Improving confidence in (Q)SAR predictions under Canada’s Chemicals Management Plan – a chemical space approachFootnote^$

^$Presented at the 17th International Conference on QSAR in Environmental and Health Sciences (QSAR 2016), 13–17 June 2016, Miami Beach, FL, USA

References

• G. Cozigou, J. Crozier, C. Hendriksen, I. Manou, T. Ramirez-Hernandez, and R. Weissenhorn, The European partnership for alternative approaches to animal testing (EPAA): Promoting alternative methods in Europe and beyond, J. Am. Assoc. Lab. Anim. Sci. 54 (2015), pp. 209–213.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• US Environmental Protection Agency, The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. (2016) Available at https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/frank-r-lautenberg-chemical-safety-21st-century-act.
   Google Scholar
• US Environmental Protection Agency, Summary of the Toxic Substances Control Act (2016). Available at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-toxic-substances-control-act.
   Google Scholar
• D. Krewski, D. Acosta, M. Andersen, H. Anderson, J.C. Bailar, K. Boekelheide, R. Brent, G. Charnley, V.G. Cheung, S. Green Jr, K.T. Kelsey, N.I. Kerkvliet, A.A. Li, L. McCray, O. Meyer, R.D. Patterson, W. Pennie, R.A. Scala, G.M. Solomon, M. Stephens, and J. Yager, Staff of Committee on Toxicity Testing and Assessment of Environmental Agents and L. Zeise, Toxicity testing in the 21st century: A vision and a strategy, J. Toxicol. Environ. Health. Part B, Crit. Rev. 13 (2010), pp. 51–138.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• T.B. Knudsen, D.A. Keller, M. Sander, E.W. Carney, N.G. Doerrer, D.L. Eaton, S.C. Fitzpatrick, K.L. Hastings, D.L. Mendrick, R.R. Tice, P.B. Watkins, and M. Whelan, FutureTox II: In vitro data and in silico models for predictive toxicology, Toxicol. Sci. 143 (2015), pp. 256–267.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• T. Hartung, T. Luechtefeld, A. Maertens, and A. Kleensang, Food for thought. Integrated testing strategies for safety assessments, ALTEX 30 (2013), pp. 3–18.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• S. Wu, K. Blackburn, J. Amburgey, J. Jaworska, and T. Federle, A framework for using structural, reactivity, metabolic and physicochemical similarity to evaluate the suitability of analogs for SAR-based toxicological assessments, Regul. Toxicol. Pharm. 56 (2010), pp. 67–81.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. Cherkasov, E.N. Muratov, D. Fourches, A. Varnek, I.I. Baskin, M. Cronin, J. Dearden, P. Gramatica, Y.C. Martin, R. Todeschini, V. Consonni, V.E. Kuz’min, R. Cramer, R. Benigni, C. Yang, J. Rathman, L. Terfloth, J. Gasteiger, A. Richard, and A. Tropsha, QSAR Modeling: Where have you been? Where are you going to?, J. Med. Chem. 57 (2014), pp. 4977–5010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• E. Benfenati, R.G. Diaza, A. Cassano, S. Pardoe, G. Gini, C. Mays, R. Knauf, and L. Benighaus, The acceptance of in silico models for REACH: Requirements, barriers, and perspectives, Chem. Cent. J. 5 (2011), pp. 1–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K.M. Sullivan, J.R. Manuppello, and C.E. Willett, Building on a solid foundation: SAR and QSAR as a fundamental strategy to reduce animal testing, SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 25 (2014), pp. 357–65.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Government of Canada, Chemicals Management Plan (2016). Available at www.chemicalsubstanceschimiques.gc.ca/plan/index-eng.php.
   Google Scholar
• Government of Canada, Committee Report - November 4-5, 2014 (2015) Available at www.chemicalsubstanceschimiques.gc.ca/plan/sc-cs/_meet-reunions/20141104-05_committee-comite-eng.php.
   Google Scholar
• G. Patlewicz, N. Ball, E.D. Booth, E. Hulzebos, E. Zvinavashe, and C. Hennes, Use of category approaches, read-across and (Q)SAR: General considerations, Regul. Toxicol. Pharm. 67 (2013), pp. 1–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K. Blackburn and S.B. Stuard, A framework to facilitate consistent characterization of read across uncertainty, Regul. Toxicol. Pharm. 68 (2014), pp. 353–362.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Guidance on Grouping of Chemicals. 2nd edition. Series on Testing and Assessment no. 194 (ENV/JM/MONO(2014)4), 2014.
   Google Scholar
• C. Yang, K. Cross, G.J. Myatt, P.E. Blower, and J.F. Rathman, Building predictive models for protein tyrosine phosphatase 1B inhibitors based on discriminating structural features by reassembling medicinal chemistry building blocks, J. Med. Chem. 47 (2004), pp. 5984–5994.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D.M. Sanderson and C.G. Earnshaw, Computer prediction of possible toxic action from chemical structure; The DEREK system, Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 10 (1991), pp. 261–273.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K. Lanevskij, P. Japertas, R. Didziapetris, and A. Petrauskas, Fragmental QSAR model for the prediction of AMES genotoxicity. Abstracts of Papers, 232nd ACS National Meeting, San Francisco, CA, 10–14 September, CINF-053, 2006.
   Google Scholar
• O. Mekenyan, S. Dimitrov, R. Serafimova, E. Thompson, S. Kotov, N. Dimitrova, and J.D. Walker, Identification of the structural requirements for mutagenicity by incorporating molecular flexibility and metabolic activation of chemicals I: TA100 model, Chem. Res. Toxicol. 17 (2004), pp. 753–766.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R. Serafimova, M. Todorov, T. Pavlov, S. Kotov, E. Jacob, A. Aptula, and O. Mekenyan, Identification of the structural requirements for mutagenicity, by incorporating molecular flexibility and metabolic activation of chemicals. II. General Ames mutagenicity model, Chem. Res. Toxicol. 20 (2007), pp. 662–676.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S.A. Kulkarni and T.S. Barton-Maclaren, Performance of (Q)SAR Models for predicting Ames mutagenicity of aryl azo and benzidine based compounds, J. Environ. Sci. Health Part C 32 (2014), pp. 46–82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R. Diderich, Tools for category formation and read across: Overview of the OECD (Q)SAR application toolbox, in In Silico Toxicology: Principles and Applications, M.T.D. Cronin and J.C. Madden, eds., The Royal Society of Chemistry, UK, 2010, pp. 384–407.
   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
• 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 Part C 31 (2013), pp. 45–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. Cassano, G. Raitano, E. Mombelli, A. Fernandez, J. Cester, A. Roncaglioni, and E. Benfenati, Evaluation of QSAR models for the prediction of Ames genotoxicity: A retrospective exercise on the chemical substances registered under the EU REACH regulation, J. Environ. Sci. Health Part C 32 (2014), pp. 273–298.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• L. Stavitskaya, B.L. Minnier, R.D. Benz, and N.L. Kruhlak, Development of improved QSAR models for predicting A-T base pair mutations. Poster presented at Genetic Toxicology from Hazard Identification to Risk and Relevance Assessment, Newark, DE, 2013. Available at http://www.gta-us.org/scimtgs/2013Meeting/posters2013.html.
   Google Scholar
• CCRIS. https://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen?CCRIS. Accessed October 2016.
   Google Scholar
• GENE-TOX Data Bank. https://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen?GENETOX. Accessed October 2016.
   Google Scholar
• O. Mekenyan, N. Nikolova, P. Schmieder, and G. Veith, COREPA-M: A multi-dimensional formulation of COREPA, QSAR Comb. Sci. 23 (2004), pp. 5–18.
   Google Scholar
• Fundamental and guiding principles for (Q)SAR analysis of chemical carcinogens with mechanistic considerations. OECD Monograph, Series on Testing & Assessment No. 229 (ENV/JM/MONO(2015)46), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2015.
   Google Scholar
• D. Bajusz, A. Rácz, and K. Héberger, Why is Tanimoto index an appropriate choice for fingerprint-based similarity calculations?, J. Cheminf. 7 (2015), p. 20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leadscope Enterprise. A comprehensive data management and decision support platform developed by Leadscope Inc. http://www.leadscope.com/product_info.php?products_id=81. Accessed October 2016.
   Google Scholar
• VEGA-QSAR: AI inside a platform for predictive toxicology. E. Benfenati, A. Manganaro and G. Giuseppina (2013), Milan, Italy. Software available at http://www.vega-qsar.eu/index.php.
   Google Scholar