The computational prediction of genotoxicity

Bibliography

• Kirkland D, Aardema M, Henderson L, Muller L. 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. Mutat Res 2005;584(1-2):1-256
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolt HM, Foth H, Hengstler JG, Degen GH. Carcinogenicity categorization of chemicals-new aspects to be considered in a European perspective. Toxicol Lett 2004;151(1):29-41
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dragos H, Gilles M, Alexandre V. Predicting the predictability: a unified approach to the applicability domain problem of QSAR models. J Chem Inf Model 2009;49(7):1762-76
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weaver S, Gleeson MP. The importance of the domain of applicability in QSAR modeling. J Mol Graph Model 2008;26(8):1315-26
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang QY, Aires-de-Sousa J. Random forest prediction of mutagenicity from empirical physicochemical descriptors. J Chem Inf Model 2007;47(1):1-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kazius J, McGuire R, Bursi R. Derivation and validation of toxicophores for mutagenicity prediction. J Med Chem 2005;48(1):312-20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen K, Mika S, Schroeter T, Benchmark data set for in silico prediction of Ames mutagenicity. J Chem Inf Model 2009;49(9):2077-81
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benigni R, Bossa C. Predictivity of QSAR. J Chem Inf Model 2008;48(5):971-80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson SR. The trouble with QSAR (or how I learned to stop worrying and embrace fallacy). J Chem Inf Model 2008;48(1):25-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helma C. Lazy structure-activity relationships (lazar) for the prediction of rodent carcinogenicity and Salmonella mutagenicity. Mol Divers 2006;10(2):147-58
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matthews EJ, Kruhlak NL, Cimino MC, An analysis of genetic toxicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, and carcinogenicity data: II. Identification of genotoxicants, reprotoxicants, and carcinogens using in silico methods. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2006;44(2):97-110
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Contrera JF, Kruhlak NL, Matthews EJ, Benz RD. Comparison of MC4PC and MDL-QSAR rodent carcinogenicity predictions and the enhancement of predictive performance by combining QSAR models. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2007;49(3):172-82
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valerio LG, Yang C, Arvidson KB, Kruhlak NL. A structural feature-based computational approach for toxicology predictions. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2010;6(4):505-18
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perez-Garrido A, Gonzalez MP, Escudero AG. Halogenated derivatives QSAR model using spectral moments to predict haloacetic acids (HAA) mutagenicity. Bioorg Med Chem 2008;16(10):5720-32
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perez-Garrido A, Helguera AM, Lopez GC, A topological substructural molecular design approach for predicting mutagenesis end-points of alpha, beta-unsaturated carbonyl compounds. Toxicology 2010;268(1-2):64-77
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nair PC, Sobhia ME. Comparative QSTR studies for predicting mutagenicity of nitro compounds. J Mol Graph Model 2008;26(6):916-34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papa E, Pilutti P, Gramatica P. Prediction of PAH mutagenicity in human cells by QSAR classification. SAR QSAR Environ Res 2008;19(1-2):115-27
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benigni R, Bossa C. Predictivity and reliability of QSAR models: the case of mutagens and carcinogens. Toxicol Mech Methods 2008;18(2-3):137-47
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bentzien J, Hickey ER, Kemper RA, An in silico method for predicting ames activities of primary aromatic amines by calculating the stabilities of nitrenium ions. J Chem Inf Model 2010;50(2):274-97
   PubMed Web of Science ®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(3):229-306
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang C, Hasselgren CH, Boyer S, Understanding genetic toxicity through data mining: the process of building knowledge by integrating multiple genetic toxicity databases. Toxicol Mech Methods 2008;18(2-3):277-95
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marchant CA, Briggs KA, Long A. In silico tools for sharing data and knowledge on toxicity and metabolism: derek for windows, meteor, and vitic. Toxicol Mech Methods 2008;18(2-3):177-87
   PubMed Web of Science ®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 2008;659(3):248-61
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serafimova R, Todorov M, Pavlov T, Identification of the structural requirements for mutagencitiy, by incorporating molecular flexibility and metabolic activation of chemicals. II General Ames mutagenicity model. Chem Res Toxicol 2007;20(4):662-76
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ringeissen S, Note R, Dochez C, Evaluation of (Q)SAR models for the prediction of mutagenicity potential. AATEX 2007;14:469-73
   Google Scholar
• Mazzatorta P, Tran LA, Schilter B, Grigorov M. Integration of structure-activity relationship and artificial intelligence systems to improve in silico prediction of ames test mutagenicity. J Chem Inf Model 2007;47(1):34-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snyder RD. An update on the genotoxicity and carcinogenicity of marketed pharmaceuticals with reference to in silico predictivity. Environ Mol Mutagen 2009;50(6):435-50
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snyder RD. Assessment of atypical DNA intercalating agents in biological and in silico systems. Mutat Res 2007;623(1-2):72-82
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snyder RD, Ewing D, Hendry LB. DNA intercalative potential of marketed drugs testing positive in in vitro cytogenetics assays. Mutat Res 2006;609(1):47-59
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baguley BC, Wakelin LP, Jacintho JD, Kovacic P. Mechanisms of action of DNA intercalating acridine-based drugs: how important are contributions from electron transfer and oxidative stress? Curr Med Chem 2003;10(24):2643-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di Giorgio C, Nikoyan A, Decome L, DNA-damaging activity and mutagenicity of 16 newly synthesized thiazolo[5,4-a]acridine derivatives with high photo-inducible cytotoxicity. Mutat Res 2008;650(2):104-14
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin YC. What works and what does not: lessons from experience in a pharmaceutical company. QSAR and Comput Sci 2006;12:1192-200
   Google Scholar
• Estrada E, Molina E. Automatic extraction of structural alerts for predicting chromosome aberrations of organic compounds. J Mol Graph Model 2006;25(3):275-88
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serra JR, Thompson ED, Jurs PC. Development of binary classification of structural chromosome aberrations for a diverse set of organic compounds from molecular structure. Chem Res Toxicol 2003;16(2):153-63
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams RV, Naven RT, Marchant CA. The prediction of chromosomal effects and their mechanism of induction in Derek for Windows. International Symposium on Chromosome Aberrations (ISCA), Awaji Island, Japan, 2007, 4 - 6 October 2007; Available from: https://www.lhasalimited.org/resources/KL29.pdf [Last accessed 24 March 2010]
   Google Scholar
• Contrera JF, Matthews EJ, Kruhlak NL, Benz RD. In silico screening of chemicals for genetic toxicity using MDL-QSAR, nonparametric discriminant analysis, E-state, connectivity, and molecular property descriptors. Toxicol Mech Methods 2008;18(2-3):207-16
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mekenyan O, Todorov M, Serafimova R, Identifying the structural requirements for chromosomal aberration by incorporating molecular flexibility and metabolic activation of chemicals. Chem Res Toxicol 2007;20(12):1927-41
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olaharski AJ, Gonzaludo N, Bitter H, Identification of a kinase profile that predicts chromosome damage induced by small molecule kinase inhibitors. PLoS Comput Biol 2009;5(7):e1000446
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pearl GM, Livingston-Carr S, Durham SK. Integration of computational analysis as a sentinel tool in toxicological assessments. Curr Top Med Chem 2001;1(4):247-55
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Snyder RD, Pearl GS, Mandakas G, Assessment of the sensitivity of the computational programs DEREK, TOPKAT, and MCASE in the prediction of the genotoxicity of pharmaceutical molecules. Environ Mol Mutagen 2004;43(3):143-58
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muster W, Breidenbach A, Fischer H, Computational toxicology in drug development. Drug Discov Today 2008;13(7-8):303-10
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benigni R, Bossa C, Worth A. Structural analysis and predictive value of the rodent in vivo micronucleus assay results. Mutagenesis 2010; In press
   Google Scholar
• Aubrecht J, Osowski JJ, Persaud P, Bioluminescent Salmonella reverse mutation assay: a screen for detecting mutagenicity with high throughput attributes. Mutagenesis 2007;22(5):335-42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller JE, Vlasakova K, Glaab WE, Skopek TR. A low volume, high-throughput forward mutation assay in Salmonella typhimurium based on fluorouracil resistance. Mutat Res 2005;578(1-2):210-24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flamand N, Meunier J, Meunier P, Agapakis-Causse C. Mini mutagenicity test: a miniaturized version of the Ames test used in a prescreening assay for point mutagenesis assessment. Toxicol In vitro 2001;15(2):105-14
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muller L, Mauthe RJ, Riley CM, A rationale for determining, testing, and controlling specific impurities in pharmaceuticals that possess potential for genotoxicity. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2006;44(3):198-211
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dobo KL, Greene N, Cyr MO, The application of structure-based assessment to support safety and chemistry diligence to manage genotoxic impurities in active pharmaceutical ingredients during drug development. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2006;44(3):282-93
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valerio LG Jr. In silico toxicology for the pharmaceutical sciences. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2009;241(3):356-70
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kavlock RJ, Ankley G, Blancato J, Computational toxicology–a state of the science mini review. Toxicol Sci 2008;103(1):14-27
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kavlock RJ, Austin CP, Tice RR. Toxicity testing in the 21st century: implications for human health risk assessment. Risk Anal 2009;29(4):485-7; discussion 92-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kruhlak NL, Contrera JF, Benz RD, Matthews EJ. Progress in QSAR toxicity screening of pharmaceutical impurities and other FDA regulated products. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2007;59(1):43-55
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dobo KL, Obach RS, Luffer-Atlas D, Bercu JP. A strategy for the risk assessment of human genotoxic metabolites. Chem Res Toxicol 2009;22(2):348-56
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ku WW, Bigger A, Brambilla G, Strategy for genotoxicity testing–metabolic considerations. Mutat Res 2007;627(1):59-77
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar