Prediction of acute toxicity to Daphnia magna and interspecific correlation: a global QSAR model and a Daphnia-minnow QTTR model

References

• Commission of the European Communites, White paper: Strategy for a future chemicals policy, Brussels, 2001.
   Google Scholar
• X. Wu, Q. Zhang, H. Wang, and J. Hu, Predicting carcinogenicity of organic compounds based on CPDB, Chemosphere 139 (2015), pp. 81–90. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.05.056.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 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/EC 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/EC and 2000/21/EC, Off. J. Eur. Union L396 (2006), pp. 1–849.
   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
• C.L. Russom, R.L. Breton, J.D. Walker, and S.P. Bradbury, An overview of the use of quantitative structure–activity relationships for ranking and prioritizing large chemical inventories for environmental risk assessments, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 22 (2003), pp. 1810–1821. doi:10.1897/01-194.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M.H.I. Comber, J.D. Walker, C. Watts, and J. Hermens, Quantitative structure–activity relationships for predicting potential ecological hazard of organic chemicals for use in regulatory risk assessments, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 22 (2003), pp. 1822–1828. doi:10.1897/01-261.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• OECD, Guidance Document on the Validation of (Quantitative) Structure–Activity Relationships [(Q)SAR] Models, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Paris, France, 2007.
   Google Scholar
• C. Barata, P. Alanon, S. Gutierrez-Alonso, M.C. Riva, C. Fernandez, and J.V. Tarazona, A Daphnia magna feeding bioassay as a cost effective and ecological relevant sublethal toxicity test for environmental risk assessment of toxic effluents, Sci. Total Environ. 405 (2008), pp. 78–86. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.06.028.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• T.I. Netzeva, M. Pavan, and A.P. Worth, Review of (quantitative) structure–activity relationships for acute aquatic toxicity, QSAR Comb. Sci. 27 (2008), pp. 77–90. doi:10.1002/qsar.200710099.
   Google Scholar
• P.C. von der Ohe, R. Kühne, R.-U. Ebert, R. Altenburger, M. Liess, and G. Schuurmann, 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
• S.E. Belanger, J.L. Brill, J.M. Rawlings, and B.B. Price, Development of acute toxicity quantitative structure activity relationships (QSAR) and their use in linear alkylbenzene sulfonate species sensitivity distributions, Chemosphere 155 (2016), pp. 18–27. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.04.029.
   PubMedGoogle 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
• 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.J. van den Berg, A.E.M.F. Soffers, J. Vervoort, A.J. Murk, and I.M.C.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
• I.V. Tetko, P. Sopasakis, P. Kunwar, S. Brandmaier, S. Novoratskyi, L. Charochkina, V. Prokopenko, and W.J.G.M. Peijnenburg, Prioritisation of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) by using the QSPR-THESAURUS web tool, Altern. Lab. Anim. 41 (2013), pp. 127–135. doi:10.1177/026119291304100112.
   PubMedGoogle 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 the aquatic toxicity of (benzo)triazoles and prioritisation by consensus prediction, Altern. Lab. Anim. 41 (2013), pp. 49–64. doi:10.1177/026119291304100107.
   PubMedGoogle 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. Mater. 258-259 (2013), pp. 50–60. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.04.025.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M.V.R. Todeschini, 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
• J.C. Faucon, R. Bureau, J. Faisant, F. Briens, and S. Rault, Prediction of the Daphnia acute toxicity from heterogrnrous data, Chemosphere 44 (2001), pp. 407–422. doi:10.1016/S0045-6535(00)00301-5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• A.R. Katritzky, S.H. Slavov, I.S. Stoyanova-Slavova, I. Kahn, and M. Karelson, Quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) modeling of EC 50 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
• 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.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• M. Cassotti, D. Ballabio, V. Consonni, A. Mauri, I.V. Tetko, and R. Todeschini, Prediction of acute aquatic toxicity toward Daphnia magna by using the GA- k NN method, Altern. Lab. Anim. 42 (2014), pp. 31–41. doi:10.1177/026119291404200106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S. Kar and K. Roy, First report on interspecies quantitative correlation of ecotoxicity of pharmaceuticals, Chemosphere 81 (2010), pp. 738–747. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2010.07.019.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. Furuhama, K. Hasunuma, and Y. Aoki, Interspecies quantitative structure-activity-activity relationships (QSAARs) for prediction of acute aquatic toxicity of aromatic amines and phenols, SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 26 (2015), pp. 301–323. doi:10.1080/1062936X.2015.1032347.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S. Önlü and M.T. Sacan, Toxicity of contaminants of emerging concern to Dugesia japonica: QSTR modeling and toxicity relationship with Daphnia magna, J. Hazard. Mater. 351 (2018), pp. 20–28. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.02.046.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• M.J. Frisch, G.W. Trucks, H.B. Schlege, G.E. Scuseria, M.A. Robb, J.R. Cheeseman, G. Scalmani, V. Barone, B. Mennucci, G.A. Petersson, H. Nakatsuji, M. Caricato, X. Li, H.P. Hratchian, A.F. Izmaylov, J. Bloino, G. Zheng, J.L. Sonnenberg, M. Hada, M. Ehara, K. Toyota, R. Fukuda, J. Hasegawa, M. Ishida, T. Nakajima, Y. Honda, O. Kitao, H. Nakai, T. Vreven, J.A. Montgomery Jr., J.E. Peralta, F. Ogliaro, M. Bearpark, J.J. Heyd, E. Brothers, K.N. Kudin, V.N. Staroverov, R. Kobayashi, J. Normand, K. Raghavachari, A. Rendel, J.C. Burant, S.S. Iyengar, J. Tomasi, M. Cossi, N. Rega, J.M. Millam, M. Klene, J.E. Knox, J.B. Cross, V. Bakken, C. Adamo, J. Jaramillo, R. Gomperts, R.E. Stratmann, O. Yazyev, A.J. Austin, R. Cammi, C. Pomelli, J.W. Ochterski, R.L. Martin, K. Morokuma, V.G. Zakrzewski, G.A. Voth, P. Salvador, J.J. Dannenberg, S. Dapprich, A.D. Daniels, O. Farkas, J.B. Foresman, J.V. Ortiz, J. Cioslowski, and D.J. Fox, Gaussian09, Revision A.01, Gaussian Inc, Wallingford, CT, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Y. Zhao and D.G. Truhlar, Hybrid meta density functional theory methods for thermochemistry, thermochemical kinetics, and noncovalent interactions: The MPW1B95 and MPWB1K models and comparative assessments for hydrogen bonding and van der Waals interactions, J. Phys. Chem. A 108 (2004), pp. 6908–6918. doi:10.1021/jp048147q.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• X. Wu, X. Sun, C. Zhang, C. Gong, and J. Hu, Micro-mechanism and rate constants for OH-initiated degradation of methomyl in atmosphere, Chemosphere 107 (2014), pp. 331–335. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.12.082.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Talete S.R.L., Milano, Italy, 2013, Dragon 6.0; software available at http://www.talete.mi.it/.
   Google Scholar
• US EPA, EPI Suite™ Version 4.11, Washington, DC, 2014 ; software available at https://www.epa.gov/tsca-screening-tools/epi-suitetm-estimation-program-interface.
   Google Scholar
• A.K. Ghose, V.N. Viswanadhan, and J.J. Wendoloski, Prediction of hydrophobic (lipophilic) properties of small organic molecules using fragmental methods: An analysis of ALOGP and CLOGP methods, J. Phys. Chem. A 102 (1998), pp. 3762–3772. doi:10.1021/jp980230o.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J. Li, B. Lei, H. Liu, S. Li, X. Yao, M. Liu, and P. Gramatica, QSAR study of malonyl-CoA decarboxylase inhibitors using GA-MLR and a new strategy of consensus modeling, J. Comput. Chem. 29 (2008), pp. 2636–2647. doi:10.1002/jcc.21002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J.B. Ghasemi, A. Abdolmaleki, and N. Mandoumi, A quantitative structure property relationship for prediction of solubilization of hazardous compounds using GA-based MLR in CTAB micellar media, J. Hazard. Mater. 161 (2009), pp. 74–80. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.03.089.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R. Todeschini, V. Consonni, and A. Maiocchi, The K correlation index: Theory development and its application in chemometrics, Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 46 (1999), pp. 13–29. doi:10.1016/S0169-7439(98)00124-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• E. Papa, F. Villa, and P. Gramatica, Statistically validated QSARs, based on theoretical descriptors, for modeling aquatic toxicity of organic chemicals in Pimephales promelas (Fathead minnow), J. Chem. Inf. Model. 45 (2005), pp. 1256–1266. doi:10.1021/ci050212l.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• T.I. Netzeva, A.P. Worth, T. Aldenberg, R. Benigni, M.T.D. Cronin, P. Gramatica, J.S. Jaworska, S. Kahn, G. Klopman, C.A. Marchant, G. Myatt, N. Nikolova-Jeliazkova, G.Y. Patlewicz, R. Perkins, D.W. Roberts, T.W. Schultz, D.T. Stanton, J.J.M. van de Sandt, W. Tong, G. Veith, and C. Yang, Current status of methods for defining the applicability domain of (quantitative) structure-activity relationships. The report and recommendations of ECVAM Workshop 52, Altern. Lab. Anim. 33 2005, pp. 155–173. doi:10.1177/026119290503300209
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• L. Eriksson, J. Jaworska, A.P. Worth, M.T. Cronin, R.M. McDowell, and P. Gramatica, Methods for reliability and uncertainty assessment and for applicability evaluations of classification- and regression-based QSARs, Environ. Health Perspect. 111 (2003), pp. 1361–1375. doi:10.1289/ehp.5758.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• H.J.M. Verhaar, C.J. van Leeuwen, and J.L.M. Hermens, Classifying environmental pollutants. 1: Structure-activity relationships for prediction of aquatic toxicity, Chemosphere 25 (1992), pp. 471–491. doi:10.1016/0045-6535(92)90280-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K.L.E. Kaiser and S.P. Niculescu, Modeling acute toxicity of chemicals to Daphnia magna: A probabilistic neural network approtch, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 20 (2001), pp. 420–431. doi:10.1002/etc.5620200225.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• X. Wu, Q. Zhang, and J. Hu, QSAR study of the acute toxicity to fathead minnow based on a large dataset, SAR QSAR Environ. Res 27 (2016), pp. 147–164. doi:10.1080/1062936X.2015.1137353.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M. Vaal, J.T. van der Wal, J. Hermens, and J. Hoekstra, Pattern analysis of the variation in the sensitivity of aquatic species to toxicants, Chemosphere 35 (1997), pp. 1291–1309. doi:10.1016/S0045-6535(97)00166-5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• M. Vaal, J.T. van der Wal, J. Hoekstra, and J. Hermens, Variation in the sensitivity of aquatic species in relation to the classification of environmental pollutants, Chemosphere 35 (1997), pp. 1311–1327. doi:10.1016/S0045-6535(97)00167-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar