In silico exploratory study using structure–activity relationship models and metabolic information for prediction of mutagenicity based on the Ames test and rodent micronucleus assay

References

• L.D. Claxton, A. Umbuzeiro Gde, and D.M. DeMarini, The Salmonella mutagenicity assay: The stethoscope of genetic toxicology for the 21st century, Environ. Health Perspect. 118 (2010), pp. 1515–1522.E.
   Google Scholar
• European Union, Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European 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 L136 (2008), pp. 3–280.
   Google Scholar
• Mombelli and S. Ringeissen, The computational prediction of toxicological effects in regulatory contexts, L’Actualité chimique 335 (2009), pp. 52–59.
   Google Scholar
• European Chemical Agency, Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment; Chapter R.7a: Endpoint specific guidance. Available at http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/guidance-documents/guidance-on-information-requirements-and-chemical-safety-assessment.
   Google Scholar
• J. Jaworska and S. Hoffman, Integrated Testing Strategy (ITS) – Opportunities to better use existing data and guide future testing in toxicology, ALTEX. 27 (2010), pp. 231–242.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• B.N. Ames, Identifying environmental chemicals causing mutations and cancer, Science 204 (1979), pp. 587–593.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• B.N. Ames, J. McCann, and E. Yamasaki, Methods for detecting carcinogens and mutagens with the Salmonella/mammalian-microsome mutagenicity test, Mutat. Res. 31 (1975), pp. 347–364.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD guideline for testing of the chemicals, n.471, bacterial reverse mutation test, Commission Regulation (EC) No 440/2008. Available at http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/assessmentofchemicals/1948418.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• K. Hansen, S. Mika, T. Schroeter, A. Sutter, A. ter Laak, T. Steger-Hartmann, N. Heinrich, and K.R. Müller, Benchmark data set for in silico prediction of Ames mutagenicity, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 49 (2009), pp. 2077–2081.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• E. Zeiger, Identification of rodent carcinogens and noncarcinogens using genetic toxicity tests: Premises, promises, and performance, Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 28 (1998), pp. 85–95.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• F. Pedersen, J. de Brujin, S.J. Munn, and K. Van Leeuwen, Assessment of additional testing needs under REACH. Effects of (Q)SARs, risk based testing and voluntary industry initiatives, JRC report EUR 20863 EN (2003). European Commission JointResearch Centre, Ispra, Italy. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/chemicals/files/reach/testing_needs-2003_10_29_en.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• K. Van der Jagt, S.J. Munn, J. Torslovand, and J. de Brujin, Alternative approaches can reduce the use of test animals under REACH. Addendum to the Report Assessment of additional testing needs under REACH. Effects of (Q)SARs, risk based testing and voluntary industry initiatives, JRC Report EUR 21405 EN (2004). European Commission Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy. Available at http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC29111/EUR%2021405%20EN.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• A. Bassan and A.P. Worth, The integrated use of models for the properties and effects of chemicals by means of a structured workflow, QSAR Comb. Sci. 27 (2008), pp. 6–20.
   Google Scholar
• R. Benigni, C. Bossa, and A. Worth, Structural analysis and predictive value of the rodent in vivo micronucleus assay results, Mutagenesis 25 (2010), pp. 335–341.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chemical Carcinogenesis Research Information System, NCRI informatics Initiative Homepage 2009. Available at http://www.cancerinformatics.org.uk/matrix/CCRIS.htm.
   Google Scholar
• C. Helma, T. Cramer, S. Kramer, and L.D. Raedt, Data mining and machine learning techniques for the identification of mutagenicity inducing substructures and structure activity relationships of noncongeneric compounds, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 44 (2004), pp. 1402–1411.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• J. Kazius, R. McGuire, and R. Bursi, Derivation and validation of toxicophores for mutagenicity prediction, J. Med. Chem. 48 (2005), pp. 312–320.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J. Feng, L. Lurati, H. Ouyang, T. Robinson, Y. Wang, S. Yuan, and S.S. Young, Predictive toxicology: Benchmarking molecular descriptors and statistical methods, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 43 (2003), pp. 1463–1470.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• P.N. Judson, P.A. Cooke, N.G. Doerrer, N. Greene, R.P. Hanzlik, C. Hardy, A. Hartmann, D. Hinchliffe, J. Holder, L. Müller, T. Steger-Hartmann, A. Rothfuss, M. Smith, K. Thomas, J.D. Vessey, and E. Zeiger, Towards the creation of an international toxicology information centre, Toxicology 213 (2005), pp. 117–128.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Genetic Toxicity, Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity, and Carcinogenicity Database; 2009. Available at http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/ucm092217.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Accelrys Inc., A.S. Scitegic Pipeline Pilot, Version 7.0; 2009; software available at http://accelrys.com/products/pipeline-pilot/.
   Google Scholar
• N.G. Bakhtyari, G. Raitano, E. Benfenati, T. Martin, and D. Young, Comparison of in silico models for prediction of mutagenicity, J. Environ. Sci. Health C, Environ. Carcinog. Ecotoxicol. Rev. 31 (2013), pp. 45–66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The OECD QSAR toolbox for grouping chemicals into categories; software available at http://www.qsartoolbox.org/.
   Google Scholar
• European Chemicals Agency. Registered substances, 2014. Available at http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/information-on-chemicals/registered-substances.
   Google Scholar
• H.J. Klimisch, M. Andreae, and U. Tillmann, A systematic approach for evaluating the quality of experimental toxicological and ecotoxicological data, Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 25 (1997), pp. 1–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development guideline for testing of the chemicals, n.474, Mammalian Erythrocyte Micronucleus Test, OECD Publishing, Paris Section 4, 1997. Available at http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/risk-assessment/1948442.pdf
   Google Scholar
• R. Benigni, C. Bossa, A.M. Richard, and C. Yang, A novel approach: Chemical relational databases, and the role of the ISSCAN database on assessing chemical carcinogenicity, Ann. Ist. Super. Sanita` 44 (2008), pp. 48–56.
   Google Scholar
• T. Ferrari, G. Gini, N.G. Bakhtyari, and E. Benfenati, Mining Structural Alerts from SMILES: A new way to derive structure activity relationships, CIDM—IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence, Paris, 2011.
   Google Scholar
• TOPKAT, version 3.1, User Guide, Accelrys software Inc.: San Diego, CA, USA; software available at http://accelrys.com.
   Google Scholar
• CRAFT, developed by Molecular Networks on behalf of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, Italy, 2008; software available at http://www.molecular-networks.com/products/craft.
   Google Scholar
• L.B.M. Ellis, D. Roe, and L.P. Wackett, The University of Minnesota biocatalysis/biodegradation database: The first decade, Nucleic Acids Res. 34 (2006), pp. 517–521.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D.M. Bender, J.A. Peterson, J.R. McCarthy, H. Gunaydin, Y. Takano, and K.N. Houk, Cyclopropanecarboxylic acid esters as potential prodrugs with enhanced hydrolytic stability, Org. Lett. 10 (2008), pp. 509–511.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J.A. Cooper, R. Saracci, and P. Cole, Describing the validity of carcinogen screening tests, Br. J. Cancer 39 (1979), pp. 87–89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A.P. Worth, A. Bassan, A. Gallegos, T.I. Netzeva, G. Patlewicz, M. Pavan, I. Tsakovska, and M. Vracko, The characterisation of (Quantitative) Structure-Activity Relationships: Preliminary guidance, EUR 21866 EN. Available at http://ihcp.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ourlabs/predictivetoxicology/information-sources/qsar-document-area/QSARcharacterisationEUR21866EN.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• P. Dao, K. Wang, C. Collins, M. Ester, A. Lapuk, and S.C. Sahinalp, Optimally discriminative subnetwork markers predict response to chemotherapy, Bioinformatics 27 (2011), pp. 205–213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R. Benigni, C. Bossa, N. Jeliazkova, and A. Worth, The Benigni / Bossa rulebase for mutagenicity and carcinogenicity – A module of Toxtree, EUR 23241 EN 2008.
   Google Scholar
• G. Gini, A.M. Franchi, A. Manganaro, A. Golbamaki, and E. Benfenati, ToxRead: A tool to assist in read across and its use to assess mutagenicity of chemicals, SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 25 (2014), pp. 999–1011.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar