Prediction of in vitro and in vivo oestrogen receptor activity using hierarchical clustering

References

• National Research Council. A framework to guide selection of chemical alternatives, 2014. Available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18872/a-framework-to-guide-selection-of-chemical-alternatives.
   Google Scholar
• F.S. Collins, G.M. Gray, and J.R. Bucher, Transforming environmental health protection, Science 319 (2008), pp. 906–907.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• US EPA. ToxCast, 2015. Available at http://www2.epa.gov/chemical-research/toxicity-forecaster-toxcasttm-data.
   Google Scholar
• D.M. Rotroff, D.J. Dix, K.A. Houck, T.B. Knudsen, M.T. Martin, K.W. McLaurin, D.M. Reif, K.M. Crofton, A.V. Singh, M. Xia, R. Huang, and R.S. Judson, Using in vitro high throughput screening assays to identify potential endocrine-disrupting chemicals, Environ. Health Perspect. 121 (2013), pp. 7–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• US EPA. Use of high throughput assays and computational tools; endocrine disruptor screening program; notice of availability and opportunity for comment, 2011. Available at https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/06/19/2015-15182/use-of-high-throughput-assays-and-computational-tools-endocrine-disruptor-screening-program-notice.
   Google Scholar
• A. Sedykh, H. Zhu, H. Tang, L. Zhang, A. Richard, I. Rusyn, and A. Tropsha, Use of in vitro HTS-derived concentration-response data as biological descriptors improves the accuracy of QSAR models of in vivo toxicity, Environ. Health Perspect. 119 (2011), pp. 367–370.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• H. Hong, W. Tong, H. Fang, L. Shi, Q. Xie, J. Wu, R. Perkins, J.D. Walker, W. Branham, and D.M. Sheehan, Prediction of estrogen receptor binding for 58,000 chemicals using an integrated system of a tree-based model with structural alerts, Environ. Health Perspect. 110 (2002), pp. 29–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. Asikainen, M. Kolehmainen, J. Ruuskanen, and K. Tuppurainen, Structure-based classification of active and inactive estrogenic compounds by decision tree, LVQ and kNN methods, Chemosphere 62 (2006), pp. 658–673.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Y. Chen, F. Cheng, L. Sun, W. Li, G. Liu, and Y. Tang, Computational models to predict endocrine-disrupting chemical binding with androgen or oestrogen receptors, Ecotoxicol. Environ. Safety 110 (2014), pp. 280–287.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J. Li and P. Gramatica, Classification and virtual screening of androgen receptor antagonists, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 50 (2010), pp. 861–874.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J. Li and P. Gramatica, QSAR classification of estrogen receptor binders and pre-screening of potential pleiotropic EDCs, SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 21 (2010), pp. 657–669.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• H. Li, C.Y. Ung, C.W. Yap, Y. Xue, Z.R. Li, and Y.Z. Chen, Prediction of estrogen receptor agonists and characterization of associated molecular descriptors by statistical learning methods, J. Molec. Graph. Model. 25 (2006), pp. 313–323.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• H. Liu, E. Papa, J.D. Walker, and P. Gramatica, In silico screening of estrogen-like chemicals based on different nonlinear classification models, J. Molec. Graph. Model. 26 (2007), pp. 135–144.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. Panaye, J.P. Doucet, J. Devillers, N. Marchand-Geneste, and J.M. Porcher, Decision trees versus support vector machine for classification of androgen receptor ligands, SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 19 (2008), pp. 129–151.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• G.E. Jensen, N.G. Nikolov, E.B. Wedebye, T. Ringsted, and J.R. Niemelä, QSAR models for anti-androgenic effect –A preliminary study, SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 22 (2011), pp. 35–49.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• G.E. Jensen, N.G. Nikolov, K.D. Sørensen, A.M. Vinggaard, and J.R. Niemelä, QSAR model for androgen receptor antagonism - Data from CHO cell reporter gene assays, Steroids Horm. Sci. (2012)doi:10.4172/2157-7536.S2-006.
   Google Scholar
• W. Tong, H. Fang, H. Hong, Q. Xie, R. Perkins, and D.M. Sheehan, Receptor-mediated toxicity: QSARs for estrogen receptor binding and priority setting of potential estrogenic endocrine disruptors, in Predicting Chemical Toxicity and Fate, M.T.D. Cronin and D.J. Livingstone, eds., 2004, pp. 285–314. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
   Google Scholar
• L.M. Shi, H. Fang, W. Tong, J. Wu, R. Perkins, R.M. Blair, W.S. Branham, S.L. Dial, C.L. Moland, and D.M. Sheehan, QSAR models using a large diverse set of estrogens, J. Chem. Inform. Comput. Sci. 41 (2001), pp. 186–195.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• N. Stojić, S. Erić, and I. Kuzmanovski, Prediction of toxicity and data exploratory analysis of estrogen-active endocrine disruptors using counter-propagation artificial neural networks, J. Molec. Graph. Model. 29 (2010), pp. 450–460.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J. Shen, L. Xu, H. Fang, A.M. Richard, J.D. Bray, R.S. Judson, G. Zhou, T.J. Colatsky, J.L. Aungst, C. Teng, S.C. Harris, W. Ge, S.Y. Dai, Z. Su, A.C. Jacobs, W. Harrouk, R. Perkins, W. Tong, and H. Hong, EADB: An estrogenic activity database for assessing potential endocrine activity, Toxicol. Sci. 135 (2013), pp. 277–291.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K. Mansouri, A. Abdelaziz, A. Rybacka, A. Roncaglioni, A. Tropsha, A. Varnek, A. Zakharov, A. Worth, A.M. Richard, C.M. Grulke, D. Trisciuzzi, D. Fourches, D. Horvath, E. Benfenati, E. Muratov, E.B. Wedebye, F. Grisoni, G.F. Mangiatordi, G.M. Incisivo, H. Hong, H.W. Ng, I.V. Tetko, I. Balabin, J. Kancherla, J. Shen, J. Burton, M. Nicklaus, M. Cassotti, N.G. Nikolov, O. Nicolotti, P.L. Andersson, Q. Zang, R. Politi, R.D. Beger, R. Todeschini, R. Huang, S. Farag, S.A. Rosenberg, S. Slavov, X. Hu, and R.S. Judson, US EPA. CERAPP - Collaborative Estrogen Receptor Activity Prediction Project, Envion. Health Perspect. (2015), Available at http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/cerapp_consensus.pdf. in review.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• H. Zhu, I. Rusyn, A. Richard, and A. Tropsha, Use of Cell Viability Assay Data Improves the prediction accuracy of conventional quantitative structure–activity relationship models of animal carcinogenicity, Environ. Health Perspect. 116 (2008), pp. 506–513.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD. OECD principles for the validation, for regulatory purposes, of (Quantitative) Structure-Activity Relationship Models, 2004. Available at http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/risk-assessment/37849783.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• R.S. Judson, F.M. Magpantay, V. Chickarmane, C. Haskell, N. Tania, J. Taylor, M. Xia, R. Huang, D.M. Rotroff, D.L. Filer, K.A. Houck, M.T. Martin, N. Sipes, A.M. Richard, K. Mansouri, R.W. Setzer, T.B. Knudsen, K.M. Crofton, and R.S. Thomas, Integrated model of chemical perturbations of a biological pathway using 18 in vitro high-throughput screening assays for the estrogen receptor, Toxicol. Sci. 148 (2015), pp. 137–154.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• T.M. Martin, P. Harten, R. Venkatapathy, S. Das, and D.M. Young, A hierarchical clustering methodology for the estimation of toxicity, Toxicol. Mechan. Meth. 18 (2008), pp. 251–266.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• L. Breiman, J. Friedman, C.J. Stone, and R.A. Olshen, Classification and Regression Trees, Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 1984.
   Google Scholar
• US EPA. User’s guide for T.E.S.T. (version 4.1) (Toxicity Estimation Software Tool), 2012. Available at http://www2.epa.gov/chemical-research/toxicity-estimation-software-tool-test.
   Google Scholar
• A.V. Zakharov, M.L. Peach, M. Sitzmann, and M.C. Nicklaus, QSAR modeling of imbalanced high-throughput screening data in PubChem, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 54 (2014), pp. 705–712.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• N.V. Chawla, Data mining for imbalanced datasets: An overview, in The Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery Handbook, O. Maimon and L. Rokach, eds., Springer, New York, NY, 2005, pp. 853–867.
   Google Scholar
• D. Newby, A.A. Freitas, and T. Ghafourian, Coping with unbalanced class data sets in oral absorption models, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 53 (2013), pp. 461–474.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D. Dix, K. Houck, M. Martin, A. Richard, R. Setzer, and R. Kavlock, The ToxCast program for prioritizing toxicity testing of environmental chemicals, Toxicol. Sci. Off. J. Soc. Toxicol. 95 (2007), pp. 5–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• METI Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry, current status of testing methods development for endocrine disrupters, 6th Meeting of the Task Force on Endocrine Disrupters Testing and Assessment (EDTA), Tokyo, Japan, 2002.
   Google Scholar
• A. Gaulton, L.J. Bellis, A.P. Bento, J. Chambers, M. Davies, A. Hersey, Y. Light, S. McGlinchey, D. Michalovich, B. Al-Lazikani, and J.P. Overington, ChEMBL: A large-scale bioactivity database for drug discovery, Nucleic Acids Res. 40(Database issue) (2012), pp. D1100–D1107.
   Google Scholar
• US EPA. CERAPP – Collaborative estrogen receptor activity prediction project, 2015. Available at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/cerapp_consensus.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• H.C. Romesburg, Cluster Analysis for Researchers, Lifetime Learning Publications, Belmont, CA, 1984.
   Google Scholar
• H. Zhu, T.M. Martin, L. Ye, A. Sedykh, D.M. Young, and A. Tropsha, Quantitative structure−activity relationship modeling of rat acute toxicity by oral exposure, Chem. Res. Toxicol. 22 (2009), pp. 1913–1921.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D.C. Montgomery, Introduction to Linear Regression Analysis, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, 1982, p. 143.
   Google Scholar
• US EPA. T.E.S.T. Version 4.1., 2012; software available at http://www2.epa.gov/chemical-research/toxicity-estimation-software-tool-test.
   Google Scholar
• T.M. Martin, C.M. Grulke, D.M. Young, C.L. Russom, N.Y. Wang, C.R. Jackson, and M.G. Barron, Prediction of aquatic toxicity mode of action using linear discriminant and random forest models, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 53 (2013), pp. 2229–2239.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar