An overview of structure-activity relationships as an alternative to testing in animals for carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, dermal and eye irritation, and acute oral toxicity.

The use of structure-activity relationships (SAR) has proven practical for the development of equations which can be used to estimate the above-listed endpoints for a large variety of chemicals. The SAR models predict these endpoints correctly in 85 to 97% of the cases and often surpass in their predictive ability the results obtainable from the equivalent biological assays. These SAR models are being used at several levels: drug, or more generally, chemical discovery; prioritization for testing; regulatory affairs; investigation of detoxification mechanisms; and risk estimation. In the new compound (discovery) use, potential toxic effects of a set of related compounds are investigated before synthesis to select those chemicals with the lesser probabilities of producing toxic effects for further investigation, at considerable savings in research expenditure since fewer compounds need to be synthesized, and the avoidance of blind alleys. Prioritization for testing is used in numerous instances, such as selecting those chemicals in an environment which are most likely to have toxic effects for priority attention. SAR models are used by regulatory agencies to determine the possible toxic effects of chemicals for which data insufficient to render decisions have been submitted, and to gain insight into possible toxicity problems. SAR models are also used to investigate possible metabolites, and toxicity mechanisms due to the ability of making computer-based structural modifications and observing the effects on the modelled toxic endpoints. Risk analysis is a natural outgrowth of several of the above applications, and is particularly useful for SAR models of carcinogenicity. SAR models as alternatives to animal bioassays should be used in the context of other information for the chemicals of concern. Just as bioassays and in vitro methods have their limitations, so do SAR models. These include the sometimes limited data base on which to base an SAR model, the temptation to extrapolate beyond the confines of the model, and the noise inherent in the bioassays on which the models are based. Within these constraints SAR models have a considerable potential in reducing the number of animals used in toxicity testing.