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.

The performance of two computer programs, DEREK and TOPKAT, was examined with regard to predicting the outcome of the Ames bacterial mutagenicity assay. The results of over 400 Ames tests conducted at Glaxo Wellcome (now GlaxoSmithKline) during the last 15 years on a wide variety of chemical classes were compared with the mutagenicity predictions of both computer programs. DEREK was considered concordant with the Ames assay if (i) the Ames assay was negative (not mutagenic) and no structural alerts for mutagenicity were identified or (ii) the Ames assay was positive (mutagenic) and at least one structural alert was identified. Conversely, the DEREK output was considered discordant if (i) the Ames assay was negative and any structural alert was identified or (ii) the Ames assay was positive and no structural alert was identified. The overall concordance of the DEREK program with the Ames results was 65% and the overall discordance was 35%, based on over 400 compounds. About 23% of the test molecules were outside the permissible limits of the optimum prediction space of TOPKAT. Another 4% of the compounds were either not processable or had indeterminate mutagenicity predictions; these molecules were excluded from the TOPKAT analysis. If the TOPKAT probability was (i) > or =0.7 the molecule was predicted to be mutagenic, (ii) < or =0.3 the compound was predicted to be non-mutagenic and (iii) between 0.3 and 0.7 the prediction was considered indeterminate. From over 300 acceptable predictions, the overall TOPKAT concordance was 73% and the overall discordance was 27%. While the overall concordance of the TOPKAT program was higher than DEREK, TOPKAT fared more poorly than DEREK in the critical Ames-positive category, where 60% of the compounds were incorrectly predicted by TOPKAT as negative but were mutagenic in the Ames test. For DEREK, 54% of the Ames-positive molecules had no structural alerts and were predicted to be non-mutagenic. Alternative methods of analyzing the output of the programs to increase the accuracy with Ames-positive compounds are discussed.

[1]  J. Ashby,et al.  Prediction of Salmonella mutagenicity. , 1996, Mutagenesis.

[2]  Ann M. Richard,et al.  Application of SAR methods to non-congeneric data bases assocated with carcinogenicity and mutagenicity: Issues and approachs , 1994 .

[3]  D. Lewis,et al.  Comparison between rodent carcinogenicity test results of 44 chemicals and a number of predictive systems. , 1994, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[4]  B. Burlinson,et al.  Use of the Miniscreen assay to screen novel compounds for bacterial mutagenicity in the pharmaceutical industry. , 1996, Mutagenesis.

[5]  Hook Eb.  International Commission for Protection against Environmental Mutagens and Carcinogens. ICPEMC meeting report no. 3. Is the incidence of Down syndrome increasing? , 1983, Mutation research.

[6]  T. Brooks.  The use of a streamlined bacterial mutagenicity assay, the MINISCREEN. , 1995, Mutagenesis.

[7]  A M Richard,et al.  Structure-based methods for predicting mutagenicity and carcinogenicity: are we there yet? , 1998, Mutation research.

[8]  J Ashby,et al.  Prediction of rodent carcinogenicity for 30 chemicals. , 1996, Environmental health perspectives.

[9]  Lemont B. Kier,et al.  The electrotopological state: structure information at the atomic level for molecular graphs , 1991, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[10]  J Ashby,et al.  Prediction of rodent carcinogenicity for 44 chemicals: results. , 1994, Mutagenesis.

[11]  B. Ames,et al.  Revised methods for the Salmonella mutagenicity test. , 1983, Mutation research.

[12]  R Benigni.  Predicting chemical carcinogenesis in rodents: the state of the art in light of a comparative exercise. , 1995, Mutation research.

[13]  Vijay K Gombar,et al.  Quantification of Molecular Shape & Its Correlation with Physicochemical Properties , 1987 .

[14]  M. Nagao,et al.  Mutagenicity of carcinogenic azo dyes and their derivatives. , 1975, Cancer letters.

[15]  Jeffrey P. Jones,et al.  Designing safer chemicals: predicting the rates of metabolism of halogenated alkanes. , 1995, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[16]  R Benigni,et al.  Quantitative structure-activity relationships of mutagenic and carcinogenic aromatic amines. , 2000, Chemical reviews.

[17]  L. Kier.  Shape Indexes of Orders One and Three from Molecular Graphs , 1986 .

[18]  Gombar Vk.  Reliable Assessment of Log P of Compounds of Pharmaceutical Relevance , 1999 .

[19]  Reliable assessment of logP of compounds of pharmaceutical relevance. , 1999, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

[20]  Cancer Risk Reduction Through Mechanism-Based Molecular Design of Chemicals , 1996 .

[21]  R Benigni.  The first US National Toxicology Program exercise on the prediction of rodent carcinogenicity: definitive results. , 1997, Mutation research.

[22]  G W Milne,et al.  Applications of computers to toxicological research. , 1993, Chemical research in toxicology.

[23]  D. Sanderson,et al.  Computer Prediction of Possible Toxic Action from Chemical Structure; The DEREK System , 1991, Human & experimental toxicology.