References
- Aquatic toxicity, (2016). https://www.chemsafetypro.com/Topics/CRA/ecotox_aquatic_toxicity.html (accessed November 25, 2021).
- R. Schwarzenbach, B. Escher, K. Fenner, T. Hofstetter, A. Johnson, U. Gunten, and B. Wehrli, The challenge of micropollutants in aquatic systems, Science 313 (2006), pp. 1072–1077. doi:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1127291 .
- Y. Yang, Z. Chen, J. Zhang, S. Wu, L. Yang, L. Chen, and Y. Shao, The challenge of micropollutants in surface water of the Yangtze river, Sci. Total Environ. 780 (2021), pp. 146537. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2021.146537 .
- R. Yang, R. Thomas, D. Gustafson, J. Campain, S. Benjamin, H. Verhaar, and M. Mumtaz, Approaches to developing alternative and predictive toxicology based on PBPK/PD and QSAR modeling, Environ. Health Perspect. 106 (1998), pp. 1385–1393. doi:https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.98106s61385 .
- R.M. Evans, O.V. Martin, M. Faust, and A. Kortenkamp, Should the scope of human mixture risk assessment span legislative/regulatory silos for chemicals?, Sci. Total Environ. 543 (2016), pp. 757–764. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.10.162 .
- S. Kar and J. Leszczynski, Exploration of computational approaches to predict the toxicity of chemical mixtures, Toxics 7 (2019), pp. 15. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics7010015 .
- D.W. Kolpin, E.T. Furlong, M.T. Meyer, E.M. Thurman, S.D. Zaugg, L.B. Barber, and H.T. Buxton, Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants in U.S. streams, 1999−2000: A national reconnaissance, Environ. Sci. Technol. 36 (2002), pp. 1202–1211. doi:https://doi.org/10.1021/ES011055J .
- A. Kienzler, E. Berggren, J. Bessems, S. Bopp, S. van der Linden, and A. Worth, Assessment of Mixtures - Review of Regulatory Requirements and Guidance, European Commission, Brussels. 2014. doi:https://doi.org/10.2788/84264 .
- S.K. Bopp, A. Kienzler, A.N. Richarz, S.C. van der Linden, A. Paini, N. Parissis, and A.P. Worth, Regulatory assessment and risk management of chemical mixtures: Challenges and ways forward, Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 49 (2019), pp. 174–189. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2019.1579169 .
- J. Kim, S. Kim, and G.E. Schaumann, Reliable predictive computational toxicology methods for mixture toxicity: toward the development of innovative integrated models for environmental risk assessment, Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 12 (2013), pp. 235–256. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/S11157-012-9286-7 .
- New approach methodologies in regulatory science: proceedings of a scientific workshop: Helsinki, 19-20 April 2016, European Chemical Agency, Helsinki, Finland. 2016. https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/21838212/scientific_ws_proceedings_en.pdf/a2087434-0407-4705-9057-95d9c2c2cc57. (accessed November 25, 2021).
- P. Nymark, M. Bakker, S. Dekkers, R. Franken, W. Fransman, A. García-Bilbao, D. Greco, M. Gulumian, N. Hadrup, S. Halappanavar, V. Hongisto, K.S. Hougaard, K.A. Jensen, P. Kohonen, A.J. Koivisto, M. Dal Maso, T. Oosterwijk, M. Poikkimäki, I. Rodriguez-Llopis, R. Stierum, J.B. Sørli, and R. Grafström, Toward rigorous materials production: New approach methodologies have extensive potential to improve current safety assessment practices, Small 16 (2020), pp. 1904749. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/SMLL.201904749 .
- J.C. Madden, S.J. Enoch, A. Paini, and M.T.D. Cronin, A review of in silico tools as alternatives to animal testing: principles, resources and applications, Altern. Lab. Anim. 48 (2020), pp. 146–172. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0261192920965977 .
- A.B. Raies and V.B. Bajic, In silico toxicology: Computational methods for the prediction of chemical toxicity, WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci. 6 (2016), pp. 147–172. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/wcms.1240 .
- E.N. Muratov, A. Tropsha, E.V. Varlamova, V.E. Kuzmin, A.G. Artemenko, N.N. Muratov, S. Mileyko, and D. Fourches, Everything out validation approach for QSAR models of chemical mixtures, JSM Clin. Pharm. 1 (2014), pp. 1005.
- Z. Lin, L. Wang, and H. Yu, Quantification of joint effect for hydrogen bond and development of QSARs for predicting mixture toxicity, Chemosphere 52 (2003), pp. 1199–1208. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-6535(03)00329-1 .
- D. De Zwart and W. Slooff, The Microtox as an alternative assay in the acute toxicity assessment of water pollutants, Aquat. Toxicol. 4 (1983), pp. 129–138. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-445X(83)90050-4 .
- J.M. Ribo and K.L.E. Kaiser, Photobacterium phosphoreum toxicity bioassay. I. test procedures and applications, Environ. Toxicol. Water Qual. 2 (1987), pp. 305–323. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/tox.2540020307 .
- I. Oprisiu, E. Varlamova, E. Muratov, A. Artemenko, G. Marcou, P. Polishchuk, V. Kuz’Min, and A. Varnek, QSPR approach to predict nonadditive properties of mixtures. application to bubble point temperatures of binary mixtures of liquids, Mol. Inform. 31 (2012), pp. 491–502. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/minf.201200006 .
- G.D. Veith and S.J. Broderius, Rules for distinguishing toxicants that cause type I and type II narcosis syndromes, Environ. Health Perspect. 87 (1990), pp. 207–211. doi:https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.9087207 .
- D. Finney, Probit Analysis, Cambridge University Press, London, UK, 1971.
- K. Roy, S. Kar, and R.N. Das, Chemical information and descriptors, in Understanding the Basics of QSAR for Application in Pharmaceutical Science and Risk Assessment, K. Roy, S. Kar, and R.N. Das, eds., Academic Press, Elsevier, London, 2015, pp. 47–80.
- P. Gramatica, Principles of QSAR modeling, Int. J. Quant. Struct. Relat. 5 (2020), pp. 61–97. doi:https://doi.org/10.4018/ijqspr.20200701.oa1 .
- G. Hoover, S. Kar, S. Guffey, J. Leszczynski, and M.S. Sepúlveda, In vitro and in silico modeling of perfluoroalkyl substances mixture toxicity in an amphibian fibroblast cell line, Chemosphere 233 (2019), pp. 25–33. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHEMOSPHERE.2019.05.065 .
- M. Chatterjee and K. Roy, Prediction of aquatic toxicity of chemical mixtures by the QSAR approach using 2D structural descriptors, J. Hazard. Mater. 408 (2021), pp. 124936. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124936 .
- A. Mauri, alvaDesc: A tool to calculate and analyze molecular descriptors and fingerprints, in Ecotoxicological QSARs, K. Roy, ed., Humana Press Inc, New York, 2020, pp. 801–820. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-0150-1_32 .
- Marvin, ChemAxon, San Diego, USA, 2018; software available at https://chemaxon.com/products/marvin (accessed October 25, 2021) .
- R. Paul, Personal communication: [email protected], (2021).
- R. Leardi, Genetic algorithms in chemometrics and chemistry: A review, J. Chemom. 15 (2001), pp. 559–569. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/cem.651 .
- K. Roy, S. Kar, and R.N. Das, Selected statistical methods in QSAR, in Understanding the Basics of QSAR for Application in Pharmaceutical Science and Risk Assessment, K. Roy, S. Kar, R.N. Das, eds., Academic Press, Elsevier, London, 2015, pp. 191–229.
- S. Wold, M. Sjöström, and L. Eriksson, PLS-regression: A basic tool of chemometrics, Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 58 (2001), pp. 109–130. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7439(01)00155-1 .
- K. Roy, S. Kar, and R.N. Das, Understanding the Basics of QSAR for Applications in Pharmaceutical Sciences and Risk Assessment, Academic Press, Elsevier, London, 2015.
- N. Chirico and P. Gramatica, Real external predictivity of QSAR models. Part 2. New intercomparable thresholds for different validation criteria and the need for scatter plot inspection, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 52 (2012), pp. 2044–2058. doi:https://doi.org/10.1021/CI300084J .
- N. Akarachantachote, S. Chadcham, and K. Saithanu, Cutoff threshold of variable importance in projection for variable selection, Int. J. Pure Appl. Math. 94 (2014), pp. 307–322. doi:https://doi.org/10.12732/IJPAM.V94I3.2 .
- J.G. Topliss and R.P. Edwards, Chance factors in studies of quantitative structure-activity relationships, J. Med. Chem. 22 (1979), pp. 1238–1244. doi:https://doi.org/10.1021/JM00196A017 .
- D. Gadaleta, G.F. Mangiatordi, M. Catto, A. Carotti, and O. Nicolotti, Applicability domain for QSAR models: Where theory meets reality, Int. J. Quant. Struct. Relat. 1 (2016), pp. 45–63. doi:https://doi.org/10.4018/IJQSPR.2016010102 .
- Validation of (Q)SAR Models - OECD, (2004). https://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/risk-assessment/validationofqsarmodels.htm (accessed April 20, 2022).
- K. Roy, P. Ambure, and S. Kar. How precise are our quantitative structure–activity relationship derived predictions for new query chemicals?, ACS Omega 3 (2018), pp. 11392-11406. doi:https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.8b01647 .
- M. Chatterjee, A. Banerjee, P. De, A. Gajewicz-Skretna, and K. Roy, A novel quantitative read-across tool designed purposefully to fill the existing gaps in nanosafety data, Environ. Sci. Nano 9 (2022), pp. 189–203. doi:https://doi.org/10.1039/d1en00725d .
- A. Banerjee and K. Roy, First report of q-RASAR modeling towards an approach of easy interpretability and efficient transferability, ChemRxiv Cambridge Open Engag. (2022), doi:https://doi.org/10.26434/chemrxiv-2022-0qclt.