Mechanism-Based QSAR Modeling of Skin Sensitization.

Many chemicals can induce skin sensitization, and there is a pressing need for non-animal methods to give a quantitative indication of potency. Using two large published data sets of skin sensitizers, we have allocated each sensitizing chemical to one of 10 mechanistic categories and then developed good QSAR models for the seven categories that have a sufficient number of chemicals to allow modeling. Both internal and external validation checks showed that each model had good predictivity.

[1]  K. Roy,et al.  Development and validation of regression-based QSAR models for quantification of contributions of molecular fragments to skin sensitization potency of diverse organic chemicals , 2013, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

[2]  Grace Y. Patlewicz,et al.  Integrated testing and assessment approaches for skin sensitization: a commentary , 2014, Journal of applied toxicology : JAT.

[3]  Peter C Jurs,et al.  Assessing the reliability of a QSAR model's predictions. , 2005, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[4]  D. Basketter,et al.  Local lymph node assay: use in hazard and risk assessment , 1999, Journal of applied toxicology : JAT.

[5]  Grace Patlewicz,et al.  Electrophilic chemistry related to skin sensitization. Reaction mechanistic applicability domain classification for a published data set of 106 chemicals tested in the mouse local lymph node assay. , 2007, Chemical research in toxicology.

[6]  Alexander Tropsha,et al.  Best Practices for QSAR Model Development, Validation, and Exploitation , 2010, Molecular informatics.

[7]  Mark T. D. Cronin,et al.  QSAR STUDY OF THE TOXICITY OF NITROBENZENES TO TETRAHYMENA PYRIFORMIS , 1995 .

[8]  Alexander Golbraikh,et al.  Does Rational Selection of Training and Test Sets Improve the Outcome of QSAR Modeling? , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

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

[10]  J. Weir.  Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. , 2005, Journal of strength and conditioning research.

[11]  D W Roberts,et al.  Predicting skin sensitization potency for Michael acceptors in the LLNA using quantum mechanics calculations. , 2013, Chemical research in toxicology.

[12]  David W Roberts,et al.  Determinants of skin sensitisation potential , 2008, Journal of applied toxicology : JAT.

[13]  Paola Gramatica,et al.  Principles of QSAR models validation: internal and external , 2007 .

[14]  Paola Gramatica,et al.  Real External Predictivity of QSAR Models. Part 2. New Intercomparable Thresholds for Different Validation Criteria and the Need for Scatter Plot Inspection , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[15]  Ian Kimber,et al.  Compilation of Historical Local Lymph Node Data for Evaluation of Skin Sensitization Alternative Methods , 2005, Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug.

[16]  K. Luthman,et al.  A conjugated diene identified as a prohapten: contact allergenic activity and chemical reactivity of proposed epoxide metabolites. , 2005, Chemical research in toxicology.

[17]  Paola Gramatica,et al.  Statistical external validation and consensus modeling: a QSPR case study for Koc prediction. , 2007, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[18]  A O Aptula,et al.  Electrophilic reactivity and skin sensitization potency of SNAr electrophiles. , 2014, Chemical research in toxicology.

[19]  J. Dearden,et al.  How not to develop a quantitative structure–activity or structure–property relationship (QSAR/QSPR) , 2009, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

[20]  David W. Roberts,et al.  A Minireview of Available Skin Sensitization (Q)SARs/Expert Sytems , 2008 .

[21]  Andreas Natsch,et al.  High throughput kinetic profiling approach for covalent binding to peptides: application to skin sensitization potency of Michael acceptor electrophiles. , 2009, Chemical research in toxicology.

[22]  J. Dearden,et al.  QSAR study of the toxicity of benzoic acids to Vibrio fischeri, Daphnia magna and carp. , 1998, The Science of the total environment.

[23]  Bieke Dejaegher,et al.  Feature selection methods in QSAR studies. , 2012, Journal of AOAC International.

[24]  Grace Patlewicz,et al.  A comparison of reactivity schemes for the prediction skin sensitization potential. , 2008, Chemical research in toxicology.

[25]  S. Enoch,et al.  Identification of mechanisms of toxic action for skin sensitisation using a SMARTS pattern based approach , 2008, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

[26]  G. Schaafsma,et al.  Risk assessment of local dermal effects and skin sensitisation under the EU Chemicals Regulation REACH: a proposal for a qualitative, exposure scenario specific, approach. , 2011, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[27]  Douglas M. Hawkins,et al.  The Problem of Overfitting , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[28]  Humayun Kabir,et al.  Comparative Studies on Some Metrics for External Validation of QSPR Models , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[29]  G. Patlewicz,et al.  Structure–activity relationships for selected fragrance allergens , 2002, Contact dermatitis.

[30]  Aynur Aptula,et al.  Local Lymph Node Data for the Evaluation of Skin Sensitization Alternatives: A Second Compilation , 2010, Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug.

[31]  Marco Pintore,et al.  Global QSAR models of skin sensitisers for regulatory purposes , 2010, Chemistry Central journal.

[32]  Davide Ballabio,et al.  Evaluation of model predictive ability by external validation techniques , 2010 .

[33]  Paola Gramatica,et al.  The Importance of Being Earnest: Validation is the Absolute Essential for Successful Application and Interpretation of QSPR Models , 2003 .

[34]  David W. Roberts,et al.  Chemistry Based Nonanimal Predictive Modeling for Skin Sensitization , 2009 .