Comparative evaluation of mathematical models for predicting acute toxicity of chemicals

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Introduction. Considerable attention is paid to the assessment of acute toxicity of chemical compounds during oral administration due to the different rates of absorption of substances in different animal species and various experimental conditions. Given the pace of development of the chemical industry, researchers are faced with the question of accelerating the study of the properties of substances and filling data gaps. Therefore, quantitative prediction of the toxic properties of substances using mathematical models based on the structure or structural properties of compounds — quantitative structure — activity relationship (QSAR) modeling — is one of the promising areas.

The purpose of this study is to create and compare the performance of the obtained mathematical models for predicting the acute toxicity of various classes of chemicals.

Materials and methods. The study included four classes of pesticides (organochlorine compounds (OCs), azoles, carbamates, organophosphorus compounds (OPs) in the amount of 100 compounds with descriptors calculated by PaDEL-Descriptors software ver. 2.21. Regression models were constructed in the WEKA software, subjected to an internal validation procedure. Statistical parameters such as the mean square error (RMSE) and the coefficient of determination (r2) were used to assess the quality of regression models.

Results. To predict acute oral toxicity of OCs and OPs, it is optimal to use a model in which neural networks and the support vector method are combined, for carbamates — an ensemble model that includes linear regression and the support vector method. For substances from the azole group, it was not possible to create a model that would meet the necessary requirements: r2>0.6 for the training set and r2 >0.5 for cross–validation.

Limitations. The study is limited by the number of compounds studied, the class of chemical compounds, and the area of distribution of the results obtained during modeling.

Conclusion. In this study, ensemble modelling methods demonstrated the best results in predicting acute oral toxicity for OCs, carbamates, and OPs.

Compliance with ethical standards. The study does not require submission of the opinion of the biomedical ethics committee or other documents.

Contribution:
Guseva E.A. — the concept and design of the study, collection and processing of material, writing a text;
Nikolayeva N.I. — writing a text, editing;
Filin A.S. — editing;
Savostikova O.N. — editing.
All authors are responsible for the integrity of all parts of the manuscript and approval of the manuscript final version.

Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgement. The study had no sponsorship.

Received: March 18, 2022 / Accepted: June 08, 2022 / Published: July 31, 2022

About the authors

Ekaterina A. Guseva

Centre for Strategic Planning of FMBA of Russia; I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation (Sechenov University)

Author for correspondence.
Email: guseva_e_a@staff.sechenov.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8389-7981

Specialist of the Department of Physico-Chemical Research and Ecotoxicology, Centre for Strategic Planning of FMBA of Russia, Moscow, 119121, Russian Federation; postgraduate student, Assistant of the Department of Human Ecology and Environmental Hygiene of the Institute of Public Health named after F.F.Erisman, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of Russia (Sechenov University), Moscow, 199911, Russian Federation.

e-mail: guseva_e_a@staff.sechenov.ru

Russian Federation

Natalia I. Nikolayeva

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation (Sechenov University)

Email: noemail@neicon.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1226-9990
Russian Federation

Andrey S. Filin

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation (Sechenov University)

Email: noemail@neicon.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9724-8410
Russian Federation

Olga N. Savostikova

Centre for Strategic Planning of FMBA of Russia

Email: noemail@neicon.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7032-1366
Russian Federation

References

  1. Hamadache M., Benkortbi O., Hanini S., Amrane A., Khaouane L., Si Moussa C. A quantitative structure activity relationship for acute oral toxicity of pesticides on rats: Validation, domain of application and prediction. J. Hazard. Mater. 2016; 303: 28–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2015.09.021
  2. Wang Y., Ning Z.H., Tai H.W., Long S., Qin W.C., Su L.M., et al. Relationship between lethal toxicity in oral administration and injection to mice: Effect of exposure routes. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2015; 71(2): 205–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.12.019
  3. Manual R 1.2.3156-13. Assessment of toxicity and danger of chemicals and their mixtures for human health. Moscow; 2014. (in Russian)
  4. Schrage A., Hempel K., Schulz M., Kolle S.N., van Ravenzwaay B., Landsiedel R. Refinement and reduction of acute oral toxicity testing: a critical review of the use of cytotoxicity data. Altern. Lab. Anim. 2011; 39(3): 273–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/026119291103900311
  5. Burden N., Mahony C., Müller B.P., Terry C., Westmoreland C., Kimber I. Aligning the 3Rs with new paradigms in the safety assessment of chemicals. Toxicol. 2015; 330: 62–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2015.01.014
  6. CAS REGISTRY®. Available at: https://www.cas.org/cas-data/cas-registry
  7. Carrio P., Sanz F., Pastor M. Towards a unifying strategy for predicting toxicological endpoints based on structure. Arch. Toxicol. 2016; 90: 2445–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-015-1618-2
  8. Reyes A.B., Bayich V.B. In silico toxicology: computational methods for predicting chemical toxicity. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Mol. Sci. 2016; 6(2): 147–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcms.1240
  9. Villaverde J.J., Sevilla-Moran B., Lopez-Goti S., Alonso-Prados J.L., Sandin-España P. QSAR/QSPR models based on quantum chemistry for assessing the risk of pesticides in accordance with current European legislation. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 2019; 31(1): 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062936x.2019.1692368
  10. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Guidance Document on the Validation of (Quantitative) Structure–activity Relationships [(Q)SAR] Models. ENV/JM/MONO2; 2007. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/env/guidance-document-on-the-validation-of-quantitative-structure-activity-relationship-q-sar-models-9789264085442-en.htm
  11. Gramatica P. On the development and validation of QSAR models. Methods Mol. Biol. 2013; 930: 499–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-62703-059-5_21
  12. Spiegel J., Senderowitz H. Evaluation of QSAR equations for virtual screening. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020; 21(21): 7828. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21217828
  13. Achary P.G.R. Applications of quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR) based virtual screening in drug design: a review. Mini Rev. Med. Chem. 2020; 20(14): 1375–88. https://doi.org/10.2174/1389557520666200429102334
  14. Kim K.H., Kabir E., Jahan S.A. Exposure to pesticides and the associated human health effects. Sci. Total Environ. 2017; 575: 525–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.009
  15. Lewis K.A., Tzilivakis J., Warner D., Green A. An international database for pesticide risk assessments and management. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 2016; 22(4): 1050–64.
  16. CDC. Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS); 2022. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/rtecs
  17. Dearden J.C., Cronin M.T.D., Kaiser K.L.E. How not to develop a quantitative structure–activity or structure–property relationship (QSAR/QSPR). SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 2009; 20(3-4): 241–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10629360902949567
  18. Yap C.W. PaDEL‐descriptor: An open source software to calculate molecular descriptors and fingerprints. J. Computat. Chem. 2011; 32(7): 1466–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.21707
  19. Hall M., Frank E., Holmes G., Pfahringer B., Reutemann P., Witten I.H. The WEKA data mining software: an update. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter. 2009; 11(1): 10–8.
  20. Golbraikh A., Tropsha A. Predictive QSAR modeling based on diversity sampling of experimental datasets for the training and test set selection. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 2002; 16(5/6): 357–69. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1020869118689
  21. Frimayanti N., Yam M.L., Lee H.B., Othman R., Zain S.M., Rahman N.A. Validation of quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) Model for photosensitizer activity prediction. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2011; 12(12): 8626–44. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms12128626

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

Copyright (c) 2024 Guseva E.A., Nikolayeva N.I., Filin A.S., Savostikova O.N.



СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: серия ПИ № ФС 77 - 37884 от 02.10.2009.