Literature DB >> 23086837

From QSAR to QSIIR: searching for enhanced computational toxicology models.

Hao Zhu1.   

Abstract

Quantitative structure activity relationship (QSAR) is the most frequently used modeling approach to explore the dependency of biological, toxicological, or other types of activities/properties of chemicals on their molecular features. In the past two decades, QSAR modeling has been used extensively in drug discovery process. However, the predictive models resulted from QSAR studies have limited use for chemical risk assessment, especially for animal and human toxicity evaluations, due to the low predictivity of new compounds. To develop enhanced toxicity models with independently validated external prediction power, novel modeling protocols were pursued by computational toxicologists based on rapidly increasing toxicity testing data in recent years. This chapter reviews the recent effort in our laboratory to incorporate the biological testing results as descriptors in the toxicity modeling process. This effort extended the concept of QSAR to quantitative structure in vitro-in vivo relationship (QSIIR). The QSIIR study examples provided in this chapter indicate that the QSIIR models that based on the hybrid (biological and chemical) descriptors are indeed superior to the conventional QSAR models that only based on chemical descriptors for several animal toxicity endpoints. We believe that the applications introduced in this review will be of interest and value to researchers working in the field of computational drug discovery and environmental chemical risk assessment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23086837      PMCID: PMC5591172          DOI: 10.1007/978-1-62703-059-5_3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Methods Mol Biol        ISSN: 1064-3745


  46 in total

1.  Predictive QSAR modeling based on diversity sampling of experimental datasets for the training and test set selection.

Authors:  Alexander Golbraikh; Alexander Tropsha
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2002 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.686

2.  Rational selection of training and test sets for the development of validated QSAR models.

Authors:  Alexander Golbraikh; Min Shen; Zhiyan Xiao; Yun-De Xiao; Kuo-Hsiung Lee; Alexander Tropsha
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2003 Feb-Apr       Impact factor: 3.686

Review 3.  In silico ADME/Tox: why models fail.

Authors:  Terry R Stouch; James R Kenyon; Stephen R Johnson; Xue-Qing Chen; Arthur Doweyko; Yi Li
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2003 Feb-Apr       Impact factor: 3.686

4.  Thresholds as a unifying theme in regulatory toxicology.

Authors:  M A Cheeseman
Journal:  Food Addit Contam       Date:  2005-10

5.  The trouble with QSAR (or how I learned to stop worrying and embrace fallacy).

Authors:  Stephen R Johnson
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2007-12-28       Impact factor: 4.956

6.  On the number of EINECS compounds that can be covered by (Q)SAR models for acute toxicity.

Authors:  Elton Zvinavashe; Albertinka J Murk; Ivonne M C M Rietjens
Journal:  Toxicol Lett       Date:  2008-11-07       Impact factor: 4.372

7.  Genetic neural networks for quantitative structure-activity relationships: improvements and application of benzodiazepine affinity for benzodiazepine/GABAA receptors.

Authors:  S S So; M Karplus
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  1996-12-20       Impact factor: 7.446

8.  Integration of in vitro neurotoxicity data with biokinetic modelling for the estimation of in vivo neurotoxicity.

Authors:  Anna Forsby; Bas Blaauboer
Journal:  Hum Exp Toxicol       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 2.903

Review 9.  The pilot phase of the NIH Chemical Genomics Center.

Authors:  Craig J Thomas; Douglas S Auld; Ruili Huang; Wenwei Huang; Ajit Jadhav; Ronald L Johnson; William Leister; David J Maloney; Juan J Marugan; Sam Michael; Anton Simeonov; Noel Southall; Menghang Xia; Wei Zheng; James Inglese; Christopher P Austin
Journal:  Curr Top Med Chem       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 3.295

10.  Profiling chemicals based on chronic toxicity results from the U.S. EPA ToxRef Database.

Authors:  Matthew T Martin; Richard S Judson; David M Reif; Robert J Kavlock; David J Dix
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2008-10-20       Impact factor: 9.031

View more
  4 in total

1.  Characterizing cleft palate toxicants using ToxCast data, chemical structure, and the biomedical literature.

Authors:  Nancy C Baker; Nisha S Sipes; Jill Franzosa; David G Belair; Barbara D Abbott; Richard S Judson; Thomas B Knudsen
Journal:  Birth Defects Res       Date:  2019-08-30       Impact factor: 2.661

Review 2.  Microfluidic-Based Multi-Organ Platforms for Drug Discovery.

Authors:  Ahmad Rezaei Kolahchi; Nima Khadem Mohtaram; Hassan Pezeshgi Modarres; Mohammad Hossein Mohammadi; Armin Geraili; Parya Jafari; Mohsen Akbari; Amir Sanati-Nezhad
Journal:  Micromachines (Basel)       Date:  2016-09-08       Impact factor: 2.891

3.  Novel computational models offer alternatives to animal testing for assessing eye irritation and corrosion potential of chemicals.

Authors:  Arthur C Silva; Joyce V V B Borba; Vinicius M Alves; Steven U S Hall; Nicholas Furnham; Nicole Kleinstreuer; Eugene Muratov; Alexander Tropsha; Carolina Horta Andrade
Journal:  Artif Intell Life Sci       Date:  2021-12-05

Review 4.  In silico toxicology: computational methods for the prediction of chemical toxicity.

Authors:  Arwa B Raies; Vladimir B Bajic
Journal:  Wiley Interdiscip Rev Comput Mol Sci       Date:  2016-01-06
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.