4.7 Article

Toward a unifying strategy for the structure-based prediction of toxicological endpoints

期刊

ARCHIVES OF TOXICOLOGY
卷 90, 期 10, 页码 2445-2460

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00204-015-1618-2

关键词

In silico toxicity prediction; QSAR; QSPR; Read across; Chemical domain

资金

  1. Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking [115002]
  2. European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7)
  3. EFPIA companies'

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Most computational methods used for the prediction of toxicity endpoints are based on the assumption that similar compounds have similar biological properties. This principle can be exploited using computational methods like read across or quantitative structure-activity relationships. However, there is no general agreement about which method is the most appropriate for quantifying compound similarity neither for exploiting the similarity principle in order to obtain reliable estimations of the compound properties. Moreover, optimal similarity metrics and modeling methods might depend on the characteristics of the endpoints and training series used in each case. This study describes a comparative analysis of the predictive performance of diverse similarity metrics and modeling methods in toxicological applications. A collection of two quantitative (n = 660, n = 1114) and three qualitative (n = 447, n = 905, n = 1220) datasets representing very different endpoints of interest in drug safety evaluation and rigorous methods were used to estimate the external predictive ability in each case. The results confirm that no single approach produces the best results in all instances, and the best predictions were obtained using different tools in different situations. The trends observed in this study were exploited to propose a unifying strategy allowing the use of the most suitable method for every compound. A comparison of the quality of the predictions obtained by the unifying strategy with those obtained by standard prediction methods confirmed the usefulness of the proposed approach.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据