Abstract
Developmental toxicity may be estimated using commercial and noncommercial software that is already available in the market and/or literature, or models may be built from scratch using both commercial and noncommercial software packages. In this chapter, commonly available software programs that can predict the developmental toxicity of chemicals are described. In addition, a method for developing qualitative structure–activity relationship (SAR) models to predict the developmental toxicity of chemicals qualitatively (yes/no prediction) and quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) models to predict quantitative estimates (e.g., LOAEL) of developmental toxicants is also described in this chapter. Additional information described in this chapter include methods to predict physicochemical properties of chemicals that can be used as descriptor variables in the model building process, statistical methods that be used to build QSAR models as well as methods to validate the models that are developed. Most of the methods described in this chapter can be used to develop models for health endpoints other than developmental toxicity as well.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Anderson ME, Al-Zoughool M, Croteau M et al (2010) The future of toxicity testing. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev 13(2–4):163–196
European Union Directive (2003) DIRECTIVE 2003/89/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 10 November 2003 amending Directive 2000/13/EC as regards indication of the ingredients present in foodstuffs. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:308:0015:0018:EN:PDF. Accessed 23 Oct 2010
Doull J, Borzelleca JF, Becker R et al (2007) Framework for use of toxicity screening tools in context-based decision-making. Food Chem Toxicol 45(5):759–796
Basak SC, Bertelsen S, Grunwald GD (1995) Use of graph theoretic parameters in risk assessment of chemicals. Toxicol Lett 79:239–250
Devillers J, Chezeau A, Thybaud E et al (2002) QSAR modeling of the adult and developmental toxicity of glycols, glycol ethers and xylenes to Hydra attenuata. SAR QSAR Environ Res 13(5):555–566
Devillers J, Chezeau A, Thybaud E (2002) PLS-QSAR of the adult and developmental toxicity of chemicals to Hydra attenuata. SAR QSAR Environ Res 13(7–8):705–712
Kavlock RJ (1990) Structure-activity relationships in the developmental toxicity of substituted phenols: in vivo effects. Teratology 41(1):43–59
Richard AM, Hunter ES III (1996) Quantitative structure-activity relationships for the developmental toxicity of haloacetic acids in mammalian whole embryo culture. Teratology 53(6):352–360
Vedani A, McMasters DR, Dobler M (1991) Genetic algorithms in 3D-QSAR: predicting the toxicity of dibenzodioxins, dibenzofurans and biphenyls. ALTEX 16(1):9–14
Matthews EJ, Kruhlak NL, Cimino MC et al (2006) An analysis of genetic toxicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, and carcinogenicity data: II. Identification of genotoxicants, reprotoxicants, and carcinogens using in silico methods. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 44(2):97–110
Matthews EJ, Kruhlak NL, Benz DR (2007) A comprehensive model for reproductive and developmental toxicity hazard identification: I. Development of a weight of evidence QSAR database. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 47(2):115–135
Matthews EJ, Kruhlak NL, Benz RD et al (2007) A comprehensive model for reproductive and developmental toxicity hazard identification: II. Construction of QSAR models to predict activities of untested chemicals. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 47(2):136–155
Cassano A, Manganaro A, Martin T et al (2010) CAESAR models for developmental toxicity. Chem Cent J 4(Suppl 1):S4
Merlot C (2008) In silico methods for early toxicity assessment. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 11(1):80–85
Worth AP, Bassan A, de Brujin J et al (2007) The role of the European Chemicals Bureau in promoting the regulatory use of (Q)SAR methods. SAR QSAR Environ Res 18:111–125
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
Klopman G (1992) MULTICASE: a hierarchical computer automated structure evaluation program. Quant Struct Act Relat 11:176–184
Klopman G, Rosenkranz HS (1994) Approaches to SAR in carcinogenesis and mutagenesis. Prediction of carcinogenicity/mutagenicity using Multi-CASE. Mutat Res 305:33–46
Maslankiewicz L, Hulzebos EM, Vermeire TG et al (2005) Can chemical structure predict reproductive toxicity? RIVM, Bilthoven. www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/601200005.html. Accessed 24 Oct 2010
Accelrys (2001) TOPKAT 6.1: User Guide. Oxford Molecular Ltd, Burlington, MA
Gombar VK (1998) Quantitative structure-activity relationships in toxicology: from fundamentals to application. In: Reiss C, Parvez S, Labbe G et al (eds) Advances in molecular toxicology. VSP, Utrecht
Purcell WP, Bass GE, Clayton JM (1973) Strategy of drug design: a guide to biological activity. Wiley, New York
Moudgal CJ, Venkatapathy R, Choudhury H et al (2003) Application of QSTRs in the selection of a surrogate toxicity value for a chemical of concern. Environ Sci Technol 37:5228–5235
Gombar VK, Enslein K (1996) Assessment of n-octanol/water partition coefficient: when is the assessment reliable? J Chem Inf Comput Sci 36:1127–1134
Todeschini R, Consonni V (2000) Handbook of molecular descriptors, vol 11, Methods and principles in medicinal chemistry. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH, Weinheim
Ghose AK, Crippen GM (1987) Atomic physicochemical parameters for three-dimensional-structure-directed quantitative structure-activity relationships. 2. Modeling dispersive and hydrophobic interactions. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 27(1):21–35
Kier LB (1986) Shape indexes of orders one and three from molecular graphs. Quant Struct Act Relat 5:1–7
Kier LB, Hall LH (1999) The Kappa indices for modeling molecular shape and flexibility. In: Devillers J, Balaban AT (eds) Topological indices and related descriptors in QSAR and QSPR. Gordon and Breach, Reading
Eriksson L, Johansson E, Kettaneh-Wold N et al (1999) Introduction to multi- and megavariate data analysis using projection methods (PCA & PLS). Umetrics, Inc., Kinnelon
Eriksson L, Jaworska JS, Worth AP et al (2003) Methods for reliability and uncertainty assessment and for applicability evaluations of classification- and regression-based QSARs. Environ Health Perspect 111:1361–1375
Gramatica P (2007) Principles of QSAR models validation: internal and external. QSAR Comb Sci 26:694–701
Atkinson AC (1985) Plots, transformations and regression. Clarendon, Oxford
Wold S, Eriksson L (1995) Statistical validation of QSAR results. In: van de Waterbeemd H (ed) Chemometric methods in molecular design. VCH, New York
Golbraikh A, Tropsha A (2002) Beware of q2! J Mol Graph Model 20(4):269–276
Kozak A, Kozak R (2003) Does cross validation provide additional information in the evaluation of regression models? Can J Forest Res 33(6):976–987
Reunanen J (2003) Overfitting in making comparisons between variable selection methods. J Mach Learn Res 3:1371–1382
Olsson I-M, Gottfries J, Wold S (2004) D-optimal onion designs in statistical molecular design. Chemometr Intell Lab Syst 73(1):37–46
Mosier PD, Jurs PC (2002) QSAR/QSPR studies using probabilistic neural networks and generalized regression neural networks. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 42(6):1460–1470
Hawkins DM, Basak SC, Mills D (2004) Assessing model fit by cross-validation. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 43(2):579–586
Matthews BW (1975) Comparison of the predicted and observed secondary structure of T4 phage lysozyme. Biochim Biophys Acta 405(2):442–451
Obach RS, Baxter JG, Liston TE et al (1997) The prediction of human pharmacokinetic parameters from preclinical and in vitro metabolism data. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 283(1):46–58
Hawkins DM (2004) The problem of overfitting. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 44(1):1–12
Further Reading
http://www.scripps.edu/rc/softwaredocs/msi/cerius45/qsar/T_qsar1.html
Arena VC, Sussman NB, Mazumdar S et al (2004) Selection in developmental toxicity: comparative analysis of logistic regression and decision tree models. SAR QSAR Environ Res 15(1):1–18
Cronin MT, Jaworska JS, Walker JD et al (2003) Use of QSARs in international decision-making frameworks to predict health effects of chemical substances. Environ Health Perspect 111(10):1391–1401
Cunningham AR, Carrasquer CA, Mattison DR (2009) A categorical structure-activity relationship analysis of the developmental toxicity of antithyroid drugs. Int J Pediatr Endocrinol. doi:10.1155/2009/936154
Cunningham AR, Consoer DM, Iype SA et al (2009) A structure-activity relationship (SAR) analysis for the identification of environmental estrogens: the categorical-SAR (Cat-SAR) approach. In: Devillers J (ed) Endocrine disruption modeling. CRC, New York
Hewitt M, Ellison CM, Enoch SJ et al (2010) Integrating (Q)SAR models, expert systems and read-across approaches for the prediction of developmental toxicity. Reprod Toxicol 30(1):147–160
Knudsen TB, Martin MT, Kavlock RJ et al (2009) Profiling the activity of environmental chemicals in prenatal developmental toxicity studies using the U.S. EPA’s ToxRefDB. Reprod Toxicol 28(2):209–219
Martin MT, Mendez E, Corum DG et al (2009) Profiling the reproductive toxicity of chemicals from multigeneration studies in the toxicity reference database (ToxRefDB). Toxicol Sci 110(1):181–190
OECD (1995) Test No. 421: Reproduction/Developmental Toxicity Screening Test, OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals, section 4: health effects, OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264070967-en
Saiakhov RD, Klopman G (2008) MultiCASE expert systems and the REACH initiative. Toxicol Mech Methods 18(2–3):159–175
Sakamoto K, Yamauchi A, Sasaki M et al (2007) A structural similarity evaluation by SimScore in a teratogenicity information sharing system. J Comput Chem Jpn 6(2):117–122
Todeschini R, Consonni V (2000) Handbook of molecular descriptors, vol 11, Methods and principles in medicinal chemistry. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH, Weinheim
Tropsha A, Gramatica P, Gombar VK (2003) The importance of being earnest: validation is the absolute essential for successful application and interpretation of QSPR models. QSAR Comb Sci 22(1):69–77
US EPA (1991) Guidelines for developmental toxicity risk assessment. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC, EPA/600/FR-91/001
Yang CH, Valerio LG, Arvidson KB (2009) Computational toxicology approaches at the US Food and Drug Administration. Altern Lab Anim 37(5):523–531
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this protocol
Cite this protocol
Venkatapathy, R., Wang, N.C.Y. (2013). Developmental Toxicity Prediction. In: Reisfeld, B., Mayeno, A. (eds) Computational Toxicology. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 930. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-62703-059-5_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-62703-059-5_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Humana Press, Totowa, NJ
Print ISBN: 978-1-62703-058-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-62703-059-5
eBook Packages: Springer Protocols