Evaluation of a statistics-based Ames mutagenicity QSAR model and interpretation of the results obtained.

The relative wealth of bacterial mutagenicity data available in the public literature means that in silico quantitative/qualitative structure activity relationship (QSAR) systems can readily be built for this endpoint. A good means of evaluating the performance of such systems is to use private unpublished data sets, which generally represent a more distinct chemical space than publicly available test sets and, as a result, provide a greater challenge to the model. However, raw performance metrics should not be the only factor considered when judging this type of software since expert interpretation of the results obtained may allow for further improvements in predictivity. Enough information should be provided by a QSAR to allow the user to make general, scientifically-based arguments in order to assess and overrule predictions when necessary. With all this in mind, we sought to validate the performance of the statistics-based in vitro bacterial mutagenicity prediction system Sarah Nexus (version 1.1) against private test data sets supplied by nine different pharmaceutical companies. The results of these evaluations were then analysed in order to identify findings presented by the model which would be useful for the user to take into consideration when interpreting the results and making their final decision about the mutagenic potential of a given compound.

[1]  Scott Boyer,et al.  Use of in silico systems and expert knowledge for structure-based assessment of potentially mutagenic impurities. , 2013, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[2]  Nigel Greene,et al.  The computational prediction of genotoxicity , 2010, Expert opinion on drug metabolism & toxicology.

[3]  T. Singer,et al.  Comparative evaluation of in silico systems for ames test mutagenicity prediction: scope and limitations. , 2011, Chemical research in toxicology.

[4]  T Ohta,et al.  Further mutagenicity studies on pesticides in bacterial reversion assay systems. , 1983, Mutation research.

[5]  Alan G. E. Wilson,et al.  A multiple in silico program approach for the prediction of mutagenicity from chemical structure. , 2003, Mutation research.

[6]  E Gocke,et al.  Study of artificial flavouring substances for mutagenicity in the Salmonella/microsome, Basc and micronucleus tests. , 1983, Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association.

[7]  Andrew Teasdale,et al.  ICH M7: Assessment and Control of DNA Reactive (Mutagenic) Impurities in Pharmaceuticals to Limit Potential Carcinogenic Risk , 2017 .

[8]  Jiri Aubrecht,et al.  Inter-laboratory evaluation of the bioluminescent Salmonella reverse mutation assay using 10 model chemicals. , 2009, Mutagenesis.

[9]  Nigel Greene,et al.  Computer systems for the prediction of toxicity: an update. , 2002, Advanced drug delivery reviews.

[10]  Nigel Greene,et al.  In silico methods combined with expert knowledge rule out mutagenic potential of pharmaceutical impurities: an industry survey. , 2012, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[11]  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.

[12]  H. Seifried,et al.  A compilation of two decades of mutagenicity test results with the Ames Salmonella typhimurium and L5178Y mouse lymphoma cell mutation assays. , 2006, Chemical research in toxicology.

[13]  D Henschler,et al.  Mutagenicity of chloroolefins in the Salmonella/mammalian microsome test--II. Structural requirements for the metabolic activation of non-allylic chloropropenes and methylated derivatives via epoxide formation. , 1986, Biochemical pharmacology.

[14]  H. Tanii,et al.  Mutagenicity of acrylamide and its analogues in Salmonella typhimurium. , 1985, Mutation research.

[15]  Craig Zwickl,et al.  An evaluation of in-house and off-the-shelf in silico models: implications on guidance for mutagenicity assessment. , 2015, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[16]  Alexander Amberg,et al.  Do Carboxylic/Sulfonic Acid Halides Really Present a Mutagenic and Carcinogenic Risk as Impurities in Final Drug Products? , 2015 .

[17]  Klaus-Robert Müller,et al.  Benchmark Data Set for in Silico Prediction of Ames Mutagenicity , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[18]  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.

[19]  Mark W Powley,et al.  (Q)SAR assessments of potentially mutagenic impurities: a regulatory perspective on the utility of expert knowledge and data submission. , 2015, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[20]  C. Schlatter,et al.  The mutagenic activity of agaritine — a constituent of the cultivated mushroomAgaricus bisporus —and its derivatives detected with the Salmonella/mammalian microsome assay (Ames Test) , 1986, Zeitschrift fur Lebensmittel-Untersuchung und -Forschung.

[21]  T. Ferrari,et al.  An open source multistep model to predict mutagenicity from statistical analysis and relevant structural alerts , 2010, Chemistry Central journal.

[22]  R. Snyder,et al.  Bacterial mutagenicity screening in the pharmaceutical industry. , 2013, Mutation research.