Literature DB >> 22918548

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

Sandeep Modi1, Jin Li, Sophie Malcomber, Claire Moore, Andrew Scott, Andrew White, Paul Carmichael.   

Abstract

The bacterial reverse mutation assay (Ames test) is a biological assay used to assess the mutagenic potential of chemical compounds. In this paper approaches for the development of an in silico mutagenicity screening tool are described. Three individual in silico models, which cover both structure activity relationship methods (SARs) and quantitative structure activity relationship methods (QSARs), were built using three different modelling techniques: (1) an in-house alert model: which uses SAR approach where alerts are generated based on experts judgements; (2) a kNN approach (k-Nearest Neighbours), which is a QSAR model where a prediction is given based on outcomes of its k chemical neighbours; (3) a naive Bayesian model (NB), which is another QSAR model, where a prediction is derived using a Bayesian formula through preselected identified informative chemical features (e.g., physico-chemical, structural descriptors). These in silico models, were compared against two well-known alert models (DEREK and ToxTree) and also against three different consensus approaches (Categorical Bayesian Integration Approach (CBI), Partial Least Squares Discriminate Analysis (PLS-DA) and simple majority vote approach). By applying these integration methods on the validation sets it was shown that both integration models (PLS-DA and CBI) achieved better performance than any of the individual models or consensus obtained by simple majority rule. In conclusion, the recommendation of this paper is that when obtaining consensus predictions for Ames mutagenicity, approaches like PLS-DA or CBI should be the first choice for the integration as compared to a simple majority vote approach.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22918548     DOI: 10.1007/s10822-012-9595-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des        ISSN: 0920-654X            Impact factor:   3.686


  46 in total

1.  Knowledge-based expert systems for toxicity and metabolism prediction: DEREK, StAR and METEOR.

Authors:  N Greene; P N Judson; J J Langowski; C A Marchant
Journal:  SAR QSAR Environ Res       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 3.000

2.  Novel variable selection quantitative structure--property relationship approach based on the k-nearest-neighbor principle

Authors: 
Journal:  J Chem Inf Comput Sci       Date:  2000-01

Review 3.  The Ames Salmonella/microsome mutagenicity assay.

Authors:  K Mortelmans; E Zeiger
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2000-11-20       Impact factor: 2.433

4.  Identification of the structural requirements for mutagenicity by incorporating molecular flexibility and metabolic activation of chemicals I: TA100 model.

Authors:  Ovanes Mekenyan; Sabcho Dimitrov; Rossitsa Serafimova; Ed Thompson; Stefan Kotov; Nadezhda Dimitrova; John D Walker
Journal:  Chem Res Toxicol       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.739

Review 5.  The challenges involved in modeling toxicity data in silico: a review.

Authors:  M Paul Gleeson; Sandeep Modi; Andreas Bender; Richard L Marchese Robinson; Johannes Kirchmair; Malinee Promkatkaew; Supa Hannongbua; Robert C Glen
Journal:  Curr Pharm Des       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 3.116

6.  Derivation and validation of toxicophores for mutagenicity prediction.

Authors:  Jeroen Kazius; Ross McGuire; Roberta Bursi
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2005-01-13       Impact factor: 7.446

Review 7.  Predictive models for carcinogenicity and mutagenicity: frameworks, state-of-the-art, and perspectives.

Authors:  E Benfenati; R Benigni; D M Demarini; C Helma; D Kirkland; T M Martin; P Mazzatorta; G Ouédraogo-Arras; A M Richard; B Schilter; W G E J Schoonen; R D Snyder; C Yang
Journal:  J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 3.781

8.  Comparative evaluation of in silico systems for ames test mutagenicity prediction: scope and limitations.

Authors:  Alexander Hillebrecht; Wolfgang Muster; Alessandro Brigo; Manfred Kansy; Thomas Weiser; Thomas Singer
Journal:  Chem Res Toxicol       Date:  2011-05-02       Impact factor: 3.739

9.  Prediction of environmental carcinogens: a strategy for the mid-1980s.

Authors:  H S Rosenkranz; G Klopman; V Chankong; J Pet-Edwards; Y Y Haimes
Journal:  Environ Mutagen       Date:  1984

10.  The genetic toxicity database of the National Toxicology Program: evaluation of the relationships between genetic toxicity and carcinogenicity.

Authors:  R W Tennant
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1991-12       Impact factor: 9.031

View more
  1 in total

1.  IDAAPM: integrated database of ADMET and adverse effects of predictive modeling based on FDA approved drug data.

Authors:  Ashenafi Legehar; Henri Xhaard; Leo Ghemtio
Journal:  J Cheminform       Date:  2016-06-14       Impact factor: 5.514

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.