Literature DB >> 12110629

Comparison of the computer programs DEREK and TOPKAT to predict bacterial mutagenicity. Deductive Estimate of Risk from Existing Knowledge. Toxicity Prediction by Komputer Assisted Technology.

Neal F Cariello1, John D Wilson, Ben H Britt, David J Wedd, Brian Burlinson, Vijay Gombar.   

Abstract

The performance of two computer programs, DEREK and TOPKAT, was examined with regard to predicting the outcome of the Ames bacterial mutagenicity assay. The results of over 400 Ames tests conducted at Glaxo Wellcome (now GlaxoSmithKline) during the last 15 years on a wide variety of chemical classes were compared with the mutagenicity predictions of both computer programs. DEREK was considered concordant with the Ames assay if (i) the Ames assay was negative (not mutagenic) and no structural alerts for mutagenicity were identified or (ii) the Ames assay was positive (mutagenic) and at least one structural alert was identified. Conversely, the DEREK output was considered discordant if (i) the Ames assay was negative and any structural alert was identified or (ii) the Ames assay was positive and no structural alert was identified. The overall concordance of the DEREK program with the Ames results was 65% and the overall discordance was 35%, based on over 400 compounds. About 23% of the test molecules were outside the permissible limits of the optimum prediction space of TOPKAT. Another 4% of the compounds were either not processable or had indeterminate mutagenicity predictions; these molecules were excluded from the TOPKAT analysis. If the TOPKAT probability was (i) > or =0.7 the molecule was predicted to be mutagenic, (ii) < or =0.3 the compound was predicted to be non-mutagenic and (iii) between 0.3 and 0.7 the prediction was considered indeterminate. From over 300 acceptable predictions, the overall TOPKAT concordance was 73% and the overall discordance was 27%. While the overall concordance of the TOPKAT program was higher than DEREK, TOPKAT fared more poorly than DEREK in the critical Ames-positive category, where 60% of the compounds were incorrectly predicted by TOPKAT as negative but were mutagenic in the Ames test. For DEREK, 54% of the Ames-positive molecules had no structural alerts and were predicted to be non-mutagenic. Alternative methods of analyzing the output of the programs to increase the accuracy with Ames-positive compounds are discussed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12110629     DOI: 10.1093/mutage/17.4.321

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mutagenesis        ISSN: 0267-8357            Impact factor:   3.000


  8 in total

1.  Integrated in silico approaches for the prediction of Ames test mutagenicity.

Authors:  Sandeep Modi; Jin Li; Sophie Malcomber; Claire Moore; Andrew Scott; Andrew White; Paul Carmichael
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2012-08-24       Impact factor: 3.686

2.  Chromatographic profile, in silico and in vivo study of the pharmacokinetic and toxicological properties of major constituent present in kefir, the kefiran.

Authors:  Susy Érika de Lima Barros; Henrique Barros de Lima; Leandra Karoline Alves Gonçalves; Lenir Cabral Correia; Maiara de Fátima de Brito Brito; Mariana Pegrucci Barcelos; Guilherme Martins Silva; Carlos Henrique Tomich de Paula da Silva; Rafael Garrett da Costa; Rodrigo Alves Soares Cruz; José Carlos Tavares Carvalho; Lorane Izabel da Silva Hage-Melim
Journal:  Toxicol Res (Camb)       Date:  2022-05-31       Impact factor: 2.680

3.  Mapping drug physico-chemical features to pathway activity reveals molecular networks linked to toxicity outcome.

Authors:  Philipp Antczak; Fernando Ortega; J Kevin Chipman; Francesco Falciani
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-08-27       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  High-throughput virtual screening of phloroglucinol derivatives against HIV-reverse transcriptase.

Authors:  Vilas Belekar; Anup Shah; Prabha Garg
Journal:  Mol Divers       Date:  2013-01-22       Impact factor: 2.943

5.  Transitioning to composite bacterial mutagenicity models in ICH M7 (Q)SAR analyses.

Authors:  Curran Landry; Marlene T Kim; Naomi L Kruhlak; Kevin P Cross; Roustem Saiakhov; Suman Chakravarti; Lidiya Stavitskaya
Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol       Date:  2019-10-03       Impact factor: 3.271

6.  Computational methods for prediction of in vitro effects of new chemical structures.

Authors:  Priyanka Banerjee; Vishal B Siramshetty; Malgorzata N Drwal; Robert Preissner
Journal:  J Cheminform       Date:  2016-09-29       Impact factor: 5.514

7.  Improvement of quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) tools for predicting Ames mutagenicity: outcomes of the Ames/QSAR International Challenge Project.

Authors:  Masamitsu Honma; Airi Kitazawa; Alex Cayley; Richard V Williams; Chris Barber; Thierry Hanser; Roustem Saiakhov; Suman Chakravarti; Glenn J Myatt; Kevin P Cross; Emilio Benfenati; Giuseppa Raitano; Ovanes Mekenyan; Petko Petkov; Cecilia Bossa; Romualdo Benigni; Chiara Laura Battistelli; Alessandro Giuliani; Olga Tcheremenskaia; Christine DeMeo; Ulf Norinder; Hiromi Koga; Ciloy Jose; Nina Jeliazkova; Nikolay Kochev; Vesselina Paskaleva; Chihae Yang; Pankaj R Daga; Robert D Clark; James Rathman
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2019-03-06       Impact factor: 3.000

8.  Deep Learning Based Drug Metabolites Prediction.

Authors:  Disha Wang; Wenjun Liu; Zihao Shen; Lei Jiang; Jie Wang; Shiliang Li; Honglin Li
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2020-01-30       Impact factor: 5.810

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.