A, Toropov A, Veselinovic A, Veselinović J, Leszczynska D, Leszczynski J (2016) Monte Carlo based QSAR models for toxicity of organic chemicals to Daphnia magna. Environ Toxicol Chem 35(11):2691–2697
Xu Y, Pei J, Lai L (2017) Deep learning based regression and multi-class models for acute oral toxicity prediction with automatic chemical feature extraction. arXiv:1704.04718v3 [stat.ML]
Sayre R, Grulke C (2018) Universal LD50 predictions using deep learning. ICCVAM – Predictive models for acute oral systemic toxicity, Bethesda, 11–12 Apr 2018
Benfenati E, Mazzatorta P, Neagu CD, Gini G (2002) Combining classifiers of pesticides toxicity through a neuro-fuzzy approach. Proceedings of 3rd international workshop on multiple classifier systems, MCS 2002, Springer, Cagliari, June 2002, pp 293–303
Mazzatorta P, Cronin MTD, Benfenati E (2006) A QSAR study of avian oral toxicity using support vector machines and genetic algorithms. Mol Inform 25(7):616–628
Gini G, Garg T, Stefanelli M (2009) Ensembling regression models to improve their predictivity: a case study in QSAR (Quantitative Structure Activity Relationships) within computational chemometrics. Appl Artif Intell 23:261–281
Szegedy C, Ioffe S, Vanhoucke V, Alemi AA (2017) Inception-v4, inception-resnet and the impact of residual connections on learning. airXiv:1602.07261v2 [cs.CV]
Goh G, Siegel C, Vishnu A, Hodas NO, Baker N (2017) Chemception: a deep neural network with minimal chemistry knowledge matches the performance of expert-developed QSAR/QSPR models. https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.06689
McCulloch WS, Warren S, Pitts W (1943) A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity. B Math Biophy 5(4):115–133. ISSN 1522-9602. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02478259
Werbos PJ (1994) The roots of backpropagation: from ordered derivatives to neural networks and political forecasting. Wiley, New York
Glorot X, Bordes A, Bengio Y (2011) Deep sparse rectifier neural networks. In: Geoffrey G, David D, Miroslav D (eds) Proceedings of the fourteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and statistics, Fort Lauderdale, 11–13 Apr 2011; PMLR Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pp 315–323
Devillers J (ed) (1996) Neural networks in QSAR and drug design. Academic Press, San Diego
O’Shea KT (2015) An introduction to convolutional neural networks. arXiv:1511.08458v2 [cs.NE]
LeCun Y, Bengio Y (1995) Convolutional networks for images, speech, and time series. The handbook of brain theory and neural networks. http://yann.lecun.com/exdb/publis/pdf/lecun-bengio-95a.pdf
Szegedy C, Vanhoucke V, Ioffe S, Shlens J, Wojna Z (2016) Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision. Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, Las Vegas, NV, USA. arXiv:1511.08458 [cs.NE]
Szegedy C, Liu W, Jia Y, Sermanet P, Reed S, Anguelov D, Erhan D, Vanhoucke V, Rabinovich A (2016) Going deeper with convolutions. Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR), Las Vegas, NV, USA. pp 1–9
He K, Zhang X, Ren S, Sun J (2016) Deep residual learning for image recognition. The IEEE conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Las Vegas, NV, USA. pp 770–778
Serre T, Wolf L, Bileschi S, Riesenhuber M, Poggio T (2007) Robust object recognition with cortex-like mechanisms. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 29(3):411–426
Lin M, Chen Q, Yan S (2016) Network in network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.4400, 2013
Ames BN (1984) The detection of environmental mutagens and potential. Cancer 53:2030–2040
Piegorsch W W, Zeiger E (1991) Measuring intra-assay agreement for the Ames salmonella assay. In: Hotorn L (ed), Statistical methods in toxicology, Lecture Notes in Medical Informatics, Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg, pp 35–41
Benfenati E, Golbamaki A, Raitano G, Roncaglioni A, Manganelli S, Lemke F, Norinder U, Lo Piparo E, Honma M, Manganaro A, Gini G (2018) A large comparison of integrated SAR/QSAR models of the Ames test for mutagenicity. SAR QSAR Environ Res 29(8):591–611
Martin T (2016) User’s guide for T.E.S.T. (Toxicity Estimation Software Tool), U.S. EPA/National Risk Management Research Laboratory/Sustainable Technology Division, Cincinnati, OH (2016). Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/documents/600r16058.pdf
Benigni R, Netzeva T, Benfenati E, Bossa C (2007) The expanding role of predictive toxicology: an update on the (Q)SAR models for mutagens and carcinogens. J Environ Sci Health C 25(1):53–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/10590500701201828
Manganaro A, Pizzo F, Lombardo A, Pogliaghi A, Benfenati E (2016) Predicting persistence in the sediment compartment with a new automatic software based on the k-Nearest Neighbor (k-NN) algorithm. Chemosphere 144:1624–1630
Mazzatorta P, Tran LA, Schilter B, Grigorov M (2007) Integration of structure-activity relationship and artificial intelligence systems to improve in silico prediction of Ames test mutagenicity. J Chem Inf Model 47:34–38. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci600411v
Norinder U, Ahlberg E, Carlsson L (2019) Predicting Ames mutagenicity using conformal prediction in the Ames/QSAR International challenge project mutagenesis 34:33–40. https://doi.org/10.1093/mutage/gey038
Weininger M, Weininger A, Weininger JL (1989) Smiles. Algorithm for generation of unique SMILES notation. J Chem Inf Model 29(2):97–101
Benfenati E, Manganaro A, Gini G (2013) VEGA-QSAR: Ai inside a platform for predictive toxicology, PAI@ AI∗ IA, pp 21–28
NIHS. Ames/QSAR international collaborative study. URL https://bit.ly/2z7Rg2g
Corvi R, Madia F (2018) Eurl ECVAM genotoxicity and carcinogenicity consolidated database of Ames positive chemicals. European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC)
Srivastava N, Hinton G, Krizhevsky A, Sutskever I, Salakhutdinov R (2014) Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting. J Mach Learn Res 15:1929–1958
Kingma DP, Lei Ba J (2017) Adam: a method for stochastic optimization, arXiv:1412.6980[cs.LG]
Gal Y, Ghahramani Z (2016) Dropout as a Bayesian approximation: representing model uncertainty in deep learning Bayesian in deep learning. arXiv:1506.02142v6 [stat.ML]
Wolpert D (1996) The lack of a priori distinctions between learning algorithms. Neural Comput 8:1341–1390
Ben-David S, Hribes P, Moran S, Shpilka A, Yehudayoff A (2019) Learnability can be undecidable. Nat Mach Intell 1:121
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature
About this protocol
Cite this protocol
Gini, G., Zanoli, F. (2020). Machine Learning and Deep Learning Methods in Ecotoxicological QSAR Modeling. In: Roy, K. (eds) Ecotoxicological QSARs. Methods in Pharmacology and Toxicology. Humana, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-0150-1_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-0150-1_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Humana, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-0716-0149-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-0716-0150-1
eBook Packages: Springer Protocols