Literature DB >> 22321701

In silico methods combined with expert knowledge rule out mutagenic potential of pharmaceutical impurities: an industry survey.

Krista L Dobo1, Nigel Greene, Charlotta Fred, Susanne Glowienke, James S Harvey, Catrin Hasselgren, Robert Jolly, Michelle O Kenyon, Jennifer B Munzner, Wolfgang Muster, Robin Neft, M Vijayaraj Reddy, Angela T White, Sandy Weiner.   

Abstract

With the increasing emphasis on identification and low level control of potentially genotoxic impurities (GTIs), there has been increased use of structure-based assessments including application of computerized models. To date many publications have focused on the ability of computational models, either individually or in combination, to accurately predict the mutagenic effects of a chemical in the Ames assay. Typically, these investigations take large numbers of compounds and use in silico tools to predict their activity with no human interpretation being made. However, this does not reflect how these assessments are conducted in practice across the pharmaceutical industry. Current guidelines indicate that a structural assessment is sufficient to conclude that an impurity is non-mutagenic. To assess how confident we can be in identifying non-mutagenic structures, eight companies were surveyed for their success rate. The Negative Predictive Value (NPV) of the in silico approaches was 94%. When human interpretation of in silico model predictions was conducted, the NPV increased substantially to 99%. The survey illustrates the importance of expert interpretation of in silico predictions. The survey also suggests the use of multiple computational models is not a significant factor in the success of these approaches with respect to NPV. Copyright Â
© 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22321701     DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2012.01.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol        ISSN: 0273-2300            Impact factor:   3.271


  7 in total

Review 1.  Chemical predictive modelling to improve compound quality.

Authors:  John G Cumming; Andrew M Davis; Sorel Muresan; Markus Haeberlein; Hongming Chen
Journal:  Nat Rev Drug Discov       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 84.694

2.  In silico toxicology protocols.

Authors:  Glenn J Myatt; Ernst Ahlberg; Yumi Akahori; David Allen; Alexander Amberg; Lennart T Anger; Aynur Aptula; Scott Auerbach; Lisa Beilke; Phillip Bellion; Romualdo Benigni; Joel Bercu; Ewan D Booth; Dave Bower; Alessandro Brigo; Natalie Burden; Zoryana Cammerer; Mark T D Cronin; Kevin P Cross; Laura Custer; Magdalena Dettwiler; Krista Dobo; Kevin A Ford; Marie C Fortin; Samantha E Gad-McDonald; Nichola Gellatly; Véronique Gervais; Kyle P Glover; Susanne Glowienke; Jacky Van Gompel; Steve Gutsell; Barry Hardy; James S Harvey; Jedd Hillegass; Masamitsu Honma; Jui-Hua Hsieh; Chia-Wen Hsu; Kathy Hughes; Candice Johnson; Robert Jolly; David Jones; Ray Kemper; Michelle O Kenyon; Marlene T Kim; Naomi L Kruhlak; Sunil A Kulkarni; Klaus Kümmerer; Penny Leavitt; Bernhard Majer; Scott Masten; Scott Miller; Janet Moser; Moiz Mumtaz; Wolfgang Muster; Louise Neilson; Tudor I Oprea; Grace Patlewicz; Alexandre Paulino; Elena Lo Piparo; Mark Powley; Donald P Quigley; M Vijayaraj Reddy; Andrea-Nicole Richarz; Patricia Ruiz; Benoit Schilter; Rositsa Serafimova; Wendy Simpson; Lidiya Stavitskaya; Reinhard Stidl; Diana Suarez-Rodriguez; David T Szabo; Andrew Teasdale; Alejandra Trejo-Martin; Jean-Pierre Valentin; Anna Vuorinen; Brian A Wall; Pete Watts; Angela T White; Joerg Wichard; Kristine L Witt; Adam Woolley; David Woolley; Craig Zwickl; Catrin Hasselgren
Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol       Date:  2018-04-17       Impact factor: 3.271

3.  Implementation of in silico toxicology protocols within a visual and interactive hazard assessment platform.

Authors:  Glenn J Myatt; Arianna Bassan; Dave Bower; Candice Johnson; Scott Miller; Manuela Pavan; Kevin P Cross
Journal:  Comput Toxicol       Date:  2021-10-28

4.  Use of In Silico Methods for Regulatory Toxicological Assessment of Pharmaceutical Impurities.

Authors:  Simona Kovarich; Claudia Ileana Cappelli
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2022

5.  Use of Lhasa Limited Products for the In Silico Prediction of Drug Toxicity.

Authors:  David J Ponting; Michael J Burns; Robert S Foster; Rachel Hemingway; Grace Kocks; Donna S MacMillan; Andrew L Shannon-Little; Rachael E Tennant; Jessica R Tidmarsh; David J Yeo
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2022

6.  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

7.  Management of pharmaceutical ICH M7 (Q)SAR predictions - The impact of model updates.

Authors:  Catrin Hasselgren; Joel Bercu; Alex Cayley; Kevin Cross; Susanne Glowienke; Naomi Kruhlak; Wolfgang Muster; John Nicolette; M Vijayaraj Reddy; Roustem Saiakhov; Krista Dobo
Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol       Date:  2020-10-13       Impact factor: 3.271

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.