Advertisement

An Introduction to (Q)SAR with Respect to Regulatory Submissions

  • Jerry L. BettisJr.Email author
Chapter
  • 20 Downloads

Abstract

(Q)SAR ((quantitative or qualitative) structure-activity relationships) methodologies are used to predict physical and biological properties of small molecules. These methods are used to support pharmaceutical research and regulatory submissions. Primarily, (Q)SARs are used to predict the activity of untested chemicals based on structurally related compounds with known activity. The term (Q)SAR is often used to refer to predictive models, especially computer-based models; however, in reality (Q)SAR encompasses a wide variety of computerized (i.e., in silico) and non-computerized tools and approaches. As a tool, (Q)SAR is accepted internationally for predicting mutagenicity; however, its applicability for predicting additional endpoints (e.g., skin sensitization or hepatotoxicity) is still an active debate topic, particularly debates about the acceptability of the (Q)SAR models for additional endpoints and how they are either explained or interpreted. After discussing the basics of (Q)SAR, we relate (Q)SAR methodologies to inexpensive and practical applications.

Keywords

(Q)SAR ICH M7 Mutagenicity Structural alerts DEREK Leadscope Cramer classifications 

References

  1. Alves, V., Muratov, E., Capuzzi, S., Politi, R., Low, Y., Braga, R., Zakharov, A. V., Sedykh, A., Mokshyna, E., Farag, S., Andrade, C., Kuz'min, V., Fourches, D., & Tropsha, A. (2016). Alarms about structural alerts. Green Chemistry, 18(16), 4348–4360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashby, J. (1985). Fundamental structural alerts to potential carcinogenicity or noncarcinogenicity. Environmental Mutagenesis, 7(6), 919–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benfenati, E., Pardoe, S., Martin, T., Gonella Diaza, R., Lombardo, A., Manganaro, A., & Gissi, A. (2013). Using toxicological evidence from QSAR models in practice. ALTEX, 30(1), 19–40.  https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2013.1.019.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Benigni, R., & Bossa, C. (2006). Structural alerts of mutagens and carcinogens. Current Computer-Aided Drug Design, 2, 1–19. 169–176.Google Scholar
  5. Benigni, R., Bossa, C., Jeliazkova, N., Netzeva, T., Worth, A. (2008). The Benigni/Bossa rulebase for mutagenicity and carcinogenicity-a module of Toxtree 2(008) Available at https://eurl-ecvam.jrc.ec.europa.eu/laboratories-research/predictive_toxicology/doc/EUR_23241_EN.pdf
  6. Braga, R. C., & Andrade, C. H. (2012). (2012) QSAR and QM/MM approaches applied to drug metabolism prediction. Mini Reviews in Medicinal Chemistry, 12(6), 573–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caldwell, G. W. (2000). Compound optimization in early- and late-phase drug discovery: Acceptable pharmacokinetic properties utilizing combined physicochemical, in vitro and in vivo screens. Current Opinion in Drug Discovery & Development, 3(1), 30–41.Google Scholar
  8. Cariello, N. F., Wilson, J. D., Britt, B. H., Wedd, D. J., Burlinson, B., & Gombar, V. (2002). Comparison of the computer programs DEREK and TOPKAT to predict bacterial mutagenicity. Deductive estimate of risk from existing knowledge. Toxicity prediction by Komputer assisted technology. Mutagenesis, 17(4), 321–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cherkasov, et al. (2014). QSAR modeling: Where have you been? Where are you going to? Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 57(12), 4977–5010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cramer, G. M., Ford, R. A., & Hall, R. A. (1978). Estimation of toxic hazard—a decision tree approach. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 16, 255–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crum-Brown, & Fraser. (1868). On the connection between chemical constitution and physiological action; with special reference to the physiological action of the salts of the ammonium bases derived from strychnia, brucia, thebaia, codeia, morphia, and nicotia. Journal of Anatomy and Physiology, 2(2), 224–242.Google Scholar
  12. Curios‐IT. (2009). Cramer rules with extensions. Leiden: Curios‐IT.Google Scholar
  13. EPA. (2012). (Quantitative) Structure Activity Relationship [(Q)SAR] guidance document. Retrteived online 2019 from https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/news/web/pdf/qsar-guidance.pdf
  14. ICH M7. (2017). Assessment and control of DNA reactive (mutagenic) impurities in pharmaceuticals to limit potential carcinogenic risk.Google Scholar
  15. Jawarkar, S. G., & Game, M. D. (2018). Quantitative structure activity relationship: A tool for new drug design. World Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. ISSN (Online): 2321–3086.Google Scholar
  16. Jhanwarb, et al. (2011). QSAR - Hansch analysis and related approaches in drug design. Pharmacology, 1, 306–344.Google Scholar
  17. JRC. (2016). JRC Technical reports; NANoREG harmonised terminology for environmental health and safety assessment of nanomaterials. Retrieved online from https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/nanoreg-harmonised-terminology-environmental-health-and-safety-assessment-nanomaterials
  18. Kroes, R., Renwick, A. G., Cheeseman, M., Kleiner, J., Mangelsdorf, I., Piersma, A., et al. (2004). Structure-based thresholds of toxicological concern (TTC): Guidance for application to substances present at low levels in the diet. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 42(1), 65–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lapenna S & Worth A (2011), Analysis of the Cramer classification scheme for oral systemic toxicity - implications for its implementation in Toxtree. EUR 24898 EN. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  20. Lhasa (2019) ICH M7 Assessment using Derek Nexus. Retrieved online from https://www.lhasalimited.org/products/ICH-M7-assessment-using-derek-nexus.htm
  21. LSMA. (2016). Leadscope model applier and the ICH M7 impurities guidelines frequently asked questions. Retrieved online from https://www.leadscope.com/faq/LSMA-ICHM7-FAQs-June2016.pdf.
  22. Munro, I. C., Ford, R. A., Kennepohl, E., & Sprenger, J. G. (1996). Correlation of structural class with no-observed-effect levels: A proposal for establishing a threshold of concern. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 34(9), 829–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. NAFTA. (2011). Technical Working Group on Pesticides (TWG). (Quantitative) Structure Activity Relationship [(Q)SAR] guidance document. Retrieved online from http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/testing/49963576.pdf.
  24. OECD. (2007). Guidance document on the validation of (Quantitative)Structure-Activity Relationships [(Q)Sar] models. Retrieved online 2019 from http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/jm/mono%282007%292&doclanguage=en
  25. Piir, G., Kahn, I., García-Sosa, A. T., Sild, S., Ahte, P., & Maran, U. (2018). Best practices for QSAR model reporting: Physical and chemical properties, ecotoxicity, environmental fate, human health, and toxicokinetics endpoints. Environmental Health Perspectives, 126(12), 126001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Plošnik, A., Vračko, M., & Dolenc, M. S. (2016). Mutagenic and carcinogenic structural alerts and their mechanisms of action. Arhiv za Higijenu Rada i Toksikologiju, 67(3), 169–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sanderson, D. M., & Earnshaw, C. G. (1991). Computer prediction of possible toxic action from chemical structure. Human & Experimental Toxicology, 10, 261–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Gad Consulting ServicesRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations