Literature DB >> 15388809

Three new consensus QSAR models for the prediction of Ames genotoxicity.

Joseph R Votano1, Marc Parham, Lowell H Hall, Lemont B Kier, Scott Oloff, Alexander Tropsha, Qian Xie, Weida Tong.   

Abstract

Three QSAR methods, artificial neural net (ANN), k-nearest neighbors (kNN), and Decision Forest (DF), were applied to 3363 diverse compounds tested for their Ames genotoxicity. The ratio of mutagens to non-mutagens was 60/40 for this dataset. This group of compounds includes >300 therapeutic drugs. All models were developed using the same initial set of 148 topological indices: molecular connectivity chi indices and electrotopological state indices (atom-type, bond-type and group-type E-state), as well as binary indicators. While previous studies have found logP to be a determining factor in genotoxicity, it was not found to be important by any modeling method employed in this study. The three models yielded an average training/test concordance value of 88%, with a low percentage of false positives and false negatives. External validation testing on 400 compounds not used for QSAR model development gave an average concordance of 82%. This value increased to 92% upon removal of less reliable outcomes, as determined by a reliability criterion used within each model. The ANN model showed the best performance in predicting drug compounds, yielding 97% concordance (34/35 drugs) after the removal of less reliable predictions. The appreciable commonality found among the top 10 ranked descriptors from each model is of particular interest because of the diversity in the learning algorithms and descriptor selection techniques employed in this study. Forty percent of the most important descriptors in any one model are found in one or two other models. Fourteen of the most important descriptors relate directly to known toxicophores involved in potent genotoxic responses in Salmonella typhimurium. A comparison of the validation results with those of MULTICASE and DEREK indicated that the new models presented in this work perform substantially better than the former models in predicting genotoxicity of therapeutic drugs. Substantially higher specificity was achieved with these new models as compared with MULTICASE or DEREK with comparable sensitivities among all models.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15388809     DOI: 10.1093/mutage/geh043

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


  17 in total

1.  Some findings relevant to the mechanistic interpretation in the case of predictive models for carcinogenicity based on the counter propagation artificial neural network.

Authors:  Natalja Fjodorova; Marjana Novič
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2011-12-03       Impact factor: 3.686

2.  Reverse fingerprinting, similarity searching by group fusion and fingerprint bit importance.

Authors:  Chris Williams
Journal:  Mol Divers       Date:  2006-09-21       Impact factor: 2.943

3.  kScore: a novel machine learning approach that is not dependent on the data structure of the training set.

Authors:  Scott Oloff; Ingo Muegge
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2007-02-28       Impact factor: 3.686

4.  QSAR modeling: where have you been? Where are you going to?

Authors:  Artem Cherkasov; Eugene N Muratov; Denis Fourches; Alexandre Varnek; Igor I Baskin; Mark Cronin; John Dearden; Paola Gramatica; Yvonne C Martin; Roberto Todeschini; Viviana Consonni; Victor E Kuz'min; Richard Cramer; Romualdo Benigni; Chihae Yang; James Rathman; Lothar Terfloth; Johann Gasteiger; Ann Richard; Alexander Tropsha
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2014-01-06       Impact factor: 7.446

5.  QSAR modeling of the blood-brain barrier permeability for diverse organic compounds.

Authors:  Liying Zhang; Hao Zhu; Tudor I Oprea; Alexander Golbraikh; Alexander Tropsha
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2008-06-14       Impact factor: 4.200

6.  QSAR modeling for predicting mutagenic toxicity of diverse chemicals for regulatory purposes.

Authors:  Nikita Basant; Shikha Gupta
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2017-04-24       Impact factor: 4.223

7.  Using MD Simulations To Calculate How Solvents Modulate Solubility.

Authors:  Shuai Liu; Shannon Cao; Kevin Hoang; Kayla L Young; Andrew S Paluch; David L Mobley
Journal:  J Chem Theory Comput       Date:  2016-03-02       Impact factor: 6.006

8.  Mixed learning algorithms and features ensemble in hepatotoxicity prediction.

Authors:  Chin Yee Liew; Yen Ching Lim; Chun Wei Yap
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2011-09-06       Impact factor: 3.686

9.  New public QSAR model for carcinogenicity.

Authors:  Natalja Fjodorova; Marjan Vracko; Marjana Novic; Alessandra Roncaglioni; Emilio Benfenati
Journal:  Chem Cent J       Date:  2010-07-29       Impact factor: 4.215

10.  In-silico predictive mutagenicity model generation using supervised learning approaches.

Authors:  Abhik Seal; Anurag Passi; Uc Abdul Jaleel; David J Wild
Journal:  J Cheminform       Date:  2012-05-15       Impact factor: 5.514

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.