Effect of the structural factors of organic compounds on the acute toxicity toward Daphnia magna

References

• R.P. Schwarzenbach, B.I. Escher, K. Fenner, T.B. Hofstetter, C.A. Johnson, U. von Gunten, and B. Wehrli, The challenge of micropollutants in aquatic systems, Science 313 (2006), pp. 1072–1077. doi:10.1126/science.1127291
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S.M. Rappaport and M.T. Smith, Epidemiology. Environment and disease risks, Science 330 (2010), pp. 460–461. doi:10.1126/science.1192603
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
• P.M. Khan, K. Roy, and E. Benfenati, Chemometric modeling of Daphnia magna toxicity of agrochemicals, Chemosphere 224 (2019), pp. 470–479. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.02.147
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A.A. Toropov, I. Raška Jr., A.P. Toropova, M. Raškova, A.M. Veselinović, and J.B. Veselinović, The study of the index of ideality of correlation as a new criterion of predictive potential of QSPR/QSAR-models, Sci. Total Environ. 659 (2019), pp. 1387–1394. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.439
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• H. Ha, K. Park, G. Kang, and S. Lee, QSAR study using acute toxicity of Daphnia magna and Hyalella azteca through exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), Ecotoxicology 28 (2019), pp. 333–342. doi:10.1007/s10646-019-02025-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J.R. Seward, G.D. Sinks, and T.W. Schultz, Reproducibility of toxicity across mode of toxic action in the Tetrahymena population growth impairment assay, Aquat. Toxicol. 53 (2001), pp. 33–47. doi:10.1016/s0166-445x(00)00158-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®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. doi:10.1021/ci400267h
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. Kienzler, K.A. Connors, M. Bonnell, M.G. Barron, A. Beasley, C.G. Inglis, T.J. Norberg-King, T. Martin, H. Sanderson, N. Vallotton, P. Wilson, and M.R. Embry, Mode of action classifications in the EnviroTox database: Development and implementation of a consensus MOA classification, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 38 (2019), pp. 2294–2304. doi:10.1002/etc.4531
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M.G. Barron, C.R. Lilavois, and T.M. Martin, MOAtox: A comprehensive mode of action and acute aquatic toxicity database for predictive model development, Aquat. Toxicol. 161 (2015), pp. 102–107. doi:10.1016/j.aquatox.2015.02.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• C.L. Russom, S.P. Bradbury, S.J. Broderius, D.E. Hammereister, and R.A. Drummond, Predicting modes of toxic action from chemical structure: Acute toxicity in the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 16 (1997), pp. 948–967. doi:10.1002/etc.5620160514.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S. Bhatia, T. Schultz, D. Roberts, J. Shen, L. Kromidas, and A.M. Api, Comparison of Cramer classification between Toxtree, the OECD QSAR toolbox and expert judgment, Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 71 (2015), pp. 52–62. doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.11.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• H.J.M. Verhaar, C.J.V. Leeuwen, and J.L.M. Hermens, Classifying environmental pollutants part 1: Structural activity relationship for prediction of aquatic toxicity, Chemosphere 25 (1992), pp. 471–491. doi:10.1016/0045-6535(92)90280-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• W.H.J. Vaes, E.U. Ramos, H.J.M. Verhaar, and J.L.M. Hermens, Acute toxicity of nonpolar versus polar narcosis: Is there a difference? Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 17 (1998), pp. 1380–1384. doi:10.1002/etc.5620170723.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• B.I. Escher, R.I.L. Eggen, U. Schreiber, Z. Schreiber, E. Vye, B. Wisner, and R.P. Schwarzenbach, Baseline toxicity (narcotics) of organic chemicals determined by in-vitro membrane potential measurements in energy-transducing membranes, Environ. Sci. Technol. 36 (2002), pp. 1971–1979. doi:10.1021/es015844c
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J.C. Dearden, M.T.D. Cronin, Y. Zhao, and O.A. Raevsky, QSAR studies of compounds acting by polar and non-polar narcotics: An examination of the role of polarisability, Quant. Struct. Act. Relat. 19 (2000), pp. 3–9. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1521-3838(200002)19:13.3.CO;2-E
   Google Scholar
• D.W. Roberts and J.F. Costello, Mechanisms of action for general and polar narcosis: A difference in dimension, QSAR Comb. Sci. 22 (2003), pp. 226–233. doi:10.1002/qsar.200390016.
   Google Scholar
• P.K. Gupta, Illustrated Toxicology With Study Questions, Academic Press, London, 2018, pp. 107–129.
   Google Scholar
• G.M. Rand, Fundamentals of Aquatic Toxicology: Effects, Environmental Fate, and Risk Assessment, Taylor & Francis, Washington, 1995.
   Google Scholar
• S.J. Enoch, M. Hewitt, M.T. Cronin, S. Azam, and J.C. Madden, Classification of chemicals according to mechanism of aquatic toxicity: An evaluation of the implementation of the Verhaar scheme in Toxtree, Chemosphere 73 (2008), pp. 243–248. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2008.06.052
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S.C. Basak, G.D. Grunwald, G.E. Host, G.J. Niemi, and S.P. Bradbury, A comparative study of molecular similarity, statistical, and neural methods for predicting toxic modes of action, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 17 (1998), pp. 1056–1064. doi:10.1002/etc.5620170611
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M. Vighi, M.M. Garlanda, and D. Calamari, QSARs for toxicity of organophosphorous pesticides to Daphnia and honeybees, Sci. Total Environ. 109/110 (1991), pp. 605–622. doi:10.1016/0048-9697(91)90213-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M. Vighi and D. Calamari, QSARs for organotin compounds on Daphnia magna, Chemosphere 14 (1985), pp. 1925–1932. doi:10.1016/0045-6535(85)90134-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R. Todeschini, M. Vighi, R. Provenzani, A. Finizio, and P. Gramatica, Modeling and prediction by using WHIM descriptors in QSAR studies: Toxicity of heterogeneous chemicals on Daphnia magna, Chemosphere 32 (1996), pp. 1527–1545. doi:10.1016/0045-6535(96)00060-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• L.W. Deneer, C.J. van Leeuwen, W. Seinen, J.L. Maas-Diepveen, and J.L.M. Hermens, QSAR study of the toxicity of nitrobenzene derivatives towards Daphnia magna, Chlorella pyrenoidosa and Photobacterium phosphoreum, Aquat. Toxicol. 15 (1989), pp. 83–98. doi:10.1016/0166-445X(89)90007-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M.I. Hossain, B.B. Samir, M. El-Harbawi, A.N. Masri, M.I.A. Mutalib, G. Hefter, and C.Y. Yin, Development of a novel mathematical model using a group contribution method for prediction of ionic liquid toxicities, Chemosphere 85 (2011), pp. 990–994. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.06.088
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• E. Zvinavashe, T. Du, T. Griff, H.H. van den Berg, A.E. Soffers, J. Vervoort, A.J. Murk, and I.M. Rietjens, Quantitative structure-activity relationship modeling of the toxicity of organothiophosphate pesticides to Daphnia magna and Cyprinus carpio, Chemosphere 75 (2009), pp. 1531–1538. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.01.081
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S. Cassani, S. Kovarich, E. Papa, P.P. Roy, L. van der Wal, and P. Gramatica, Daphnia and fish toxicity of (benzo)triazoles: Validated QSAR models, and interspecies quantitative activity–activity modelling, J. Hazard. Mat. 258–259 (2013), pp. 50–60. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.04.025
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S. Cassani, S. Kovarich, E. Papa, P.P. Roy, M. Rahmberg, S. Nilsson, U. Sahlin, N. Jeliazkova, N. Kochev, O. Pukalov, I.V. Tetko, S. Brandmaier, M.K. Durjava, B. Kolar, W. Peijnenburg, and P. Gramatica, Evaluation of CADASTER QSAR models for aquatic toxicity of (benzo)triazoles and prioritisation by consensus, ATLA 41 (2013), pp. 49–64. doi:10.1177/026119291304100107
   Google Scholar
• I.V. Tetko, P. Sopasakis, P. Kunwar, S. Brandmaier, S. Novotarskyi, L. Charochkina, C. Prokopenko, and W.J. Peijnenburg, Prioritization of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) using the QSPR-THESAURUS web tool, ATLA 41 (2013), pp. 127–135. doi:10.1177/026119291304100112
   Google Scholar
• J.C. Faucon, R. Bureau, J. Faisant, F. Briens, and S. Rault, Prediction of the Daphnia acute toxicity from heterogeneous data, Chemosphere 44 (2001), pp. 407–422. doi:10.1016/s0045-6535(00)00301-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A.R. Katritzky, S.H. Slavov, I.S. Stoyanova-Slavova, I. Kahn, and M. Karelson, Quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) modeling of EC50 of aquatic toxicities for Daphnia magna, J. Toxicol. Environ. Health A 72 (2009), pp. 1181–1190. doi:10.1080/15287390903091863
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K.L. Kaiser and S.P. Niculescu, Modeling acute toxicity of chemicals to Daphnia magna: A probabilistic neural network approach, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 20 (2001), pp. 420–431. doi:10.1002/etc.5620200225.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• N. Basant, S. Gupta, and K.P. Singh, Modeling the toxicity of chemical pesticides in multiple test species using local and global QSTR approaches, Toxicol. Res. 5, 1 (2015), pp. 340–353. doi:10.1039/c5tx00321k
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R. Kühne, R.U. Ebert, P.C. von der Ohe, N. Ulrich, W. Brack, and G. Schüürmann, Read across prediction of the acute toxicity of organic compounds toward the water flea Daphnia magna, Mol. Inf. 32 (2013), pp. 108–120. doi:10.1002/minf.201200085
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• E. Perales, J.I. García, E. Pires, L. Aldea, L. Lomba, and B. Giner, Ecotoxicity and QSAR studies of glycerol ethers in Daphnia magna, Chemosphere 183 (2017), pp. 277–285. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.05.107
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. Furuhama, T.I. Hayashi, and N. Tatarazako, Acute to chronic estimation of Daphnia magna toxicity within the QSAAR framework, SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 27 (2016), pp. 833–850. doi:10.1080/1062936X.2016.1243151
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. Furuhama, T.I. Hayashi, H. Yamamoto, and N. Tatarazako, External validation of acute-to-chronic models for estimation of reproductive toxicity to Daphnia magna, SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 28 (2017), pp. 765–781. doi:10.1080/1062936X.2016.1243151
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K. Khan and K. Roy, Ecotoxicological modelling of cosmetics for aquatic organisms: a QSTR approach, SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 28, 7 (2017), pp. 567–594. doi:10.1080/1062936X.2017.1352621
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A.P. Toropova, A.A. Toropov, A.M. Veselinović, J.B. Veselinović, D. Leszczynska, and J. Leszczynski, Monte Carlo–based quantitative structure–activity relationship models for toxicity of organic chemicals to Daphnia magna, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 35 (2016), pp. 2691–2697. doi:10.1002/etc.3466
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K.A. Hossain and K. Roy, Chemometric modeling of aquatic toxicity of contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) in Dugesia japonica and its interspecies correlation with daphnia and fish: QSTR and QSTTR approaches, Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 166 (2018), pp. 92–101. doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.09.068
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R. Aalizadeh, P.C. von der Ohe, and N.S. Thomaidis, Prediction of acute toxicity of emerging contaminants on the water flea Daphnia magna by ant colony optimization–support vector machine QSTR models, Environ. Sci.: Processes Impacts 19 (2017), pp. 438–448. doi:10.1039/c6em00679e
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K. Khan, S. Kar, H. Sanderson, K. Roy, and J. Leszczynski, Ecotoxicological modeling, ranking and prioritization of pharmaceuticals using QSTR and i-QSTTR approaches: Application of 2D and fragment based descriptors, Mol. Inf. 38 (2019), pp. 1800078. doi:10.1002/minf.201800078
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. Rácz, D. Bajusz, and K. Héberger, Modelling methods and cross-validation variants in QSAR: A multi-level analysis, SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 29 (2018), pp. 661–674. doi:10.1080/1062936X.2018.1505778
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. Golbamaki, A. Cassano, A. Lombardo, Y. Moggio, M. Colafranceschi, and E. Benfenati, Comparison of in silico models for prediction of Daphnia magna acute toxicity, SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 25 (2014), pp. 673–694. doi:10.1080/1062936X.2014.923041
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M. Cassotti, D. Ballabio, V. Consonni, A. Mauri, I. Tetko, and R. Todeschini, Prediction of acute aquatic toxicity toward Daphnia magna by using the GA-kNN method, Altern. Lab Anim. 42 (2014), pp. 31–41. doi:10.1177/026119291404200106
   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. doi:10.1787/9789264085442-en
   Google Scholar
• P. Polishchuk, Interpretation of quantitative structure–activity relationship models: Past, present, and future, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 57 (2017), pp. 2618–2639. doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.7b00274
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O.A. Raevsky, A.N. Razdol’sky, V.D. Tonkopii, I.V. Iofina, and A.O. Zagrebin, Classificatory and quantitative models of the relationship between the structures of chemical compounds and their toxicity for Daphnia magna, Pharm. Chem. J. 42 (2008), pp. 329–334. doi:10.1007/s11094-008-0119-5
   Google Scholar
• V.Y. Grigor’ev, A.N. Razdol’skii, A.O. Zagrebin, V.D. Tonkopii, and O.A. Raevskii, QSAR classification models of acute toxicity of organic compounds with respect to Daphnia magna, Pharm. Chem. J. 48 (2014), pp. 242–245. doi:10.1007/s11094-014-1086-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• T. Martin, P. Harten, and D. Young, TEST (Toxicity Estimation Software Tool) V 4.1, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, 2012; software available at https://www.epa.gov/chemical-research/toxicity-estimation-software-tool-test.
   Google Scholar
• P.C. von der Ohe, R. Kühne, R.U. Ebert, R. Altenburger, M. Liess, and G. Schüürmann, Structural alerts-a new classification model to discriminate excess toxicity from narcotic effect levels of organic compounds in the acute daphnid assay, Chem. Res. Toxicol. 18 (2005), pp. 536–555. doi:10.1021/tx0497954
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• P.G. Polishchuk, SIRMS-SPCI, knowledge-mining software tool for automatic dataset analysis; software available at http://www.qsar4u.com/pages/sirms_qsar.php.
   Google Scholar
• V.E. Kuz’min, A.G. Artemenko, and E.N. Muratov, Hierarchical QSAR technology based on the simplex representation of molecular structure, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 22 (2008), pp. 403–421. doi:10.1007/s10822-008-9179-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Standardizer, version 5.4; ChemAxon, Budapest, Hungary; software available at https://docs.chemaxon.com/display/docs/Standardizer+Command-line+Application.
   Google Scholar
• Scikit-learn - Python module for machine learning; software available at https://scikit-learn.org/stable/.
   Google Scholar
• C. Cortes and V.N. Vapnik, Support-vector networks, Machine Learn. 20 (1995), pp. 273–297. doi:10.1007/BF00994018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J.H. Friedman, Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine, Ann. Statist. 29 (2001), pp. 1189–1232. doi:10.1214/aos/1013203451
   Web of Science ®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. doi:10.1021/ci400737s
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• I. Mitra, A. Saha, and K. Roy, Exploring quantitative structure–activity relationship studies of antioxidant phenolic compounds obtained from traditional Chinese medicinal plants, Molec. Simul. 36 (2010), pp. 1067–1079. doi:10.1080/08927022.2010.503326
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• P. Polishchuk, O. Tinkov, T. Khristova, L. Ognichenko, A. Kosinskaya, A. Varnek, and V. Kuz’min, Structural and physico-chemical interpretation (SPCI) of QSAR models and its comparison with matched molecular pair analysis, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 56 (2016), pp. 1455–1469. doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.6b00371
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HYBOT program package; software available at http://molpro.ipac.ac.ru.
   Google Scholar
• O.A. Raevsky, V.Y. Grigor’ev, D.B. Kireev, and N.S. Zefirov, Complete thermodynamic description of H-bonding in the framework of multiplicative approach, Quant. Struct.-Act. Relat. 11 (1992), pp. 49–63. doi:10.1002/qsar.19920110109
   Google Scholar
• L. Breiman, RRforest; software available at http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~breiman/RandomForests/reg_examples/RFR.f.
   Google Scholar
• J. Colmenares, flssvm; software available at https://github.com/jbcolme/fortran-ls-svm.
   Google Scholar
• H. Kubinyi, Variable selection in QSAR studies. I. An evolutionary algorithm, Quant. Struct.-Act. Relat. 13 (1994), pp. 285–294. doi:10.1002/qsar.19940130306
   Google Scholar
• I. Sushko, A.K. Pandey, S. Novotarskyi, R. Körner, M. Rupp, W. Teetz, S. Brandmaier, A. Abdelaziz, V.V. Prokopenko, V.Y. Tanchuk, R. Todeschini, A. Varnek, G. Marcou, P. Ertl, V. Potemkin, M. Grishina, J. Gasteiger, C. Schwab, I.I. Baskin, V.A. Palyulin, E.V. Radchenko, W.J. Welsh, V. Kholodovych, D. Chekmarev, A. Cherkasov, J. Aires-de-Sousa, Q.Y. Zhang, A. Bender, F. Nigsch, L. Patiny, and I.V. Tetko, Online chemical modeling environment (OCHEM): Web platform for data storage, model development and publishing of chemical information, J. Comput.-Aided Molec. Design 25 (2011), pp. 533–554. doi:10.1007/s10822-011-9440-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• L.B. Kier and L.H. Hall, An electrotopological-state index for atoms in molecules, Pharm. Res. 7 (1990), pp. 801–807. doi:10.1023/a:1015952613760
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• I.V. Tetko and V.Y. Tanchuk, Application of associative neural networks for prediction of lipophilicity in ALOGPS 2.1 program, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 42 (2002), pp. 1136–1145. doi:10.1021/ci025515j
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• I.V. Tetko, I. Sushko, A.K. Pandey, H. Zhu, A. Tropsha, E. Papa, T. Oberg, R. Todeschini, D. Fourches, and A. Varnek, Critical assessment of QSAR models of environmental toxicity against Tetrahymena pyriformis: Focusing on applicability domain and overfitting by variable selection, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 48 (2008), pp. 1733–1746. doi:10.1021/ci800151m
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD, QSAR toolbox v. 4.4, 2020; software available at https://qsartoolbox.org/.
   Google Scholar
• E. Mombelli and J. Devillers, Evaluation of the OECD (Q)SAR application toolbox and toxtree for predicting and profiling the carcinogenic potential of chemicals, SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 21 (2010), pp. 731–752. doi:10.1080/1062936X.2010.528598
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• V.M. Alves, E.N. Muratov, S.J. Capuzzi, R. Politi, Y. Low, R.C. Braga, A.V. Zakharov, A. Sedykh, E. Mokshyna, S. Farag, C.H. Andrade, V.E. Kuz’min, D. Fourchesh, and A. Tropsha, Alarms about structural alerts, Green Chem. 18 (2016), pp. 4348–4360. doi:10.1039/C6GC01492E
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• X. Li, L. Chen, F. Cheng, Z. Wu, H. Bian, C. Xu, W. Li, G. Liu, X. Shen, and Y. Tang, In silico prediction of chemical acute oral toxicity using multi-classification methods, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 54 (2014), pp. 1061–1069. doi:10.1021/ci5000467
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S. Kar and K. Roy, QSAR modeling of toxicity of diverse organic chemicals to Daphnia magna using 2D and 3D descriptors, J. Hazard. Mater. 177 (2010), pp. 344–351. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.12.038
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K. Khan, P.M. Khan, G. Lavado, C. Valsecchi, J. Pasqualini, D. Baderna, M. Marzo, A. Lombardo, K. Roy, and E. Benfenati, QSAR modeling of Daphnia magna and fish toxicities of biocides using 2D descriptors, Chemosphere 229 (2019), pp. 8–17. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.04.204
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O.V. Tinkov, L.N. Ognichenko, V.E. Kuz’min, L.G. Gorb, A.P. Kosinskaya, N.N. Muratov, E.N. Muratov, F.C. Hill, and J. Leszczynski, Computational assessment of environmental hazards of nitroaromatic compounds: Influence of the type and position of aromatic ring substituents on toxicity, Struct. Chem. 27 (2016), pp. 191–198. doi:10.1007/s11224-015-0715-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J.L. Hermens, Electrophiles and acute toxicity to fish, Environ. Health Perspect. 87 (1990), pp. 219–225. doi:10.1289/ehp.9087219
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J.A. Schwöbel, Y.K. Koleva, S.J. Enoch, F. Bajot, M. Hewitt, J.C. Madden, D.W. Roberts, T.W. Schultz, and M.T. Cronin, Measurement and estimation of electrophilic reactivity for predictive toxicology, Chem. Rev. 111 (2011), pp. 2562–2596. doi:10.1021/cr100098n
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. Kienzler, M.G. Barron, S.E. Belanger, A. Beasley, and M.R. Embry, Mode of action (MOA) assignment classifications for ecotoxicology: An evaluation of approaches, Environ. Sci. Technol. 51 (2017), pp. 10203–10211. doi:10.1021/acs.est.7b02337
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M.B. Čolović, D.Z. Krstić, T.D. Lazarević-Pašti, A.M. Bondžić, and V.M. Vasić, Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors: Pharmacology and toxicology, Curr. Neuropharmacol. 11 (2013), pp. 315–335. doi:10.2174/1570159X11311030006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D.M. Soderlund, J.M. Clark, L.P. Sheets, L.S. Mullin, V.J. Piccirillo, D. Sargent, J.T. Stevens, and M.L. Weiner, Mechanisms of pyrethroid neurotoxicity: Implications for cumulative risk assessment, Toxicology 171 (2002), pp. 3–59. doi:10.1016/s0300-483x(01)00569-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R.M. Joy, Mode of action of lindane, dieldrin and related insecticides in the central nervous system, Neurobehav. Toxicol. Teratol. 4 (1982), pp. 813–823.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• H. Terada, Uncouplers of oxidative phosphorylation, Environ. Health Perspect. 87 (1990), pp. 213–218. doi:10.1289/ehp.9087213
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J. Grundlingh, P.I. Dargan, M. El-Zanfaly, and D.M. Wood, 2,4- Dinitrophenol (DNP): A weight loss agent with significant acute toxicity and risk of death, J. Med. Toxicol. 7 (2011), pp. 205–212. doi:10.1007/s13181-011-0162-6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• C. Niederer, R. Behra, A. Harder, R.P. Schwarzenbach, and B.I. Escher, Mechanistic approaches for evaluating the toxicity of reactive organochlorines and epoxides in green algae, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 23 (2004), pp. 697–704. doi:10.1897/03-83
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. Moghe, S. Ghare, B. Lamoreau, M. Mohammad, S. Barve, C. McClain, and S. Joshi-Barve, Molecular mechanisms of acrolein toxicity: Relevance to human disease, Toxicol. Sci. 142 (2015), pp. 242–255. doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfu233
   Google Scholar