Modelling of ready biodegradability based on combined public and industrial data sources

References

• P. Gramatica and E. Papa, Screening and ranking of POPs for global half-life: QSAR approaches for prioritization based on molecular structure, Environ. Sci. Technol. 41 (2007), pp. 2833–2839. doi:10.1021/es061773b.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M. Pavan and A.P. Worth, Review of estimation models for biodegradation, QSAR Comb. Sci. 27 (2008), pp. 32–40. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1611-0218.
   Google Scholar
• OECD, Test No. 301: Ready biodegradability, Tech. Rep. 9789264070349, Organisation for Economic Co-operation Development, Paris, FR, 1992.
   Google Scholar
• NITE, Data from: Biodegradation and bioconcentration data under CSCL, National Institute of Technology and Evaluation, 2007; dataset available at https://www.nite.go.jp/en/.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission, Regulation (EC) no 1907/2006 of the European parliament 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/ECC 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/EEC and 2000/21/EC, Off. J. Eur. Union. 50 (2007), pp. 1–281.
   Google Scholar
• ECHA, Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment, r.11: PBT/vPvB assessment, Tech. Rep. ED-01-17-294, European Chemicals Agency, Helsinki, FI, 2017.
   Google Scholar
• A. Kowalczyk, T.J. Martin, O.R. Price, J.R. Snape, R.A. van Egmond, C.J. Finnegan, H. Schäfer, R.J. Davenport, and G.D. Bending, Refinement of biodegradation tests methodologies and the proposed utility of new microbial ecology techniques, Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 111 (2015), pp. 9–22. doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2014.09.021.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• T.J. Martin, J.R. Snape, A. Bartram, A. Robson, K. Acharya, and R.J. Davenport, Environmentally relevant inoculum concentrations improve the reliability of persistent assessments in biodegradation screening tests, Environ. Sci. Technol. 51 (2017), pp. 3065–3073. doi:10.1021/acs.est.6b05717.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• E. Benfenati, A. Manganaro, and G. Gini, VEGA-QSAR: AI inside a platform for predictive toxicology. Proceedings of the workshop ‘Popularize Artificial Intelligence 2013, December 5th 2013, Turin, Italy, 2013, published on CEUR Workshop Proceedings Vol 1107.
   Google Scholar
• US EPA, Estimation Programs Interface Suite™ for Microsoft® Windows V 4.11, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, 2012; software available at https://www.epa.gov/tsca-screening-tools/epi-suitetm-estimation-program-interface.
   Google Scholar
• K. Mansouri, C.M. Grulke, R.S. Judson, and A.J. Williams, OPERA models for predicting physicochemical properties and environmental fate endpoints, J. Cheminform. 10 (2018), pp. 1–19. doi:10.1186/s13321-018-0263-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• JRC, ToxTree 3.1.0 - Toxic hazard estimation by decision tree approach, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy, 2018; software available at https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/eurl/ecvam.
   Google Scholar
• A. Lombardo, F. Pizzo, E. Benfenati, A. Manganaro, T. Ferrari, and G. Gini, A new in silico classification model for ready biodegradability, based on molecular fragments, Chemosphere 108 (2014), pp. 10–16. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.02.073.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D. Ballabio, F. Biganzoli, R. Todeschini, and V. Consonni, Qualitative consensus of QSAR ready biodegradability predictions, Toxicol. Environ. Chem. 99 (2017), pp. 1193–1216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. Fernández, R. Rallo, and F. Giralt, Prioritization of in silico models and molecular descriptors for the assessment of ready biodegradability, Environ. Res. 142 (2015), pp. 161–168. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2015.06.031.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R. Boethling, Comparison of ready biodegradation estimation methods for fragrance materials, Sci. Total Environ. 497–498 (2014), pp. 60–67. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.07.090.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• E. Rorije, H. Loonen, M. Müller, G. Klopman, and W.J.G.M. Peijnenburg, Evaluation and application of models for the prediction of ready biodegradability in the MITI-I test, Chemosphere 38 (1999), pp. 1409–1417. doi:10.1016/S0045-6535(98)00543-8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R. Posthumus, T.P. Traas, W.J.G.M. Peijnenburg, and E.M. Hulzebos, External validation of EPIWIN biodegradation models, SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 16 (2005), pp. 135–148. doi:10.1080/10629360412331319899.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• G. Marcou, D. Horvath, F. Bonachera, and A. Varnek, Laboratoire De Chemoinformatique UMR 7140 CNRS, University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, FR, 2019; available at http://infochim.u-strasbg.fr/ [Accessed 1 May 2019].
   Google Scholar
• OECD, Data from: EChemPortal: Global portal to information on chemical substances, Organisation for Economic Co-operation Development; dataset available at https://www.echemportal.org/echemportal/index.action.
   Google Scholar
• F. Cheng, Y. Ikenaga, Y. Zhou, Y. Yu, W. Li, J. Shen, Z. Du, L. Chen, C. Xu, G. Liu, P.W. Lee, and Y. Tang, In silico assessment of chemical biodegradability, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 52 (2012), pp. 655–669. doi:10.1021/ci200622d.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K. Mansouri, T. Ringsted, D. Ballabio, R. Todeschini, and V. Consonni, Quantitative structure-activity relationship models for ready biodegradability of chemicals, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 53 (2013), pp. 867–878. doi:10.1021/ci4000213.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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. doi:10.1006/rtph.1996.1076.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NCI, CADD Group Chemoinformatics Tools and User Services, National Cancer Institute, Chemical Biology Laboratory, Bethesda, Maryland, 2019; available at https://cactus.nci.nih.gov/.
   Google Scholar
• NIH, PubChem, National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, Bethesda, Maryland, 2019; available at https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.
   Google Scholar
• M. Berthold, N. Cebron, F. Dill, T. Gabriel, T. Kötter, T. Meinl, P. Ohl, K. Thiel, and B. Wiswedel, KNIME - the Konstanz information miner: Version 2.0 and beyond, SIGKDD Explor. 11 (2009), pp. 26–31. doi:10.1145/1656274.1656280.
   Google Scholar
• F. Ruggiu, G. Marcou, A. Varnek, and D. Horvath, ISIDA property-labelled fragment descriptors, Mol. Inform. 29 (2010), pp. 855–868. doi:10.1002/minf.201000099.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• C.M. Bishop, M. Svensén, C.K.I. Williams, and M. Svens, The generative topographic mapping, Neural Comput. 10 (1998), pp. 215–234. doi:10.1162/089976698300017953.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• N. Kireeva, I.I. Baskin, H.A. Gaspar, D. Horvath, G. Marcou, and A. Varnek, Generative Topographic Mapping (GTM): Universal tool for data visualization, structure-activity modeling and dataset comparison, Mol. Inform. 31 (2012), pp. 301–312. doi:10.1002/minf.201100163.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D. Horvath, J. Brown, G. Marcou, and A. Varnek, An evolutionary optimizer of libsvm models, Challenges 5 (2014), pp. 450–472. doi:10.3390/challe5020450.
   Google Scholar
• C. Chih-Chung and L. Chih-Jen, LIBSVM: A library for support vector machines, ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. 2 (2011), pp. 1–27. doi:10.1145/1961189.1961199.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• I.H. Witten, E. Frank, M.A. Hall, and C.J. Pal, Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques, 4th ed., Morgan Kaufmann, San Fransisco CA, 2016.
   Google Scholar
• A. Tropsha, P. Gramatica, and V.K. Gombar, The importance of being earnest: Validation is the absolute essential for successful application and interpretation of QSPR models, QSAR Comb. Sci. 22 (2003), pp. 69–77. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1611-0218.
   Google Scholar
• F. Lunghini, G. Marcou, P. Azam, R. Patoux, M.H. Enrici, F. Bonachera, D. Horvath, and A. Varnek, QSPR models for bioconcentration factor (BCF): Are they able to predict data of industrial interest? SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 30 (2019), pp. 507–524. doi:10.1080/1062936X.2019.1626278.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R.S. Boethling and J. Costanza, Domain of EPI suite biotransformation models, SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 21 (2010), pp. 415–443. doi:10.1080/1062936X.2010.501816.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• G. Marcou, D. Horvath, V. Solov’Ev, A. Arrault, P. Vayer, and A. Varnek, Interpretability of SAR/QSAR models of any complexity by atomic contributions, Mol. Inform. 31 (2012), pp. 639–642. doi:10.1002/minf.201100136.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• E. Hulzebos, D. Sijm, T. Traas, R. Posthumus, and L. Maslankiewicz, Validity and validation of expert (Q)SAR systems, SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 16 (2005), pp. 385–401. doi:10.1080/10659360500204426.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R.S. Boethling, E. Sommer, and D. DiFiore, Designing small molecules for biodegradability, Chem. Rev. 107 (2007), pp. 2207–2227. doi:10.1021/cr050952t.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD, Guidance document on the validation of (Quantitative) Structure Activity Relationship [(Q)SAR] models, Tech. Rep. ENV/JM/MONO(2007)2, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, FR, 2007.
   Google Scholar