Predicting carcinogenicity of diverse chemicals using probabilistic neural network modeling approaches.

Robust global models capable of discriminating positive and non-positive carcinogens; and predicting carcinogenic potency of chemicals in rodents were developed. The dataset of 834 structurally diverse chemicals extracted from Carcinogenic Potency Database (CPDB) was used which contained 466 positive and 368 non-positive carcinogens. Twelve non-quantum mechanical molecular descriptors were derived. Structural diversity of the chemicals and nonlinearity in the data were evaluated using Tanimoto similarity index and Brock-Dechert-Scheinkman statistics. Probabilistic neural network (PNN) and generalized regression neural network (GRNN) models were constructed for classification and function optimization problems using the carcinogenicity end point in rat. Validation of the models was performed using the internal and external procedures employing a wide series of statistical checks. PNN constructed using five descriptors rendered classification accuracy of 92.09% in complete rat data. The PNN model rendered classification accuracies of 91.77%, 80.70% and 92.08% in mouse, hamster and pesticide data, respectively. The GRNN constructed with nine descriptors yielded correlation coefficient of 0.896 between the measured and predicted carcinogenic potency with mean squared error (MSE) of 0.44 in complete rat data. The rat carcinogenicity model (GRNN) applied to the mouse and hamster data yielded correlation coefficient and MSE of 0.758, 0.71 and 0.760, 0.46, respectively. The results suggest for wide applicability of the inter-species models in predicting carcinogenic potency of chemicals. Both the PNN and GRNN (inter-species) models constructed here can be useful tools in predicting the carcinogenicity of new chemicals for regulatory purposes.

[1]  Malcolm C. Pike,et al.  The TD50: a proposed general convention for the numerical description of the carcinogenic potency of chemicals in chronic-exposure animal experiments. , 1984 .

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

[3]  David B. Dunson,et al.  Bayesian Data Analysis , 2010 .

[4]  Andrew P Worth,et al.  Comparison of the applicability domain of a quantitative structure‐activity relationship for estrogenicity with a large chemical inventory , 2006, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[5]  R. Saracci,et al.  Describing the validity of carcinogen screening tests. , 1979, British Journal of Cancer.

[6]  C W Yap,et al.  Classification of a diverse set of Tetrahymena pyriformis toxicity chemical compounds from molecular descriptors by statistical learning methods. , 2006, Chemical research in toxicology.

[7]  B. LeBaron,et al.  A test for independence based on the correlation dimension , 1996 .

[8]  Nikolaus Stiefl,et al.  Structural resemblances and comparisons of the relative pharmacological properties of imatinib and nilotinib. , 2010, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry.

[9]  Ulrike Bernauer,et al.  The use of in vitro data in risk assessment. , 2005, Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology.

[10]  Emilio Benfenati,et al.  The Expanding Role of Predictive Toxicology: An Update on the (Q)SAR Models for Mutagens and Carcinogens , 2007, Journal of environmental science and health. Part C, Environmental carcinogenesis & ecotoxicology reviews.

[11]  G H Loew,et al.  Computer-assisted mechanistic structure-activity studies: application to diverse classes of chemical carcinogens. , 1985, Environmental health perspectives.

[12]  Marjan Vracko,et al.  A Study of Structure-Carcinogenic Potency Relationship with Artificial Neural Networks. The Using of Descriptors Related to Geometrical and Electronic Structures , 1997, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[13]  Emmanuel Anoruo,et al.  Testing for Linear and Nonlinear Causality between Crude Oil Price Changes and Stock Market Returns , 2012 .

[14]  K. P. Singh,et al.  Support vector machines in water quality management. , 2011, Analytica chimica acta.

[15]  R. S. Zhang,et al.  Quantitative structure-toxicity relationships (QSTRs): A comparative study of various non linear methods. General regression neural network, radial basis function neural network and support vector machine in predicting toxicity of nitro- and cyano- aromatics to Tetrahymena pyriformis , 2006, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

[16]  Nikita Basant,et al.  Modeling the performance of "up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket" reactor based wastewater treatment plant using linear and nonlinear approaches--a case study. , 2010, Analytica chimica acta.

[17]  Hojjat Adeli,et al.  A probabilistic neural network for earthquake magnitude prediction , 2009, Neural Networks.

[18]  Didier Villemin,et al.  Predicting Carcinogenicity of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons from Back-Propagation Neural Network , 1994, Journal of chemical information and computer sciences.

[19]  Maykel Pérez González,et al.  Quantitative structure activity relationship for the computational prediction of nitrocompounds carcinogenicity. , 2006, Toxicology.

[20]  X. Y. Zhang,et al.  Application of support vector machine (SVM) for prediction toxic activity of different data sets. , 2006, Toxicology.

[21]  T. I. Netzeva,et al.  Prediction of estrogenicity: validation of a classification model , 2006, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

[22]  K. Varmuza,et al.  Spectral similarity versus structural similarity: infrared spectroscopy , 2003 .

[23]  Yin-tak Woo,et al.  OncoLogic: A Mechanism-Based Expert System for Predicting the Carcinogenic Potential of Chemicals , 2005 .

[24]  John M. Barnard,et al.  Chemical Similarity Searching , 1998, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[25]  Mati Karelson,et al.  Quantitative Structure–Activity Relationship (QSAR) Modeling of EC50 of Aquatic Toxicities for Daphnia magna , 2009, Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part A.

[26]  Premanjali Rai,et al.  Predicting adsorptive removal of chlorophenol from aqueous solution using artificial intelligence based modeling approaches , 2013, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[27]  Emilio Benfenati,et al.  Some results for the prediction of carcinogenicity using hybrid systems , 1999 .

[28]  R Benigni,et al.  Prediction of rodent carcinogenicity of aromatic amines: a quantitative structure-activity relationships model. , 2001, Carcinogenesis.

[29]  Roberto Todeschini,et al.  Structure/Response Correlations and Similarity/Diversity Analysis by GETAWAY Descriptors, 1. Theory of the Novel 3D Molecular Descriptors , 2002, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[30]  Ivan Rusyn,et al.  The Use of Cell Viability Assay Data Improves the Prediction Accuracy of Conventional Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship Models of Animal Carcinogenicity , 2007 .

[31]  Changwen Du,et al.  Prediction of nitrate release from polymer-coated fertilizers using an artificial neural network model , 2008 .

[32]  Priyanka Ojha,et al.  Partial least squares and artificial neural networks modeling for predicting chlorophenol removal from aqueous solution , 2009 .

[33]  Kunal Roy,et al.  Development and validation of a robust QSAR model for prediction of carcinogenicity of drugs. , 2011, Indian journal of biochemistry & biophysics.

[34]  L. Gold,et al.  Supplement to the Carcinogenic Potency Database (CPDB): results of animal bioassays published in the general literature in 1993 to 1994 and by the National Toxicology Program in 1995 to 1996. , 1999, Environmental health perspectives.

[35]  Premanjali Rai,et al.  Modeling and optimization of reductive degradation of chloramphenicol in aqueous solution by zero-valent bimetallic nanoparticles , 2012, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[36]  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.

[37]  J. Contrera,et al.  A new highly specific method for predicting the carcinogenic potential of pharmaceuticals in rodents using enhanced MCASE QSAR-ES software. , 1998, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[38]  Raghuraman Venkatapathy,et al.  Development of quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models to predict the carcinogenic potency of chemicals I. Alternative toxicity measures as an estimator of carcinogenic potency. , 2009, Toxicology and applied pharmacology.

[39]  Tom Fawcett,et al.  An introduction to ROC analysis , 2006, Pattern Recognit. Lett..

[40]  C. Cooper,et al.  Chemical Carcinogenesis and Mutagenesis I , 1990, Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology.

[41]  Y. Wang,et al.  Using support vector regression coupled with the genetic algorithm for predicting acute toxicity to the fathead minnow , 2010, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

[42]  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.

[43]  Scott D. Kahn,et al.  Current Status of Methods for Defining the Applicability Domain of (Quantitative) Structure-Activity Relationships , 2005, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[44]  Kunal Roy,et al.  First report on development of quantitative interspecies structure-carcinogenicity relationship models and exploring discriminatory features for rodent carcinogenicity of diverse organic chemicals using OECD guidelines. , 2012, Chemosphere.

[45]  A. Giri.  Genetic toxicology of vinyl chloride--a review. , 1995, Mutation research.

[46]  R Benigni,et al.  Quantitative structure-activity relationships of mutagenic and carcinogenic aromatic amines. , 2000, Chemical reviews.

[47]  Desire L. Massart,et al.  Local modelling with radial basis function networks , 2000 .

[48]  Ralph Kühne,et al.  Quantitative and qualitative models for carcinogenicity prediction for non-congeneric chemicals using CP ANN method for regulatory uses , 2010, Molecular Diversity.

[49]  Tomasz Arodz,et al.  Computational methods in developing quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR): a review. , 2006, Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening.

[50]  R Posthumus,et al.  Validity and validation of expert (Q)SAR systems. , 2005, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

[51]  Shikha Gupta,et al.  Linear and nonlinear modeling approaches for urban air quality prediction. , 2012, The Science of the total environment.

[52]  Yue Yu,et al.  In silico prediction of Tetrahymena pyriformis toxicity for diverse industrial chemicals with substructure pattern recognition and machine learning methods. , 2011, Chemosphere.

[53]  A M Richard,et al.  A CASE-SAR analysis of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon carcinogenicity. , 1990, Mutation research.

[54]  Feng Luan,et al.  Classification of the carcinogenicity of N-nitroso compounds based on support vector machines and linear discriminant analysis. , 2005, Chemical research in toxicology.

[55]  A. Balaban.  Highly discriminating distance-based topological index , 1982 .

[56]  Maykel Pérez González,et al.  A topological substructural approach applied to the computational prediction of rodent carcinogenicity. , 2005, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry.

[57]  Hao Zhu,et al.  ESP: A Method To Predict Toxicity and Pharmacological Properties of Chemicals Using Multiple MCASE Databases , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[58]  Vladimir V Poroikov,et al.  Computer-aided rodent carcinogenicity prediction. , 2005, Mutation research.

[59]  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.

[60]  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.

[61]  L Zhang,et al.  The structure-activity relationship of skin carcinogenicity of aromatic hydrocarbons and heterocycles. , 1992, Chemico-biological interactions.

[62]  Shikha Gupta,et al.  Artificial intelligence based modeling for predicting the disinfection by-products in water , 2012 .

[63]  Giuseppina C. Gini,et al.  Predictive Carcinogenicity: A Model for Aromatic Compounds, with Nitrogen-Containing Substituents, Based on Molecular Descriptors Using an Artificial Neural Network , 1999, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[64]  Division on Earth.  Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process , 1983 .

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

[66]  Sholom M. Weiss,et al.  Computer Systems That Learn , 1990 .

[67]  Anthony T. C. Goh,et al.  Probabilistic neural network for evaluating seismic liquefaction potential , 2002 .

[68]  Emilio Benfenati,et al.  New public QSAR model for carcinogenicity , 2010, Chemistry Central journal.

[69]  N X Tan,et al.  Prediction of chemical carcinogenicity by machine learning approaches , 2009, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

[70]  Romualdo Benigni,et al.  Designing safer drugs: (Q)SAR-based identification of mutagens and carcinogens. , 2003, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.