Abstract
The present contribution describes how in silico models are applied at different stages of the drug discovery process in the pharmaceutical industry. A thorough description of the most relevant computational methods and tools is given along with an in-depth evaluation of their performance in the context of potential genotoxic impurities assessment.
The challenges of predicting the outcome of highly complex studies are discussed followed by considerations on how novel ways to manage, store, share and analyze data may advance knowledge and facilitate modeling efforts.
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 subscriptionsReferences
Muller L, Alexander B, Christoph F, Wolfgang M, Axel P (2008) Strategies for using computational toxicology methods in pharmaceutical R&D. In: Ekins S (ed) Computational toxicology: risk assessment for pharmaceutical and environmental chemicals. Wiley, Hoboken, NY, pp 545–579
Muster WG et al (2008) Computational toxicology in drug development. Drug Discov Today 13(7–8):303–310
Cases M et al (2014) The eTOX data-sharing project to advance in silico drug-induced toxicity prediction. Int J Mol Sci 15(11):21136–21154
Kavlock R (2009) The future of toxicity testing—the NRC vision and the EPA’s ToxCast program national center for computational toxicology. Neurotoxicol Teratol 31(4):237–237
Kohonen P et al (2013) The ToxBank Data Warehouse: supporting the replacement of in vivo repeated dose systemic toxicity testing. Mol Inform 32(1):47–63
Arrowsmith J (2011) Trial watch: phase III and submission failures: 2007–2010. Nat Rev Drug Discov 10:87
Arrowsmith J, Miller P (2013) Trial watch: phase II and Phase III attrition rates 2011–2012. Nat Rev Drug Discov 12:569
Arrowsmith J (2011) Trial watch: phase II failures: 2008–2010. Nat Rev Drug Discov 10:328–329
Hillebrecht A et al (2011) Comparative evaluation of in silico systems for Ames test mutagenicity prediction: scope and limitations. Chem Res Toxicol 24:843–854
Sanderson DM, Earnshaw CG (1991) Computer prediction of possible toxic action from chemical structure; the DEREK system. Hum Exp Toxicol 10:261–273
Greene N, Judson PN, Langowski JJ, Marchant CA (1999) Knowledge-based expert systems for toxicity and metabolism prediction: DEREK, StAR and METEOR. SAR QSAR Environ Res 10:299–314
Judson PN (2006) Using computer reasoning about qualitative and quantitative information to predict metabolism and toxicity. In: Testa B, Kramer SD, Wunderli-Allespach H, Volkers G (eds) Pharmacokinetic profiling in drug research: biological, physicochemical, and computational strategies. Wiley, New York, pp 183–215
Derek Nexus (2015) http://www.lhasalimited.org/products/derek-nexus.htm
ToxTree version 2.6.6 (2015) https://eurl-ecvam.jrc.ec.europa.eu/laboratories-research/predictive_toxicology/qsar_tools/toxtree
CASE Ultra version 1.5.2.0 (2015) http://www.multicase.com/case-ultra
Leadscope Expert Alerts version 3.2.4-1 (2015) http://www.leadscope.com/expert_alerts/
Limited L (2015) Derek Nexus: negative predictions for bacterial mutagenicity. http://www.lhasalimited.org/products/negative-predictions-for-bacterial-mutagenicity.htm
Pavan M, Worth AP (2008) Publicly-accessible QSAR software tools developed by the Joint Research Centre. SAR QSAR Environ Res 19:785–799
Benigni R, Bossa C (2008) Structure alerts for carcinogenicity, and the Salmonella assay system: a novel insight through the chemical relational databases technology. Mutat Res 659:248–261
Leadscope® Genetox Expert Alerts White paper (2014) http://www.leadscope.com/white_papers/Leadscope_alerts_white_paper.pdf
Tropsha A (2010) Best practices for QSAR model development, validation, and exploitation. Mol Inform 29:476–488
Sarah Nexus (2015) http://www.lhasalimited.org/products/sarah-nexus.htm
Leasdcope Model Appliers (2015) http://www.leadscope.com/model_appliers/
van Leeuwen K, Schultz TW, Henry T, Diderich B, Veith GD (2009) Using chemical categories to fill data gaps in hazard assessment. SAR QSAR Environ Res 20:207–220
Bioclipse (2015) http://www.bioclipse.net/
Prous Institute Symmetry (2015) http://symmetry.prousresearch.com/about-symmetry/
Hanser T, Barber C, Rosser E, Vessey JD, Webb SJ, Werner S (2014) Self organising hypothesis networks: a new approach for representing and structuring SAR knowledge. J Cheminform 6:21
Sarah Nexus Methodology (2015) http://www.lhasalimited.org/products/methodology-confidence-and-interpretation-of-predictions.htm
Klopman G (1992) A hierarchical computer automated structure evaluation program. Quant Struct Act Relat 11:176–184
Klopman G (1984) Artificial intelligence approach to structure-activity studies. Computer automated structure evaluation of biological activity of organic molecules. J Am Chem Soc 106:7315–7321
Chakravarti SK, Saiakhov RD, Klopman G (2012) Optimizing predictive performance of CASE ultra expert system models using the applicability domains of individual toxicity alerts. J Chem Inf Model 52:2609–2618
Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J 27(379–423):379
The OECD QSAR Toolbox (2015) http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/risk-assessment/theoecdqsartoolbox.htm
OECD Toolbox guidance document (2015)
OpenTox (2015) http://www.opentox.org/
Kazius J, McGuire R, Bursi R (2005) Derivation and validation of toxicophores for mutagenicity prediction. J Med Chem 48:312–320
Kuhn T, Willighangen EL, Zielesny A, Steinbeck C (2010) CDK-Taverna: an open workflow environment for cheminformatics. BMC Bioinformatics 11:159
Steinbeck C, Hoppe C, Kuhn S, Floris M, Guha R, Willighagen EL (2006) Recent developments of the chemistry development kit (CDK)—an open-source java library for chemo- and bioinformatics. Curr Pharm Des 12:2111–2120
Ekins S (2014) Progress in computational toxicology. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods 69:115–140
Cheng A, Li W, Zhou Y, Shen J, Wu Z, Liu G et al (2012) admetSAR: a comprehensive source and free tool for assessment of chemical ADMET properties. J Chem Inform Model 52:3099–3105
admetSAR (2015) http://lmmd.ecust.edu.cn:8000/
Valencia A, Prous J, Mora O, Sadrieh N, Valerio LG Jr (2013) A novel QSAR model of Salmonella mutagenicity and its application in the safety assessment of drug impurities. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 273(3):427–434
Guideline E (2006) Guideline on the limits of genotoxic impurities. http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/swp/519902en.pdf
Brigo A, Müller L (2011) Development of the threshold of toxicological concern concept and its relationship to duration of exposure. In: Teasdale A (ed) Genotoxic impurities. Wiley, New York, pp 27–63
ICH, International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) (1997) Topic Q3C. Impurities: residual solvents
Kroes R, Renwick AG, Cheesemann M, Kleiner J, Mangelsdorf I, Piersma A, Schilter B, Schlatter J, van Schothorst F, Vos JG, Wurtzen G (2004) Structure-based thresholds of toxicological concern (TTC): guidance for application to substances present at low levels in the diet. Food Chem Toxicol 42:65–83
ICH, International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) (2002) Topic Q3A(R). Impurities testing guideline: impurities in new drug products (Revision)
ICH, International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) (2002) Topic Q3A(R). Impurities testing guideline: impurities in new drug substances (revision)
Müller L, Mauthe RJ, Riley CM, Andino MM, Antonis DD, Beels C, DeGeorge J, De Knaep AG, Ellison D, Fagerland JA, Frank R, Fritschel B, Galloway S, Harpur E, Humfrey CD, Jacks AS, Jagota N, Mackinnon J, Mohan G, Ness DK, O'Donovan MR, Smith MD, Vudathala G, Yotti L (2006) A rationale for determining, testing, and controlling specific impurities in pharmaceuticals that possess potential for genotoxicity. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 44:198–211
Kasper P, Müller L (2015) Genotoxic impurities in pharmaceuticals. In: Graziano MJ, Jacobson-Kram D (eds) Genotoxicity and carcinogenicity testing of pharmaceuticals. Springer, Switzerland
M7 I. Assessment and control of DNA reactive (mutagenic) impurities in pharmaceuticals to limit potential carcinogenicity risk (2014)
Sutter A, Amberg A, Boyer S, Brigo A, Contrera JF, Custer LL, Dobo KL, Gervais V, Glowienke S, van Gompel J, Greene N, Muster W, Nicolette J, Reddy MV, Thybaud V, Vock E, White AT, Müller L (2013) Use of in silico systems and expert knowledge for structure-based assessment of potentially mutagenic impurities. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 67(1):39–52
Brigo A, Muster W, Singer T (2015) Comparative assessment of several in silico systems and models to predict the outcome of the Ames mutagenicity assay. In: Toxicology SO (ed) Society of Toxicology Annual Meeting 2015. San Diego, California, USA
Ames BN, Durston WE, Yamasaki E, Lee FD (1973) Carcinogens are mutagens: a simple test system combining liver homogenate for activation and bacteria for detection. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 70:2281–2285
Escobar PA, Kemper RA, Tarca J, Nicolette J, Kenyon M, Glowienke S, Sawant SG, Christensen J, Johnson TE, McKnight C, Ward G, Galloway SM, Custer L, Gocke E, O’Donovan MR, Braun K, Snyder RD, Mahadevan B (2013) Bacterial mutagenicity screening in the pharmaceutical industry. Mutat Res 752:99–118
Hansen K, Mika S, Schroeter T, Sutter A, ter Laak A, Steger-Hartmann T, Heinrich N, Müller KR (2009) Benchmark data set for in silico prediction of Ames mutagenicity. J Chem Inf Model 49:2077–2081
Reuters T (2015) Metacore—data-mining and pathway analysis http://thomsonreuters.com/en/products-services/pharma-life-sciences/pharmaceutical-research/metacore.html
Fischer H, et al (2001) Prediction of in vitro phospholipidosis of drugs by means of their amphiphilic properties. In: Rational approaches to drug design, p 286–289
Kruhlak NL et al (2007) Progress in QSAR toxicity screening of pharmaceutical impurities and other FDA regulated products. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 59(1):43–55
CompuDrug. MetabolExpert (2015) http://www.compudrug.com/metabolexpert
Discovery M (2015) MetaSite http://www.moldiscovery.com/software/metasite/
Cherkasov A, Muratov EN, Fourches D, Varnek A, Baskin II, Cronin M, Dearden J, Gramatica P, Martin YC, Todeschini R, Consonni V, Kuz’min VE, Cramer R, Benigni R, Yang C, Rathman J, Terfloth L, Gasteiger J, Richard A, Tropsha A (2014) QSAR modeling: where have you been? Where are you going to? J Med Chem 57:4977–5010
Piatetsky-Shapiro G (2012) Big data hype (and reality). https://hbr.org/2012/10/big-data-hype-and-reality
Sciences PL (2015) http://www.pointcrosslifesciences.com/
James LP, Mayeuy PR, Hinson JA (2003) Acetaminophen-induced hepatotoxicity. Drug Metab Dispos 31(12):1499–1506
FDA (2014) http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/UCM292334.pdf
Briggs K et al (2012) Inroads to predict in vivo toxicology—an introduction to the eTOX project. Int J Mol Sci 13(3):3820–3846
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this protocol
Cite this protocol
Brigo, A., Muster, W. (2016). The Use of In Silico Models Within a Large Pharmaceutical Company. In: Benfenati, E. (eds) In Silico Methods for Predicting Drug Toxicity. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 1425. Humana Press, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3609-0_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3609-0_20
Published:
Publisher Name: Humana Press, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-3607-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-3609-0
eBook Packages: Springer Protocols