In silico models for genotoxicity and drug regulation

References

• Cherkasov A, Muratov EN, Fourches D, et al. QSAR modeling: where have you been? Where are you going to? J Med Chem. 2014;57:4977–5010.
   Google Scholar
• Hansch C, Hoekman D, Gao H. Comparative QSAR: toward a deeper understanding of chemico-biological interactions. Chem Rev. 1996;96:1045–1075.
   Google Scholar
• EC (European Commission). Regulation (EC) no 1907/2006 of the European parliament and of the council of 18 December 2006 concerning the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH), establishing a European chemicals agency, amending directive 1999/45/EC and repealing council regulation (EEC) no 793/93 and commission regulation (EC) no 1488/94 as well as council directive 76/769/EEC and commission directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC. Off J Eur Union. 2006;L396/1.
   Google Scholar
• ICH. Guidance on genotoxicity testing and data interpretation for pharmaceuticals intended for human use. International conference on harmonisation of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• ICH M7. Assessment and control of DNA reactive (mutagenic) impurities in pharmaceuticals to limit potential carcinogenic risk (R1). 2017.
   Google Scholar
• EPA U. TSCA new chemicals program (NCP) chemical categories. In: Office of pollution prevention and toxics W, DC 20460 (ed). US EPA: Washington (DC); 2010;1-157.
   Google Scholar
• CDRH. Use of international standard ISO 10993–1. biological evaluation of medical devices - part 1: evaluation and testing within a risk management process. US FDA: Silver Spring, MD. 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Worth A, Barroso J, Bremer S, et al. Alternative methods for regulatory toxicology – a state-of-the-art review. In: JRC science and policy reports.Luxenbourg; 2014;1-157.
   Google Scholar
• Worth A, Fuart-Gatnik M, Lapenna S, et al. Applicability of QSAR analysis to the evaluation of the toxicological relevance of metabolites and degradates of pesticide active substances for dietary risk assessment. Final report of a project carried out by the JRC for the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Parma: EFSA; 2010. Available from: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/scdocs/scdoc/50e.htm
   Google Scholar
• Stanton K, Kruszewski FH. Quantifying the benefits of using read-across and in silico techniques to fulfill hazard data requirements for chemical categories. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2016;81:250–259.
   Google Scholar
• Hasselgren C, Ahlberg E, Akahori Y, et al. Genetic toxicology in silico protocol. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2019;107:104403.
   Google Scholar
• Hansch C, Fujita T. r-s-p analysis. A method for the correlation of biological activity and chemical structure. J Am Chem Soc. 1964;86:1616–1626.
   Google Scholar
• Livingstone DJ. The characterization of chemical structures using molecular properties. A survey. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 2000;40:195–209.
   Google Scholar
• Todeschini R, Lasagni M, Marengo E. New molecular descriptors for 2D and 3D structures. Theory J Chemom. 1994;8:263–272.
   Google Scholar
• Majumdar S, Basak SC, Lungu CN, et al. Mathematical structural descriptors and mutagenicity assessment: a study with congeneric and diverse datasets($). SAR QSAR Environ Res. 2018;29:579–590.
   Google Scholar
• Manallack DT, Ellis DD, Livingstone DJ. Analysis of linear and nonlinear QSAr data using neural networks. J Med Chem. 1994;37:3758–3767.
   Google Scholar
• Ambure P, Gajewicz-Skretna A. New workflow for QSAR model development from small data sets: small dataset curator and small dataset modeler. Integration of data curation, exhaustive double cross-validation, and a set of optimal model selection techniques. J Chem Inf modell. 2019;59:4070–4076.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang L, Tan J, Han D, et al. From machine learning to deep learning: progress in machine intelligence for rational drug discovery. Drug Discov Today. 2017;22:1680–1685.
   Google Scholar
• Aguiar-Pulido V, Gestal M, Cruz-Monteagudo M, et al. Evolutionary computation and QSAR research. Curr Comput Aided Drug Des. 2013;9:206–225.
   Google Scholar
• Keyvanpour MR, Shirzad MB. An analysis of QSAR research based on machine learning concepts. Curr Drug Discov Technol. 2020;17. DOI:10.2174/1570163817666200316104404
   Google Scholar
• Benigni R, Bossa C. Structural alerts of mutagens and carcinogens. Curr Comput Aid Drug Des. 2006;2:169–176.
   Google Scholar
• Benigni R, Bossa C. Structure alerts for carcinogenicity, and the Salmonella assay system: a novel insight through the chemical relational databases technology. Mutat Res Rev. 2008;659:248–261.
   Google Scholar
• Ashby J, Tennant RW. Chemical structure, Salmonella mutagenicity and extent of carcinogenicity as indicators of genotoxic carcinogenesis among 222 chemicals tested by the U.S.NCI/NTP. Mutat Res. 1988;204:17–115.
   Google Scholar
• Ashby J, Tennant RW. Definitive relationships among chemical structure, carcinogenicity and mutagenicity for 301 chemicals tested by the U.S. NTP. Mutat Res. 1991;257:229–306.
   Google Scholar
• Ashby J, Tennant RW, Zeiger E, et al. Classification according to chemical structure, mutagenicity to Salmonella and level of carcinogenicity of further 42 chemicals tested for carcinogenicity by the U.S. national toxicology program. Mutat Res. 1989;223:73–103.
   Google Scholar
• Benigni R, Bossa C. Mechanisms of chemical carcinogenicity and mutagenicity: a review with implications for predictive toxicology. Chem Rev. 2011;111:2507–2536.
   Google Scholar
• Benigni R, Bossa C, Tcheremenskaia O, et al. Development of structure alerts for the in vivo micronucleus assay in rodents. In: EUR – scientific and technical research series. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxenbourg; 2009;1-42.
   Google Scholar
• Benigni R, Bossa C, Tcheremenskaia O. Nongenotoxic carcinogenicity of chemicals: mechanisms of action, and early recognition through a new set of structural alerts. Chem Rev. 2013;113:2940–2957.
   Google Scholar
• Kazius J, McGuire R, Bursi R. Derivation and validation of toxicophores for mutagenicity prediction. J Med Chem. 2005;48:312–320.
   Google Scholar
• Bailey AB, Chanderbhan N, Collazo-Braier N, et al. The use of structure-activity relationship analysis in the food contact notification program. Regulat Pharmacol Toxicol. 2005;42:225–235.
   Google Scholar
• Enoch SJ, Cronin MT. Development of new structural alerts suitable for chemical category formation for assigning covalent and non-covalent mechanisms relevant to DNA binding. Mutat Res. 2012;743:10–19.
   Google Scholar
• Ahlberg E, Amberg A, Beilke LD, et al. Extending (Q)SARs to incorporate proprietary knowledge for regulatory purposes: a case study using aromatic amine mutagenicity. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2016;77:1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Myatt GJ, Ahlberg E, Akahori Y, et al. In silico toxicology protocols. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2018;96:1–17.
   Google Scholar
• Barber C, Hanser T, Judson P, et al. Distinguishing between expert and statistical systems for application under ICH M7. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2017;84:124–130.
   Google Scholar
• Myden A, Guesne SJ, Cayley A, et al. Utility of published DNA reactivity alerts. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2017;88:77–86.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. Guidance on grouping of chemicals. In: OECD series on testing and assessment. OECD: Paris; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. Guidance document on the validation of (Quantitative) Structure-Activity Relationships [(Q)SAR] models. Paris: OECD; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Cronin MTD, Madden JC, Yang C, et al. Unlocking the potential of in silico chemical safety assessment - a report on a cross-sector symposium on current opportunities and future challenges. Comput Toxicol. 2019;10:38–43.
   Google Scholar
• Worth AP. The future of in silico chemical safety … and beyond. OECD: Elsevier; 2019;1-141.
   Google Scholar
• Hasselgren C, Myatt GJ. Computational toxicology and drug discovery. Methods Mol Biol. 2018;1800:233–244.
   Google Scholar
• Amberg A, Beilke L, Bercu J, et al. Principles and procedures for implementation of ICH M7 recommended (Q)SAR analyses. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2016;77:13–24.
   Google Scholar
• Wichard JD. In silico prediction of genotoxicity. Food Chem Toxicol. 2017;106:595–599.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. Guidelines for testing of chemicals. In: Bacterial reverse mutation test. OECD: Paris; 1997. p. 471.
   Google Scholar
• Ball DJ. PQRI parental ophthalmic drug products (PODP) extractables & leachables workshop. 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Paskiet D. Overview of thresholds and best practices for extractable and leachables (L&E). 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Stavitskaya L, Aubrecht J, Kruhlak NL Chemical structure-based and toxicogenomic models. In: Graziano, M.J, Jakobson-Kram, D, editors. Genotoxicity and carcinogenicity testing of pharmaceuticals. Cham: Springer; 2015. p. 13–34.
   Google Scholar
• Serafimova R, Worth MFG. A review of the QSAR models and software tools for predicting genotoxicity and carcinogenicity. Publications Office of the European Union: Luxenbourg; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Benigni R, Bossa C. Data-based review of QSARs for predicting genotoxicity: the state of the art. Mutagenesis. 2019;34:17–23.
   Google Scholar
• Jolly R, Ahmed KB, Zwickl C, et al. An evaluation of in-house and off-the-shelf in silico models: implications on guidance for mutagenicity assessment. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2015;71:388–397.
   Google Scholar
• Benfenati E. In silico methods for predicting drug toxicity. New York (NY): Humana press; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Benigni R, Battistelli CL, Bossa C, et al. Evaluation of the applicability of existing (Q)SAR models for predicting the genotoxicity of pesticides and similarity analysis related with genotoxicity of pesticides for facilitating of grouping and read across. Parma: European Food Safety Authority; 2019:EN-1598.
   Google Scholar
• Honma M, Kitazawa A, Cayley A, et al. Improvement of quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) tools for predicting Ames mutagenicity: outcomes of the Ames/QSAR international challenge project. Mutagenesis. 2019;34:3–16.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. Fundamental and guiding principles for (Q)SAR analysis of chemical carcinogens with mechanistic considerations. In: Series on testing and assessment. OECD: Paris; 2015;1-85.
   Google Scholar
• Barber C, Antonucci V, Baumann JC, et al. A consortium-driven framework to guide the implementation of ICH M7 option 4 control strategies. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2017;90:22–28.
   Google Scholar
• Bakhtyari NG, Raitano G, Benfenati E, et al. Comparison of in silico models for prediction of mutagenicity. J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev. 2013;31:45–66.
   Google Scholar
• Valencia A, Prous J, Mora O, et al. A novel QSAR model of Salmonella mutagenicity and its application in the safety assessment of drug impurities. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2013;273:427–4324.
   Google Scholar
• Piegorsch WW, Zeiger E. Measuring intra-assay agreement for the Ames Salmonella assay. In: Rienhoff O, Lindberg DAB, editors. Statistical methods in toxicology. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 1991. p. 35–41.
   Google Scholar
• Greene N, Dobo KL, Kenyon MO, et al. A practical application of two in silico systems for identification of potentially mutagenic impurities. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2015;72:335–349.
   Google Scholar
• Araya S, Lovsin-Barle E, Glowienke S. Mutagenicity assessment strategy for pharmaceutical intermediates to aid limit setting for occupational exposure. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2015;73:515–520.
   Google Scholar
• Aiba Nee Kaneko M, Hirota M, Kouzuki H, et al. Prediction of genotoxic potential of cosmetic ingredients by an in silico battery system consisting of a combination of an expert rule-based system and a statistics-based system. J Toxicol Sci. 2015;40:77–98.
   Google Scholar
• Ono A, Takahashi M, Hirose A, et al. Validation of the (Q)SAR combination approach for mutagenicity prediction of flavor chemicals. Food Chem Toxicol. 2012;50:1538–1546.
   Google Scholar
• Hillebrecht A, Muster W, Brigo A, et al. Comparative evaluation of in silico systems for Ames test mutagenicity prediction: scope and limitations. Chem Res Toxicol. 2011;24:843–854.
   Google Scholar
• Barber C, Cayley A, Hanser T, et al. Evaluation of a statistics-based Ames mutagenicity QSAR model and interpretation of the results obtained. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2016;76:7–20.
   Google Scholar
• Landry C, Kim MT, Kruhlak NL, et al. Transitioning to composite bacterial mutagenicity models in ICH M7 (Q)SAR analyses. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2019;109:104488.
   Google Scholar
• Morita T, Shigeta Y, Kawamura T, et al. In silico prediction of chromosome damage: comparison of three (Q)SAR models. Mutagenesis. 2019;34:91–100.
   Google Scholar
• Hsu CW, Hewes KP, Stavitskaya L, et al. Construction and application of (Q)SAR models to predict chemical-induced in vitro chromosome aberrations. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2018;99:274–288.
   Google Scholar
• Yoo JW, Kruhlak NL, Landry C, et al. Development of improved QSAR models for predicting the outcome of the in vivo micronucleus genetic toxicity assay. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2020;113:104620.
   Google Scholar
• Benigni R, Serafimova R, Parra Morte JM, et al. Evaluation of the applicability of existing (Q)SAR models for predicting the genotoxicity of pesticides and similarity analysis related with genotoxicity of pesticides for facilitating of grouping and read across: an EFSA funded project. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2020;114:104658.
   Google Scholar
• Hansch C, Leo A. Exploring QSAR. 1. Fundamentals and applications in chemistry and biology. Washington (DC): American Chemical Society; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Metruccio F, Castelli I, Civitella C, et al. Database specific for the pesticide active substance and their metabolites, comprising the main genotoxicity endpoints. EFSA Support Publ. 2017;14(5). DOI:10.2903/sp.efsa.2017.EN-1229.
   Google Scholar
• Amberg A, Andaya RV, Anger LT, et al. Principles and procedures for handling out-of-domain and indeterminate results as part of ICH M7 recommended (Q)SAR analyses. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2019;102:53–64.
   Google Scholar
• Amberg A, Anger LT, Bercu J, et al. Extending (Q)SARs to incorporate proprietary knowledge for regulatory purposes: is aromatic N-oxide a structural alert for predicting DNA-reactive mutagenicity? Mutagenesis. 2019;34:67–82.
   Google Scholar
• Patel M, Kranz M, Munoz-Muriedas J, et al. A pharma-wide approach to address the genotoxicity prediction of primary aromatic amines. Comput Toxicol. 2018;7:27–35.
   Google Scholar
• Chakravarti SK, Saiakhov RD. Computing similarity between structural environments of mutagenicity alerts. Mutagenesis. 2019;34:55–65.
   Google Scholar
• Powley MW. (Q)SAR assessments of potentially mutagenic impurities: a regulatory perspective on the utility of expert knowledge and data submission. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2015;71:295–300.
   Google Scholar
• Barber C, Amberg A, Custer L, et al. Establishing best practise in the application of expert review of mutagenicity under ICH M7. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2015;73:367–377.
   Google Scholar
• Dobo KL, Greene N, Fred C, et al. In silico methods combined with expert knowledge rule out mutagenic potential of pharmaceutical impurities: an industry survey. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2012;62:449–455.
   Google Scholar
• Franke R. Theoretical drug design methods. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1984.
   Google Scholar
• Kubinyi H. Drug research: myths, hype and reality. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2003;2:665–668.
   Google Scholar
• Baker M. 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature. 2016;533:452–454.
   Google Scholar
• Begley CG, Ioannidis JP. Reproducibility in science: improving the standard for basic and preclinical research. Circ Res. 2015;116:116–126.
   Google Scholar
• Ioannidis JPA. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005 Aug;2(8):e124.
   Google Scholar
• Schisler MR, Gollapudi BB, Moore MM. Evaluation of U. S. national toxicology program (NTP) mouse lymphoma assay data using international workshop on genotoxicity tests (IWGT) and the organization for economic co-operation and development (OECD) criteria. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2018;50:829–841.
   Google Scholar
• Honda H, Fujita Y, Kasamatsu T, et al. Necessity for retrospective evaluation of past-positive chemicals in in vitro chromosomal aberration tests using recommended cytotoxicity indices. Genes Environ. 2018;40:2.
   Google Scholar
• Zeiger E. History and rationale of genetic toxicity testing: an impersonal, and sometimes personal, view. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2004;44:363–371.
   Google Scholar
• Zeiger E. Historical perspective on the development of the genetic toxicity test battery in the United States. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2010;51:781–791.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang L, Sannes K, Shusterman AJ, et al. The structure-activity relationships of skin carcinogenicity of aromatic hydrocarbons and heterocycles. Chem Biol Interact. 1992;81:149–180.
   Google Scholar
• Franke R, Gruska A, Giuliani A, et al. Prediction of rodent carcinogenicity of aromatic amines: a quantitative structure-activity relationships model. Carcinogenesis. 2001;22:1561–1571.
   Google Scholar
• Benigni R, Bossa C, Netzeva TI, et al. Mechanistic Qsar of aromatic amines: new models for discriminating between homocyclic mutagens and nonmutagens, and validation of models for carcinogens. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2007;48:754–771.
   Google Scholar
• Benigni R, Bossa C, Netzeva TI, et al. Collection and evaluation of (Q)SAR models for mutagenicity and carcinogenicity. In: EUR - scientific and technical research series. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities : Luxenbourg; 2007;1-126.
   Google Scholar
• Kostal J, Voutchkova-Kostal A. Going all in: a strategic investment in in silico toxicology. Chem Res Toxicol. 2020;33:880–888.
   Google Scholar
• Cronin MTD, Walker JD, Jaworska JS, et al. Use of QSARs in international decision-making frameworks to predict ecologic effects and environmental fate of chemical substances. Environ Health Perspect. 2003;111:1376–1390.
   Google Scholar
• Hansch C, Hoekman D, Leo A, et al. Chem-bioinformatics: comparative QSAR at the interface between chemistry and biology. Chem Rev. 2002;102:783–812.
   Google Scholar
• Kurup A. C-QSAR: a database of 18,000 QSARs and associated biological and physical data. J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2003;17:187–196.
   Google Scholar
• Benigni R. Predictive toxicology today: the transition from biological knowledge to practicable models. Exp Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2016;12:989–992.
   Google Scholar
• Sakuratani Y, Horie M, Leinala E. Integrated approaches to testing and assessment: OECD activities on the development and use of adverse outcome pathways and case studies. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2018;123(Suppl 5):20–28.
   Google Scholar
• Sachana M, Leinala E. Approaching chemical safety assessment through application of integrated approaches to testing and assessment: combining mechanistic information derived from adverse outcome pathways and alternative methods. Appl In Vitro Toxicol. 2017;3:227–233.
   Google Scholar