A Novel Two-Step Hierarchical Quantitative Structure–Activity Relationship Modeling Work Flow for Predicting Acute Toxicity of Chemicals in Rodents

Background Accurate prediction of in vivo toxicity from in vitro testing is a challenging problem. Large public–private consortia have been formed with the goal of improving chemical safety assessment by the means of high-throughput screening. Objective A wealth of available biological data requires new computational approaches to link chemical structure, in vitro data, and potential adverse health effects. Methods and results A database containing experimental cytotoxicity values for in vitro half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) and in vivo rodent median lethal dose (LD50) for more than 300 chemicals was compiled by Zentralstelle zur Erfassung und Bewertung von Ersatz- und Ergaenzungsmethoden zum Tierversuch (ZEBET; National Center for Documentation and Evaluation of Alternative Methods to Animal Experiments). The application of conventional quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) modeling approaches to predict mouse or rat acute LD50 values from chemical descriptors of ZEBET compounds yielded no statistically significant models. The analysis of these data showed no significant correlation between IC50 and LD50. However, a linear IC50 versus LD50 correlation could be established for a fraction of compounds. To capitalize on this observation, we developed a novel two-step modeling approach as follows. First, all chemicals are partitioned into two groups based on the relationship between IC50 and LD50 values: One group comprises compounds with linear IC50 versus LD50 relationships, and another group comprises the remaining compounds. Second, we built conventional binary classification QSAR models to predict the group affiliation based on chemical descriptors only. Third, we developed k-nearest neighbor continuous QSAR models for each subclass to predict LD50 values from chemical descriptors. All models were extensively validated using special protocols. Conclusions The novelty of this modeling approach is that it uses the relationships between in vivo and in vitro data only to inform the initial construction of the hierarchical two-step QSAR models. Models resulting from this approach employ chemical descriptors only for external prediction of acute rodent toxicity.

[1]  J. Howard Petrie,et al.  Analysis of the Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS) Files and Conversion of the Data in These Files for Input to the Environmental Chemicals Data and Information Network (ECDIN) , 1978, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[2]  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 .

[3]  John C. Dearden,et al.  In silico prediction of drug toxicity , 2003, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[4]  K Enslein,et al.  An Overview of Structure-Activity Relationships as an Alternative To Testing in Animals for Carcinogenicity, Mutagenicity, Dermal and Eye Irritation, and Acute Oral Toxicity , 1988, Toxicology and industrial health.

[5]  Melissa A. Pasquinelli,et al.  Computational Molecular Modeling for Evaluating the Toxicity of Environmental Chemicals: Prioritizing Bioassay Requirements , 2008, Environmental health perspectives.

[6]  F. Collins,et al.  Transforming Environmental Health Protection , 2008, Science.

[7]  D. Dix,et al.  The ToxCast program for prioritizing toxicity testing of environmental chemicals. , 2007, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[8]  Robert Andersen Modern Methods for Robust Regression , 2007 .

[9]  Alexander Tropsha,et al.  Novel Variable Selection Quantitative Structure-Property Relationship Approach Based on the k-Nearest-Neighbor Principle , 2000, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[10]  J. Hermens,et al.  Classifying environmental pollutants , 1992 .

[11]  Herbert S. Rosenkranz,et al.  Multiple computer‐automated structure evaluation study of aquatic toxicity II. Fathead minnow , 2000 .

[12]  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.

[13]  Alexander Tropsha,et al.  Application of validated QSAR models of D1 dopaminergic antagonists for database mining. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[14]  Alexander Golbraikh,et al.  Rational selection of training and test sets for the development of validated QSAR models , 2003, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[15]  Johnson De,et al.  Linking toxicity and chemistry: think globally, but act locally? , 2004 .

[16]  Yi Li,et al.  In silico ADME/Tox: why models fail , 2003, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[17]  Alexander Golbraikh,et al.  Quantitative Structure−Activity Relationship Analysis of Functionalized Amino Acid Anticonvulsant Agents Using k Nearest Neighbor and Simulated Annealing PLS Methods , 2002 .

[18]  W. Raub From the National Institutes of Health. , 1990, JAMA.

[19]  M Verwei,et al.  Development of a QSAR for worst case estimates of acute toxicity of chemically reactive compounds. , 2007, Toxicology letters.

[20]  Steven K. Gibb Toxicity testing in the 21st century: a vision and a strategy. , 2008, Reproductive toxicology.

[21]  P. Mayer,et al.  Can highly hydrophobic organic substances cause aquatic baseline toxicity and can they contribute to mixture toxicity? , 2006, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[22]  J. Domagala Structure-activity and structure-side-effect relationships for the quinolone antibacterials. , 1994, The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy.

[23]  Alexander Golbraikh,et al.  Quantitative Structure–activity Relationship Analysis of Pyridinone HIV-1 Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors using the k Nearest Neighbor Method and QSAR-based Database Mining , 2005, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[24]  Gerald M. Maggiora,et al.  On Outliers and Activity Cliffs-Why QSAR Often Disappoints , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[25]  Alexander Tropsha,et al.  Quantitative structure-pharmacokinetic parameters relationships (QSPKR) analysis of antimicrobial agents in humans using simulated annealing k-nearest-neighbor and partial least-square analysis methods. , 2004, Journal of pharmaceutical sciences.

[26]  B. Tóth,et al.  Toxicities of hydrazines: a review. , 1988, In vivo.

[27]  J. Bailar,et al.  Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy , 2010, Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews.

[28]  Ruili Huang,et al.  Compound Cytotoxicity Profiling Using Quantitative High-Throughput Screening , 2007, Environmental health perspectives.

[29]  Rathan M. Subramaniam,et al.  Patients with HIV , 2011 .

[30]  V. Pino,et al.  Metabolism and toxicology of heterocyclic aromatic amines when consumed in diet: Influence of the genetic susceptibility to develop human cancer. A review , 2008 .

[31]  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.

[32]  Sven Ove Hansson,et al.  How accurate are the European Union's classifications of chemical substances. , 2003, Toxicology letters.

[33]  Roger L Breton,et al.  A comparison of model performance for six quantitative structure‐activity relationship packages that predict acute toxicity to fish , 2003, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[34]  Alexander Golbraikh,et al.  Predictive QSAR modeling workflow, model applicability domains, and virtual screening. , 2007, Current pharmaceutical design.

[35]  Robert M. Bruce,et al.  Assessment of the Oral Rat Chronic Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level Model in TOPKAT, a QSAR Software Package for Toxicity Prediction , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[36]  J. Hermens,et al.  Classifying environmental pollutants: Part 3. External validation of the classification system. , 2000, Chemosphere.

[37]  D. Cooper,et al.  In vitro cytotoxicity as a marker of hypersensitivity to sulphamethoxazole in patients with HIV , 1993, Clinical and experimental immunology.

[38]  Herbert S. Rosenkranz,et al.  Multiple Computer‐Automated structure evaluation program study of aquatic toxicity 1: Guppy , 1999 .