4.8 Article

Comparing Machine Learning Models for Aromatase (P450 19A1)

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 54, Issue 23, Pages 15546-15555

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.0c05771

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. SC Johnson
  2. NIH from NIGMS [1R43GM122196-01, R44GM122196-02A1]
  3. NIH from NIEHS [1R43ES031038-01]
  4. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences of the National Institutes of Health [R43ES031038]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aromatase, or cytochrome P450 19A1, catalyzes the aromatization of androgens to estrogens within the body. Changes in the activity of this enzyme can produce hormonal imbalances that can be detrimental to sexual and skeletal development. Inhibition of this enzyme can occur with drugs and natural products as well as environmental chemicals. Therefore, predicting potential endocrine disruption via exogenous chemicals requires that aromatase inhibition be considered in addition to androgen and estrogen pathway interference. Bayesian machine learning methods can be used for prospective prediction from the molecular structure without the need for experimental data. Herein, the generation and evaluation of multiple machine learning models utilizing different sources of aromatase inhibition data are described. These models are applied to two test sets for external validation with molecules relevant to drug discovery from the public domain. In addition, the performance of multiple machine learning algorithms was evaluated by comparing internal five-fold cross-validation statistics of the training data. These methods to predict aromatase inhibition from molecular structure, when used in concert with estrogen and androgen machine learning models, allow for a more holistic assessment of endocrine-disrupting potential of chemicals with limited empirical data and enable the reduction of the use of hazardous substances.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available