In silico toxicology for the pharmaceutical sciences.

The applied use of in silico technologies (a.k.a. computational toxicology, in silico toxicology, computer-assisted tox, e-tox, i-drug discovery, predictive ADME, etc.) for predicting preclinical toxicological endpoints, clinical adverse effects, and metabolism of pharmaceutical substances has become of high interest to the scientific community and the public. The increased accessibility of these technologies for scientists and recent regulations permitting their use for chemical risk assessment supports this notion. The scientific community is interested in the appropriate use of such technologies as a tool to enhance product development and safety of pharmaceuticals and other xenobiotics, while ensuring the reliability and accuracy of in silico approaches for the toxicological and pharmacological sciences. For pharmaceutical substances, this means active and impurity chemicals in the drug product may be screened using specialized software and databases designed to cover these substances through a chemical structure-based screening process and algorithm specific to a given software program. A major goal for use of these software programs is to enable industry scientists not only to enhance the discovery process but also to ensure the judicious use of in silico tools to support risk assessments of drug-induced toxicities and in safety evaluations. However, a great amount of applied research is still needed, and there are many limitations with these approaches which are described in this review. Currently, there is a wide range of endpoints available from predictive quantitative structure-activity relationship models driven by many different computational software programs and data sources, and this is only expected to grow. For example, there are models based on non-proprietary and/or proprietary information specific to assessing potential rodent carcinogenicity, in silico screens for ICH genetic toxicity assays, reproductive and developmental toxicity, theoretical prediction of human drug metabolism, mechanisms of action for pharmaceuticals, and newer models for predicting human adverse effects. How accurate are these approaches is both a statistical issue and challenge in toxicology. In this review, fundamental concepts and the current capabilities and limitations of this technology will be critically addressed.

[1]  R. Benigni Structure-activity relationship studies of chemical mutagens and carcinogens: mechanistic investigations and prediction approaches. , 2005, Chemical reviews.

[2]  R W Tennant,et al.  Predicting chemical carcinogenesis in rodents. , 1993, Environmental health perspectives.

[3]  Naomi L Kruhlak,et al.  A comprehensive model for reproductive and developmental toxicity hazard identification: I. Development of a weight of evidence QSAR database. , 2007, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[4]  Chihae Yang,et al.  Toxicity Data Informatics: Supporting a New Paradigm for Toxicity Prediction , 2008, Toxicology mechanisms and methods.

[5]  Gergana Dimitrova,et al.  A Stepwise Approach for Defining the Applicability Domain of SAR and QSAR Models , 2005, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[6]  Luis G. Valerio,et al.  In Silico Toxicological Screening of Natural Products , 2008, Toxicology mechanisms and methods.

[7]  R Benigni,et al.  Understanding Genetic Toxicity Through Data Mining: The Process of Building Knowledge by Integrating Multiple Genetic Toxicity Databases , 2008, Toxicology mechanisms and methods.

[8]  S. Ekins In silico approaches to predicting drug metabolism, toxicology and beyond. , 2003, Biochemical Society transactions.

[9]  B. Testa,et al.  Predicting drug metabolism: Concepts and challenges , 2004 .

[10]  H. Rosenkranz,et al.  Structural determinants of developmental toxicity in hamsters. , 1999, Teratology.

[11]  Romualdo Benigni,et al.  The Benigni / Bossa rulebase for mutagenicity and carcinogenicity - a module of Toxtree , 2008 .

[12]  J Ashby,et al.  Prediction of rodent carcinogenicity for 44 chemicals: results. , 1994, Mutagenesis.

[13]  L. Bernstein,et al.  Reproducibility of results in "near-replicate" carcinogenesis bioassays. , 1987, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[14]  R Daniel Benz,et al.  Toxicological and clinical computational analysis and the US FDA/CDER , 2007, Expert opinion on drug metabolism & toxicology.

[15]  Anthony R Scialli,et al.  The challenge of reproductive and developmental toxicology under REACH. , 2008, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[16]  Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals , 2020 .

[17]  M. A. Cabrera Pérez,et al.  Quantitative structure-carcinogenicity relationship for detecting structural alerts in nitroso compounds: species, rat; sex, female; route of administration, gavage. , 2008, Chemical research in toxicology.

[18]  H. Rosenkranz,et al.  Structural Determinants of Developmental Toxicity1 , 1994 .

[19]  J. Bailar,et al.  Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy , 2010, Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews.

[20]  Ursula Gundert-Remy,et al.  The Use of (Q)SAR Methods in the Context of REACH , 2008, Toxicology mechanisms and methods.

[21]  Naomi L Kruhlak,et al.  Combined Use of MC4PC, MDL-QSAR, BioEpisteme, Leadscope PDM, and Derek for Windows Software to Achieve High-Performance, High-Confidence, Mode of Action–Based Predictions of Chemical Carcinogenesis in Rodents , 2008, Toxicology mechanisms and methods.

[22]  Naomi L Kruhlak,et al.  Comparison of MC4PC and MDL-QSAR rodent carcinogenicity predictions and the enhancement of predictive performance by combining QSAR models. , 2007, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[23]  C Helma,et al.  Data quality in predictive toxicology: reproducibility of rodent carcinogenicity experiments. , 2001, Environmental health perspectives.

[24]  J. Contrera,et al.  Predicting the carcinogenic potential of pharmaceuticals in rodents using molecular structural similarity and E-state indices. , 2003, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[25]  Peter C Jurs,et al.  Predicting the genotoxicity of thiophene derivatives from molecular structure. , 2003, Chemical research in toxicology.

[26]  Ilkka Ojanperä,et al.  In silico methods for predicting metabolism and mass fragmentation applied to quetiapine in liquid chromatography/time-of-flight mass spectrometry urine drug screening. , 2009, Rapid communications in mass spectrometry : RCM.

[27]  J C Madden,et al.  Structure-based modelling in reproductive toxicology: (Q)SARs for the placental barrier , 2007, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

[28]  Ronald D Snyder,et al.  An update on the genotoxicity and carcinogenicity of marketed pharmaceuticals with reference to in silico predictivity , 2009, Environmental and molecular mutagenesis.

[29]  E Benfenati,et al.  Computational predictive programs (expert systems) in toxicology. , 1997, Toxicology.

[30]  D. Bristol,et al.  The NIEHS Predictive-Toxicology Evaluation Project. , 1996, Environmental health perspectives.

[31]  Aliuska Morales Helguera,et al.  Quantitative structure carcinogenicity relationship for detecting structural alerts in nitroso-compounds: species: rat; sex: male; route of administration: water. , 2008, Toxicology and applied pharmacology.

[32]  R. Snyder,et al.  Assessment of the sensitivity of the computational programs DEREK, TOPKAT, and MCASE in the prediction of the genotoxicity of pharmaceutical molecules , 2004, Environmental and molecular mutagenesis.

[33]  Naomi L Kruhlak,et al.  Testing computational toxicology models with phytochemicals. , 2010, Molecular nutrition & food research.

[34]  Kirk B Arvidson,et al.  FDA toxicity databases and real-time data entry. , 2008, Toxicology and applied pharmacology.

[35]  Naomi L Kruhlak,et al.  A comprehensive model for reproductive and developmental toxicity hazard identification: II. Construction of QSAR models to predict activities of untested chemicals. , 2007, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[36]  H. Rosenkranz,et al.  Structural determinants associated with risk of human developmental toxicity. , 1997, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[37]  Tatiana Nikolskaya,et al.  Early prediction of drug metabolism and toxicity: systems biology approach and modeling. , 2004, Drug discovery today.

[38]  N. Kruhlak,et al.  In silico screening of chemicals for bacterial mutagenicity using electrotopological E-state indices and MDL QSAR software. , 2005, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[39]  E. Benfenati,et al.  A combination of 3D-QSAR, docking, local-binding energy (LBE) and GRID study of the species differences in the carcinogenicity of benzene derivatives chemicals. , 2008, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[40]  A M Richard,et al.  Structure-based methods for predicting mutagenicity and carcinogenicity: are we there yet? , 1998, Mutation research.

[41]  L Zhang,et al.  A regulatory viewpoint on transporter-based drug interactions. , 2008, Xenobiotica; the fate of foreign compounds in biological systems.

[42]  R. Tennant,et al.  Chemical structure, Salmonella mutagenicity and extent of carcinogenicity as indicators of genotoxic carcinogenesis among 222 chemicals tested in rodents by the U.S. NCI/NTP. , 1988, Mutation research.

[43]  Custer Ll,et al.  The role of genetic toxicology in drug discovery and optimization. , 2008 .

[44]  Carol A Marchant,et al.  In Silico Tools for Sharing Data and Knowledge on Toxicity and Metabolism: Derek for Windows, Meteor, and Vitic , 2008, Toxicology mechanisms and methods.

[45]  H. Rosenkranz,et al.  Structural determinants of developmental toxicity. , 1994, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[46]  A.M. Richard,et al.  AI and SAR approaches for predicting chemical carcinogenicity: Survey and status report , 2002, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

[47]  Y T Woo,et al.  Development of structure-activity relationship rules for predicting carcinogenic potential of chemicals. , 1995, Toxicology letters.

[48]  C. Dobson Chemical space and biology , 2004, Nature.

[49]  R Daniel Benz,et al.  Landscape of current toxicity databases and database standards. , 2006, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

[50]  Michael S Victoroff,et al.  Evidence-based toxicology: a comprehensive framework for causation , 2005, Human & experimental toxicology.

[51]  Sean Ekins,et al.  Methods for predicting human drug metabolism. , 2007, Advances in clinical chemistry.

[52]  I C Munro,et al.  Thresholds of toxicological concern based on structure-activity relationships. , 1996, Drug metabolism reviews.

[53]  C. D. De Rosa,et al.  Prediction of the health effects of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and their metabolites using quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR). , 2008, Toxicology letters.

[54]  S. Ekins,et al.  Three- and four-dimensional-quantitative structure activity relationship (3D/4D-QSAR) analyses of CYP2C9 inhibitors. , 2000, Drug metabolism and disposition: the biological fate of chemicals.

[55]  M. Cronin,et al.  Pitfalls in QSAR , 2003 .

[56]  E. Hulzebos,et al.  (Q)SARS: gatekeepers against risk on chemicals? , 2003, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

[57]  B Testa,et al.  In silico pharmacology for drug discovery: applications to targets and beyond , 2007, British journal of pharmacology.

[58]  Romualdo Benigni,et al.  Predictivity and Reliability of QSAR Models: The Case of Mutagens and Carcinogens , 2008, Toxicology mechanisms and methods.

[59]  A. Hopkins,et al.  Navigating chemical space for biology and medicine , 2004, Nature.

[60]  F. Lombardo,et al.  Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. , 2001, Advanced drug delivery reviews.

[61]  Naomi L. Kruhlak,et al.  In Silico Screening of Chemicals for Genetic Toxicity Using MDL-QSAR, Nonparametric Discriminant Analysis, E-State, Connectivity, and Molecular Property Descriptors , 2008, Toxicology mechanisms and methods.

[62]  Naomi L Kruhlak,et al.  Progress in QSAR toxicity screening of pharmaceutical impurities and other FDA regulated products. , 2007, Advanced drug delivery reviews.

[63]  Robert J Kavlock,et al.  Computational toxicology--a state of the science mini review. , 2008, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[64]  Innovation OR Stagnation Challenge and Opportunity on the Critical Path to New Medical Products , 2004 .

[65]  T. Nikolskaya,et al.  A COMBINED APPROACH TO DRUG METABOLISM AND TOXICITY ASSESSMENT , 2006, Drug Metabolism and Disposition.

[66]  David B Duignan,et al.  High throughput ADME screening: practical considerations, impact on the portfolio and enabler of in silico ADME models. , 2008, Current drug metabolism.

[67]  M J Prival,et al.  Evaluation of the TOPKAT system for predicting the carcinogenicity of chemicals , 2001, Environmental and molecular mutagenesis.

[68]  Hongshi Yu,et al.  ADME-Tox in drug discovery: integration of experimental and computational technologies. , 2003, Drug discovery today.

[69]  John D. Walker,et al.  Quantitative structure–activity relationships (QSARs) in toxicology: a historical perspective , 2003 .

[70]  Lemont B. Kier,et al.  Modeling Drug Albumin Binding Affinity with E-State Topological Structure Representation , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[71]  S. Ekins,et al.  In silico pharmacology for drug discovery: methods for virtual ligand screening and profiling , 2007, British journal of pharmacology.

[72]  Sean Ekins,et al.  The importance of discerning shape in molecular pharmacology. , 2009, Trends in pharmacological sciences.

[73]  P N Judson,et al.  Knowledge-based expert systems for toxicity and metabolism prediction: DEREK, StAR and METEOR. , 1999, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

[74]  G. Klebe,et al.  Successful virtual screening for a submicromolar antagonist of the neurokinin-1 receptor based on a ligand-supported homology model. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[75]  Gilles Klopman,et al.  META. 1. A Program for the Evaluation of Metabolic Transformation of Chemicals , 1994, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[76]  Sean Ekins,et al.  Shape signatures: new descriptors for predicting cardiotoxicity in silico. , 2008, Chemical research in toxicology.

[77]  R A Ford,et al.  Estimation of toxic hazard--a decision tree approach. , 1978, Food and cosmetics toxicology.

[78]  Mark T. D. Cronin,et al.  The present status of QSAR in toxicology , 2003 .

[79]  Weida Tong,et al.  Mold2, Molecular Descriptors from 2D Structures for Chemoinformatics and Toxicoinformatics , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[80]  Joseph F Contrera,et al.  QSAR modeling of carcinogenic risk using discriminant analysis and topological molecular descriptors. , 2005, Current drug discovery technologies.

[81]  Durham Sk,et al.  Computational methods to predict drug safety liabilities. , 2001 .

[82]  Sean Ekins,et al.  Computational prediction of human drug metabolism , 2005, Expert opinion on drug metabolism & toxicology.

[83]  N. Kruhlak,et al.  An analysis of genetic toxicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, and carcinogenicity data: I. Identification of carcinogens using surrogate endpoints. , 2006, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[84]  K. Sweder,et al.  The role of genetic toxicology in drug discovery and optimization. , 2008, Current drug metabolism.

[85]  Romualdo Benigni,et al.  Structure alerts for carcinogenicity, and the Salmonella assay system: a novel insight through the chemical relational databases technology. , 2008, Mutation research.

[86]  A. Jacobs Prediction of 2-year carcinogenicity study results for pharmaceutical products: how are we doing? , 2005, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[87]  A. Bailey,et al.  The use of structure-activity relationship analysis in the food contact notification program. , 2005, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[88]  Thomas Bäck,et al.  Substructure Mining Using Elaborate Chemical Representation , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[89]  Naomi L Kruhlak,et al.  Development of a Phospholipidosis Database and Predictive Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) Models , 2008, Toxicology mechanisms and methods.

[90]  Vijay K. Gombar,et al.  A QSAR Model of Teratogenesis , 1991 .

[91]  Péter Csermely,et al.  The efficiency of multi-target drugs: the network approach might help drug design. , 2004, Trends in pharmacological sciences.

[92]  R Benigni The first US National Toxicology Program exercise on the prediction of rodent carcinogenicity: definitive results. , 1997, Mutation research.

[93]  Xin Chen,et al.  Virtual screening to successfully identify novel janus kinase 3 inhibitors: a sequential focused screening approach. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[94]  R. Kroes Structure-Based Thresholds of Toxicological Concern (TTC): Guidance for Application to Substances Present at Low Levels in the Diet , 2004, Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association.

[95]  R. Burghardt,et al.  Using Quantitative Structure–Activity Relationships (QSAR) to Predict Toxic Endpoints for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) , 2008, Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part A.

[96]  M A Cheeseman,et al.  Structure-activity relationship analysis tools: validation and applicability in predicting carcinogens. , 2008, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[97]  Genotoxicity : A Standard Battery for Genotoxicity Testing of Pharmaceuticals Step 5 NOTE FOR GUIDANCE ON GENOTOXICITY : A STANDARD BATTERY FOR GENOTOXICITY TESTING OF PHARMACEUTICALS , 2006 .

[98]  Joelle M. R. Gola,et al.  Focus on success: using a probabilistic approach to achieve an optimal balance of compound properties in drug discovery , 2006, Expert opinion on drug metabolism & toxicology.

[99]  K. Enslein,et al.  Use of SAR in computer-assited prediction of carcinogenicity and mutagenicity of chemicals by the TOPKAT program , 1994 .

[100]  Romualdo Benigni,et al.  The second National Toxicology Program comparative exercise on the prediction of rodent carcinogenicity: definitive results. , 2004, Mutation research.

[101]  Vladimir Potemkin,et al.  Principles for 3D/4D QSAR classification of drugs. , 2008, Drug discovery today.

[102]  Sarah N. Hilmer,et al.  ADME-tox issues for the elderly , 2008 .

[103]  J W Green,et al.  A review of the genotoxicity of marketed pharmaceuticals. , 2001, Mutation research.

[104]  Wolfgang Muster,et al.  Computational toxicology in drug development. , 2008, Drug discovery today.

[105]  R. Tennant,et al.  Definitive relationships among chemical structure, carcinogenicity and mutagenicity for 301 chemicals tested by the U.S. NTP. , 1991, Mutation research.

[106]  K Enslein,et al.  International Commission for Protection Against Environmental Mutagens and Carcinogens. Use of SAR in computer-assisted prediction of carcinogenicity and mutagenicity of chemicals by the TOPKAT program. , 1994, Mutation research.

[107]  J Ashby,et al.  International Commission for Protection Against Environmental Mutagens and Carcinogens. Two million rodent carcinogens? The role of SAR and QSAR in their detection. , 1994, Mutation research.

[108]  Florian Nigsch,et al.  Computational toxicology: an overview of the sources of data and of modelling methods , 2009, Expert opinion on drug metabolism & toxicology.

[109]  Shane Weaver,et al.  The importance of the domain of applicability in QSAR modeling. , 2008, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[110]  Edwin J Matthews,et al.  In silico approaches to explore toxicity end points: issues and concerns for estimating human health effects , 2007, Expert opinion on drug metabolism & toxicology.

[111]  C. Hansch,et al.  A NEW SUBSTITUENT CONSTANT, PI, DERIVED FROM PARTITION COEFFICIENTS , 1964 .

[112]  Robert D Clark,et al.  Modelling in vitro hepatotoxicity using molecular interaction fields and SIMCA. , 2004, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[113]  Tingjun Hou,et al.  Recent development and application of virtual screening in drug discovery: an overview. , 2004, Current pharmaceutical design.

[114]  Sean Ekins,et al.  Combined Computational Metabolite Prediction and Automated Structure-Based Analysis of Mass Spectrometric Data , 2008, Toxicology mechanisms and methods.

[115]  E Gottmann,et al.  Data quality in predictive toxicology: identification of chemical structures and calculation of chemical properties. , 2000, Environmental health perspectives.

[116]  R Purdy,et al.  A mechanism-mediated model for carcinogenicity: model content and prediction of the outcome of rodent carcinogenicity bioassays currently being conducted on 25 organic chemicals. , 1996, Environmental health perspectives.

[117]  G M Pearl,et al.  Integration of computational analysis as a sentinel tool in toxicological assessments. , 2001, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

[118]  A. Vedani,et al.  Mixed-model QSAR at the human mineralocorticoid receptor: predicting binding mode and affinity of anabolic steroids. , 2009, Toxicology letters.

[119]  Sean Ekins,et al.  Techniques: application of systems biology to absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion and toxicity. , 2005, Trends in pharmacological sciences.

[120]  J. Ashby Fundamental structural alerts to potential carcinogenicity or noncarcinogenicity. , 1985, Environmental mutagenesis.

[121]  Joseph F Contrera,et al.  Genetic toxicity assessment: employing the best science for human safety evaluation. Part I: Early screening for potential human mutagens. , 2006, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[122]  E. Benfenati,et al.  QSAR modelling of carcinogenicity by balance of correlations , 2009, Molecular Diversity.

[123]  V. Armstrong,et al.  The Assessment and Management of Industrial Chemicals in Canada , 2007 .

[124]  Maykel Pérez González,et al.  QSAR modeling of the rodent carcinogenicity of nitrocompounds. , 2008, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry.

[125]  Ann M Richard,et al.  A novel approach: chemical relational databases, and the role of the ISSCAN database on assessing chemical carcinogenicity. , 2008, Annali dell'Istituto superiore di sanita.

[126]  Lg Valerio Tools for evidence-based toxicology: computational-based strategies as a viable modality for decision support in chemical safety evaluation and risk assessment , 2008, Human & experimental toxicology.

[127]  Luis G Valerio,et al.  Prediction of rodent carcinogenic potential of naturally occurring chemicals in the human diet using high-throughput QSAR predictive modeling. , 2007, Toxicology and applied pharmacology.

[128]  J. Kazius,et al.  Derivation and validation of toxicophores for mutagenicity prediction. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[129]  Gisbert Schneider,et al.  Computer-based de novo design of drug-like molecules , 2005, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[130]  Theo Vermeire,et al.  Risk assessment of chemicals , 2021, Bioanalytical Tools in Water Quality Assessment.

[131]  R. Tennant,et al.  Prediction of the outcome of rodent carcinogenicity bioassays currently being conducted on 44 chemicals by the National Toxicology Program. , 1990, Mutagenesis.

[132]  Petra S Kern,et al.  Mechanistic applicability domain classification of a local lymph node assay dataset for skin sensitization. , 2007, Chemical research in toxicology.