The computational prediction of genotoxicity

Importance of the field: The computational prediction of genotoxicity is important to the early identification of those chemical entities that have the potential to cause carcinogenicity in humans. Areas covered in this review: The review discusses key scientific developments in the prediction of Ames mutagenicity and in vitro chromosome damage over the past 4 – 5 years. The performance and limitations of computational approaches are discussed in relation to published and internal validation exercises. Their application to the modern drug discovery paradigm is also discussed. What the reader will gain: Key highlights of a review of the recent scientific literature for the prediction of Ames mutagenicity and chromosome damage and an appreciation of the factors that limit the predictive performance of in silico systems. Take home message: Current in silico systems perform well in the mutagenicity prediction of the publicly-derived data on which they are based, but their performance outside the applicability domain is considerably lower. We conclude that it is the lack of mechanistic structure–activity relationships and limited access to high quality proprietary data which are holding back computational genotoxicity from reaching higher predictive levels.

[1]  Lutz Müller,et al.  A rationale for determining, testing, and controlling specific impurities in pharmaceuticals that possess potential for genotoxicity. , 2006, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[2]  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.

[3]  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.

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

[5]  Lutz Müller,et al.  Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens I. Sensitivity, specificity and relative predictivity. , 2005, Mutation research.

[6]  Ronald D Snyder,et al.  DNA intercalative potential of marketed drugs testing positive in in vitro cytogenetics assays. , 2006, Mutation research.

[7]  Ronald D Snyder,et al.  Assessment of atypical DNA intercalating agents in biological and in silico systems. , 2007, Mutation research.

[8]  Ernesto Estrada,et al.  Automatic extraction of structural alerts for predicting chromosome aberrations of organic compounds. , 2006, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[9]  Warren E Glaab,et al.  A low volume, high-throughput forward mutation assay in Salmonella typhimurium based on fluorouracil resistance. , 2005, Mutation research.

[10]  Stephanie Ringeissen,et al.  Evaluation of ( Q ) SAR models for the prediction of mutagenicity potential , 2006 .

[11]  Stephen R. Johnson,et al.  The Trouble with QSAR (or How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Embrace Fallacy) , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[12]  M Natália D S Cordeiro,et al.  A topological substructural molecular design approach for predicting mutagenesis end-points of alpha, beta-unsaturated carbonyl compounds. , 2010, Toxicology.

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

[14]  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.

[15]  Maykel Pérez González,et al.  Halogenated derivatives QSAR model using spectral moments to predict haloacetic acids (HAA) mutagenicity. , 2008, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry.

[16]  Jiri Aubrecht,et al.  Bioluminescent Salmonella reverse mutation assay: a screen for detecting mutagenicity with high throughput attributes. , 2007, Mutagenesis.

[17]  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.

[18]  Ovanes Mekenyan,et al.  Identifying the structural requirements for chromosomal aberration by incorporating molecular flexibility and metabolic activation of chemicals. , 2007, Chemical research in toxicology.

[19]  Mark Whittaker,et al.  An in Silico Method for Predicting Ames Activities of Primary Aromatic Amines by Calculating the Stabilities of Nitrenium Ions , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

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

[21]  R Scott Obach,et al.  A strategy for the risk assessment of human genotoxic metabolites. , 2009, Chemical research in toxicology.

[22]  R Serafimova,et al.  Identification of the structural requirements for mutagencitiy, by incorporating molecular flexibility and metabolic activation of chemicals. II. General Ames mutagenicity model. , 2007, Chemical research in toxicology.

[23]  Naomi L Kruhlak,et al.  A structural feature-based computational approach for toxicology predictions , 2010, Expert opinion on drug metabolism & toxicology.

[24]  Andrew Worth,et al.  Structural analysis and predictive value of the rodent in vivo micronucleus assay results. , 2010, Mutagenesis.

[25]  Qing-You Zhang,et al.  Random Forest Prediction of Mutagenicity from Empirical Physicochemical Descriptors , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[26]  Melvin E Andersen,et al.  Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: Implications for Human Health Risk Assessment , 2009, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[27]  Paolo Mazzatorta,et al.  Integration of Structure-Activity Relationship and Artificial Intelligence Systems To Improve in Silico Prediction of Ames Test Mutagenicity , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[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]  David Kirkland,et al.  Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens III. Appropriate follow-up testing in vivo. , 2005, Mutation research.

[30]  Jan G Hengstler,et al.  Carcinogenicity categorization of chemicals-new aspects to be considered in a European perspective. , 2004, Toxicology letters.

[31]  P Gramatica,et al.  Prediction of PAH mutagenicity in human cells by QSAR classification , 2008, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

[32]  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.

[33]  Romualdo Benigni,et al.  Predictivity of QSAR , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[34]  Pramod C. Nair,et al.  Comparative QSTR studies for predicting mutagenicity of nitro compounds. , 2008, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[35]  Yvonne Connolly Martin What Works and What Does Not: Lessons from Experience in a Pharmaceutical Company , 2007 .

[36]  Christoph Helma,et al.  Lazy structure-activity relationships (lazar) for the prediction of rodent carcinogenicity and Salmonella mutagenicity , 2006, Molecular Diversity.

[37]  Gilles Marcou,et al.  Predicting the Predictability: A Unified Approach to the Applicability Domain Problem of QSAR Models , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[38]  Luis G Valerio,et al.  In silico toxicology for the pharmaceutical sciences. , 2009, Toxicology and applied pharmacology.

[39]  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.

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

[41]  Hans Bitter,et al.  Identification of a Kinase Profile that Predicts Chromosome Damage Induced by Small Molecule Kinase Inhibitors , 2009, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[42]  N. Kruhlak,et al.  An analysis of genetic toxicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, and carcinogenicity data: II. Identification of genotoxicants, reprotoxicants, and carcinogens using in silico methods. , 2006, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

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

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

[45]  P. Kovacic,et al.  Mechanisms of action of DNA intercalating acridine-based drugs: how important are contributions from electron transfer and oxidative stress? , 2003, Current medicinal chemistry.

[46]  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.

[47]  Maxime Robin,et al.  DNA-damaging activity and mutagenicity of 16 newly synthesized thiazolo[5,4-a]acridine derivatives with high photo-inducible cytotoxicity. , 2008, Mutation research.

[48]  R Scott Obach,et al.  Strategy for genotoxicity testing--metabolic considerations. , 2007, Mutation research.

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

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

[51]  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.

[52]  Nigel Greene,et al.  The application of structure-based assessment to support safety and chemistry diligence to manage genotoxic impurities in active pharmaceutical ingredients during drug development. , 2006, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[53]  N Flamand,et al.  Mini mutagenicity test: a miniaturized version of the Ames test used in a prescreening assay for point mutagenesis assessment. , 2001, Toxicology in vitro : an international journal published in association with BIBRA.