Computational prediction of genotoxicity: room for improvement.

Decades of mutagenesis and clastogenesis studies have yielded enough structure-activity-relationship (SAR) information to make feasible the construction of computational models for prediction of endpoints based on molecular structure and reactivity. Although there is cause for optimism that these approaches might someday reduce or eliminate the need for actual genotoxicity testing, we are in fact a long way from this. We provide an overview of the state of the art of such approaches, dissecting out how these models are suboptimal. It is clear that current programs still have limited predictive capabilities. We propose that one of the major contributing factors for the inherent lack of sensitivity (typically 50-60%) is inadequate coverage of non-covalent DNA interactions. Suboptimal specificity can be partly attributed to chemical space considerations with associated non-causal activity correlations.

[1]  Ann M Richard,et al.  Distributed structure-searchable toxicity (DSSTox) public database network: a proposal. , 2002, Mutation research.

[2]  H. Rosenkranz,et al.  SAR modeling of genotoxic phenomena: the effect of supplementation with physiological chemicals. , 2001, Mutation research.

[3]  Alessandro Giuliani,et al.  Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) - Studies of Mutagens and Carcinogens , 1996 .

[4]  R Benigni,et al.  QSARS of mutagens and carcinogens: two case studies illustrating problems in the construction of models for noncongeneric chemicals. , 1996, Mutation research.

[5]  Neal F. Cariello,et al.  Comparison of the computer programs DEREK and TOPKAT to predict bacterial mutagenicity. Deductive Estimate of Risk from Existing Knowledge. Toxicity Prediction by Komputer Assisted Technology. , 2002, Mutagenesis.

[6]  L. Hall,et al.  Three new consensus QSAR models for the prediction of Ames genotoxicity. , 2004, Mutagenesis.

[7]  H S Rosenkranz,et al.  Sar modeling of unbalanced data sets , 2001, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

[8]  D J Livingstone,et al.  Modelling mutagenicity using properties calculated by computational chemistry , 2002, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

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

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

[11]  R. Tennant,et al.  Classification according to chemical structure, mutagenicity to Salmonella and level of carcinogenicity of a further 39 chemicals tested for carcinogenicity by the U.S. National Toxicology Program. , 1991, Mutation research.

[12]  E Zeiger,et al.  Classification according to chemical structure, mutagenicity to Salmonella and level of carcinogenicity of a further 42 chemicals tested for carcinogenicity by the U.S. National Toxicology Program. , 1989, Mutation research.

[13]  R. Snyder,et al.  The influence of N-dialkyl and other cationic substituents on DNA intercalation and genotoxicity. , 2005, Mutation research.

[14]  L. Ferguson.  Inhibitors of topoisomerase II enzymes: a unique group of environmental mutagens and carcinogens. , 1998, Mutation research.

[15]  E. D. Bransome,et al.  The ligand insertion hypothesis in the genomic action of steroid hormones 1 1 Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium of the Journal of Steroid Biochemistry & Molecular Biology “Recent Advances in Steroid Biochemistry & Molecular Biology” Monaco 25–28 May 1997. , 1998, The Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

[16]  Herbert S Rosenkranz,et al.  SAR modeling of genotoxic phenomena: the consequence on predictive performance of deviation from a unity ratio of genotoxicants/non-genotoxicants. , 2004, Mutation research.

[17]  Ronald D Snyder,et al.  Evaluation of DNA intercalation potential of pharmaceuticals and other chemicals by cell‐based and three‐dimensional computational approaches , 2004, Environmental and molecular mutagenesis.

[18]  J. Copland,et al.  Design of novel antiestrogens , 1994, The Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

[19]  Peter C Jurs,et al.  Predicting the genotoxicity of polycyclic aromatic compounds from molecular structure with different classifiers. , 2003, Chemical research in toxicology.

[20]  P. Jurs,et al.  Development of binary classification of structural chromosome aberrations for a diverse set of organic compounds from molecular structure. , 2003, Chemical research in toxicology.

[21]  V. Mahesh,et al.  Multidimensional screening and design of pharmaceuticals by using endocrine pharmacophores , 1999, Steroids.

[22]  Stephen K. Durham,et al.  Predicting the Genotoxicity of Secondary and Aromatic Amines Using Data Subsetting to Generate a Model Ensemble. , 2003 .

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

[24]  J. Votano,et al.  Recent uses of topological indices in the development of in silico ADMET models. , 2005, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

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

[26]  E. Dybing,et al.  Comparison of carcinogenic and in vivo genotoxic potency estimates. , 2005, Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology.

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

[28]  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.

[29]  Subhash C. Basak,et al.  Prediction of Mutagenicity of Aromatic and Heteroaromatic Amines from Structure: A Hierarchical QSAR Approach , 2001, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..