Development of nanostructure–activity relationships assisting the nanomaterial hazard categorization for risk assessment and regulatory decision-making

Categorization of the environmental hazards associated with engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) is important for evaluating the potential risks brought by commercialized ENMs. Such a task is so far severely hindered because of an insufficient amount of available toxicity data. As biological assays are costly and time-consuming and also face the ethical issue of animal use, computational modeling such as (quantitative) nanostructure–activity relationships (nano-(Q)SARs) is valued as a potential tool to fill in the data gaps. With this in mind, nano-SARs classifying the ecotoxicity of ENMs were developed in this study with the aims: (i) to examine the availability of nanoecotoxicity data in developing nano-SARs; and (ii) to build nano-SARs that assist the hazard categorization of ENMs for regulatory purposes. Multi-source ecotoxicity data were retrieved, on the basis of which descriptors quantifying the ENM structures were calculated. By employing four extensively used tree algorithms, global nano-SARs across species and species-specific models were derived with significant predictive power. For the LC50 global models, the functional tree, C4.5 decision tree and random tree models all correctly classified more than 70.0% of the samples on training (320 ENMs) and test sets (80 ENMs). The functional tree predicting the toxicity of metallic ENMs to Danio rerio showed accuracies of 93.4% and 100% on, respectively, training (76 ENMs) and test sets (18 ENMs). Descriptors present in the species-specific models were analyzed to discuss the key factors affecting nanotoxicity. With easily obtained descriptors and transparent predictive rules, we believe the developed nano-SARs could assist the expedited review of ENMs' hazards and facilitate better-informed regulatory decisions of ENMs.

[1]  Y. Zhao,et al.  Comparison of decision tree methods for finding active objects , 2007, 0708.4274.

[2]  Cesare Furlanello,et al.  Entropy-based gene ranking without selection bias for the predictive classification of microarray data , 2003, BMC Bioinformatics.

[3]  Jian Wang,et al.  Nano(Q)SAR: Challenges, pitfalls and perspectives , 2015, Nanotoxicology.

[4]  A. Tropsha,et al.  Quantitative nanostructure-activity relationship modeling. , 2010, ACS nano.

[5]  Sushilkumar Kalmegh,et al.  Analysis of WEKA Data Mining Algorithm REPTree, Simple Cart and RandomTree for Classification of Indian News , 2015 .

[6]  Igor V. Tetko,et al.  Online chemical modeling environment (OCHEM): web platform for data storage, model development and publishing of chemical information , 2011, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[7]  Feng Luan,et al.  Computational ecotoxicology: simultaneous prediction of ecotoxic effects of nanoparticles under different experimental conditions. , 2014, Environment international.

[8]  Jerzy Leszczynski,et al.  Towards understanding mechanisms governing cytotoxicity of metal oxides nanoparticles: Hints from nano-QSAR studies , 2015, Nanotoxicology.

[9]  Guangchao Chen,et al.  Toxicity and accumulation of Cu and ZnO nanoparticles in Daphnia magna. , 2015, Environmental science & technology.

[10]  T. Xia,et al.  Development of structure-activity relationship for metal oxide nanoparticles. , 2013, Nanoscale.

[11]  Katre Juganson,et al.  NanoE-Tox: New and in-depth database concerning ecotoxicity of nanomaterials , 2015, Beilstein journal of nanotechnology.

[12]  Phillip Stafford,et al.  Comparative study of classification algorithms for immunosignaturing data , 2012, BMC Bioinformatics.

[13]  Jerzy Leszczynski,et al.  Periodic table-based descriptors to encode cytotoxicity profile of metal oxide nanoparticles: a mechanistic QSTR approach. , 2014, Ecotoxicology and environmental safety.

[14]  Alexander Tropsha,et al.  Exploring quantitative nanostructure-activity relationships (QNAR) modeling as a tool for predicting biological effects of manufactured nanoparticles. , 2011, Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening.

[15]  W. Russell,et al.  Ethical and Scientific Considerations Regarding Animal Testing and Research , 2011, PloS one.

[16]  Shikha Gupta,et al.  Nano-QSAR modeling for predicting biological activity of diverse nanomaterials , 2014 .

[17]  David A Winkler,et al.  Recent advances, and unresolved issues, in the application of computational modelling to the prediction of the biological effects of nanomaterials. , 2016, Toxicology and applied pharmacology.

[18]  João Gama,et al.  Functional Trees , 2001, Machine Learning.

[19]  Guangchao Chen,et al.  Summary and Analysis of the Currently Existing Literature Data on Metal-based Nanoparticles Published for Selected Aquatic Organisms: Applicability for Toxicity Prediction by (Q)SARs , 2015, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[20]  S. Yao,et al.  Nanotoxicity of TiO(2) nanoparticles to erythrocyte in vitro. , 2008, Food and Chemical Toxicology.

[21]  Shweta Rajput,et al.  Designing Spam Model- Classification Analysis using Decision Trees , 2013 .

[22]  J. Ross Quinlan,et al.  Induction of Decision Trees , 1986, Machine Learning.

[23]  Mati Karelson,et al.  QSPR modeling of hyperpolarizabilities , 2007, Journal of molecular modeling.

[24]  Farooq Ahmad,et al.  Particle‐specific toxic effects of differently shaped zinc oxide nanoparticles to zebrafish embryos (Danio rerio) , 2014, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[25]  D. Bagchi,et al.  Oxidative mechanisms in the toxicity of metal ions. , 1995, Free radical biology & medicine.

[26]  Robert Landsiedel,et al.  Nanomaterial categorization for assessing risk potential to facilitate regulatory decision-making. , 2015, ACS nano.