Predict Toxicity from Structure
Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Curator
LPBI
chemTox
http://www.cyprotex.com/insilico/physiological_modelling/chemtox
Toxicity Prediction Directly from Chemical Structure
- Predicts key toxicity parameters (Ames mutagenicity, rat acute dose LD50 following iv or po administration) and aqueous solubility directly from structure.
- No in vitro physicochemical or toxicity data required.
- Save money and time by allowing toxicity to be assessed virtually (no synthesis required).
- Provides early stage filter for directing chemistry and prioritizing screening.
A virtual screening tool for predicting toxicity from chemical structure alone.
| chemTox Input Requirements | Chemical structure, e.g. SMILES, mol or sdf |
|---|---|
| chemTox Data Delivery | Predicted toxicity measures: Ames mutagenicity, rat acute dose LD50 following iv or po administration Predicted aqueous solubility |
chemTox is implemented as a node for the KNIME analytics platform which executes a model of the workflow illustrated in Figure 1 below.
chemTox workflow.
| Properties |
|---|
The following properties are reported:
Output is a KNIME data table facilitating saving to a file or database, or using the predictions as inputs to subsequent workflow steps. |
| Model Development |
|---|
|
Data from chemTox
Figure 2
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plots for classification of rat acute LD50 following oral administration. (a) LD50 < 5mg/kg (b). LD50 < 50mg/kg (c). LD50 < 300mg/kg.
LD50 < 5mg/kg
LD50 < 50mg/kg
LD50 < 300mg/kg
| Statistics | ||
|---|---|---|
| Area under the ROC curve | 0.905 | |
| Sensitivity | 0.85 | |
| Specificity | 0.82 | |
Statistics for predicted Ames mutagenicity based on 4336 compounds (1935 non-mutagenic and 2401 mutagenic).
Model variants can be generated having different balance of sensitivity and specificity to suit different screening requirements.
SJ Williams
Tempting but there have been other databases like ToxNet which have used SAR (structure activity relationship) for Ames prediction but usually that is far as it can go. This is usually a first screen but long term carcinogenicity studies are still required for obvious reasons. In addition no system can predict IDILI (idiopathic drug induced liver injury) which has and still is plaguing the drug development industry. This is where relationships need to be worked on and this problem will need a more indepth ‘omic strategy as there are no SARs which correlate with these “idiosyncratic” toxicities. However be that as it may there have been chemicals which failed the Ames test however were not carcinogenic in subchronic or chronic tests so it is still good to conduct those studies anyway, even though most regulatory bodies give a failed Ames test a bad thumbs down.
2012pharmaceutical
Amandeep Kaur
Aashir Awan, Phd
Adina Hazan
Alan F. Kaul, PharmD., MS, MBA, FCCP
alexcrystal6
anamikasarkar
apreconasia
aviralvatsa
David Orchard-Webb, PhD
danutdaagmailcom
Demet Sag, Ph.D., CRA, GCP
Daniel Menzin
Dror Nir
dsmolyar
evelinacohn
Gail S Thornton
Irina Robu
jayzmit48
jdpmd
jshertok
kellyperlman
Ed Kislauskis
larryhbern
Madison Davis
marzankhan
megbaker58
ofermar2020
Dr. Pati
pkandala
Rosalind Codrington, PhD
ritusaxena
Rick Mandahl
sjwilliamspa
stuartlpbi
Dr. Sudipta Saha
tildabarliya
zraviv06
zs22
Tempting but there have been other databases like ToxNet which have used SAR (structure activity relationship) for Ames prediction but usually that is far as it can go. This is usually a first screen but long term carcinogenicity studies are still required for obvious reasons. In addition no system can predict IDILI (idiopathic drug induced liver injury) which has and still is plaguing the drug development industry. This is where relationships need to be worked on and this problem will need a more indepth ‘omic strategy as there are no SARs which correlate with these “idiosyncratic” toxicities. However be that as it may there have been chemicals which failed the Ames test however were not carcinogenic in subchronic or chronic tests so it is still good to conduct those studies anyway, even though most regulatory bodies give a failed Ames test a bad thumbs down.