Comparative evaluation of 11 in silico models for the prediction of small molecule mutagenicity: role of steric hindrance and electron-withdrawing groups

Abstract

The goal of this investigation was to perform a comparative analysis on how accurately 11 routinely-used in silico programs correctly predicted the mutagenicity of test compounds that contained either bulky or electron-withdrawing substituents. To our knowledge this is the first study of its kind in the literature. Such substituents are common in many pharmaceutical agents so there is a significant need for reliable in silico programs to predict precisely whether they truly pose a risk for mutagenicity. The predictions from each program were compared to experimental data derived from the Ames II test, a rapid reverse mutagenicity assay with a high degree of agreement with the traditional Ames assay. Eleven in silico programs were evaluated and compared: Derek for Windows, Derek Nexus, Leadscope Model Applier (LSMA), LSMA featuring the in vitro microbial Escherichia coli–Salmonella typhimurium TA102 A-T Suite (LSMA+), TOPKAT, CAESAR, TEST, ChemSilico (±S9 suites), MC4PC and a novel DNA docking model. The presence of bulky or electron-withdrawing functional groups in the vicinity of a mutagenic toxicophore in the test compounds clearly affected the ability of each in silico model to predict non-mutagenicity correctly. This was because of an over reliance on the part of the programs to provide mutagenicity alerts when a particular toxicophore is present irrespective of the structural environment surrounding the toxicophore. From this investigation it can be concluded that these models provide a high degree of specificity (ranging from 71% to 100%) and are generally conservative in their predictions in terms of sensitivity (ranging from 5% t o 78%). These values are in general agreement with most other comparative studies in the literature. Interestingly, the DNA docking model was the most sensitive model evaluated, suggesting a potentially useful new mode of screening for mutagens. Another important finding was that the combination of a quantitative structure–activity relationship and an expert rules system appeared to offer little advantage in terms of sensitivity, despite of the requirement for such a screening paradigm under the ICH M7 regulatory guideline.

Keywords:

• Ames II test
• comparative study
• detoxification group
• DNA-docking
• in silico prediction
• mutagenicity
• QSAR

Acknowledgements

Our colleagues Donna Dambach, Dolo Diaz and Tim Nuhring are thanked for their advice and suggestions in the preparation of this manuscript.

Disclosure statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article.