Comparison of in silico models for prediction of mutagenicity

Nazanin G. Bakhtyari, Giuseppa Raitano, Emilio Benfenati, Todd Martin, Douglas Young

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Using a dataset with more than 6000 compounds, the performance of eight quantitative structure activity relationships (QSAR) models was evaluated: ACD/Tox Suite, Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Elimination, and Toxicity of chemical substances (ADMET) predictor, Derek, Toxicity Estimation Software Tool (T.E.S.T.), TOxicity Prediction by Komputer Assisted Technology (TOPKAT), Toxtree, CEASAR, and SARpy (SAR in python). In general, the results showed a high level of performance. To have a realistic estimate of the predictive ability, the results for chemicals inside and outside the training set for each model were considered. The effect of applicability domain tools (when available) on the prediction accuracy was also evaluated. The predictive tools included QSAR models, knowledge-based systems, and a combination of both methods. Models based on statistical QSAR methods gave better results.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)45-66
Number of pages22
JournalJournal of Environmental Science and Health - Part C Environmental Carcinogenesis and Ecotoxicology Reviews
Volume31
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 1 2013

Fingerprint

Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship
Computer Simulation
Boidae
Software
Technology

Keywords

  • Ames test
  • comparative study
  • expert systems
  • in silico
  • mutagenicity
  • prediction
  • quantitative structure-activity relation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis
  • Cancer Research

Cite this

Comparison of in silico models for prediction of mutagenicity. / Bakhtyari, Nazanin G.; Raitano, Giuseppa; Benfenati, Emilio; Martin, Todd; Young, Douglas.

In: Journal of Environmental Science and Health - Part C Environmental Carcinogenesis and Ecotoxicology Reviews, Vol. 31, No. 1, 01.01.2013, p. 45-66.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{08b5146452984786a772fe2d7a4c8078,
title = "Comparison of in silico models for prediction of mutagenicity",
abstract = "Using a dataset with more than 6000 compounds, the performance of eight quantitative structure activity relationships (QSAR) models was evaluated: ACD/Tox Suite, Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Elimination, and Toxicity of chemical substances (ADMET) predictor, Derek, Toxicity Estimation Software Tool (T.E.S.T.), TOxicity Prediction by Komputer Assisted Technology (TOPKAT), Toxtree, CEASAR, and SARpy (SAR in python). In general, the results showed a high level of performance. To have a realistic estimate of the predictive ability, the results for chemicals inside and outside the training set for each model were considered. The effect of applicability domain tools (when available) on the prediction accuracy was also evaluated. The predictive tools included QSAR models, knowledge-based systems, and a combination of both methods. Models based on statistical QSAR methods gave better results.",
keywords = "Ames test, comparative study, expert systems, in silico, mutagenicity, prediction, quantitative structure-activity relation",
author = "Bakhtyari, {Nazanin G.} and Giuseppa Raitano and Emilio Benfenati and Todd Martin and Douglas Young",
year = "2013",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/10590501.2013.763576",
language = "English",
volume = "31",
pages = "45--66",
journal = "Environmental Carcinogenesis and Ecotoxicology Reviews",
issn = "1059-0501",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of in silico models for prediction of mutagenicity

AU - Bakhtyari, Nazanin G.

AU - Raitano, Giuseppa

AU - Benfenati, Emilio

AU - Martin, Todd

AU - Young, Douglas

PY - 2013/1/1

Y1 - 2013/1/1

N2 - Using a dataset with more than 6000 compounds, the performance of eight quantitative structure activity relationships (QSAR) models was evaluated: ACD/Tox Suite, Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Elimination, and Toxicity of chemical substances (ADMET) predictor, Derek, Toxicity Estimation Software Tool (T.E.S.T.), TOxicity Prediction by Komputer Assisted Technology (TOPKAT), Toxtree, CEASAR, and SARpy (SAR in python). In general, the results showed a high level of performance. To have a realistic estimate of the predictive ability, the results for chemicals inside and outside the training set for each model were considered. The effect of applicability domain tools (when available) on the prediction accuracy was also evaluated. The predictive tools included QSAR models, knowledge-based systems, and a combination of both methods. Models based on statistical QSAR methods gave better results.

AB - Using a dataset with more than 6000 compounds, the performance of eight quantitative structure activity relationships (QSAR) models was evaluated: ACD/Tox Suite, Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Elimination, and Toxicity of chemical substances (ADMET) predictor, Derek, Toxicity Estimation Software Tool (T.E.S.T.), TOxicity Prediction by Komputer Assisted Technology (TOPKAT), Toxtree, CEASAR, and SARpy (SAR in python). In general, the results showed a high level of performance. To have a realistic estimate of the predictive ability, the results for chemicals inside and outside the training set for each model were considered. The effect of applicability domain tools (when available) on the prediction accuracy was also evaluated. The predictive tools included QSAR models, knowledge-based systems, and a combination of both methods. Models based on statistical QSAR methods gave better results.

KW - Ames test

KW - comparative study

KW - expert systems

KW - in silico

KW - mutagenicity

KW - prediction

KW - quantitative structure-activity relation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84876112904&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84876112904&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/10590501.2013.763576

DO - 10.1080/10590501.2013.763576

M3 - Article

C2 - 23534394

AN - SCOPUS:84876112904

VL - 31

SP - 45

EP - 66

JO - Environmental Carcinogenesis and Ecotoxicology Reviews

JF - Environmental Carcinogenesis and Ecotoxicology Reviews

SN - 1059-0501

IS - 1

ER -