Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Computational Toxicology pp 341–354Cite as

Predictive Computational Toxicology to Support Drug Safety Assessment

  • Protocol
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Methods in Molecular Biology ((MIMB,volume 930))

Abstract

Use of predictive technologies is an important aspect of many efforts in today’s research, development, and regulatory landscapes. Computational methods as predictive tools for supporting drug safety assessments is of widespread interest as the field of in silico assessments rapidly changes with emerging technologies and the large amount of existing data available for modeling. There are challenges associated with application of in silico analyses for drug toxicity predictions and need for strategies and harmonization to enable an acceptable in silico evaluation for prediction of specific toxicity assay outcomes. This chapter will provide an overview focused on computational tools using structure–activity relationships and will highlight initiatives for use of computational assessments and realistic applications for predictive modeling in evaluating potential toxicities of drug-related molecules.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Protocol
USD   49.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Springer Nature is developing a new tool to find and evaluate Protocols. Learn more

References

  1. Redfern WS, Carlsson L, Davis AS, Lynch WG, MacKenzie I, Palethorpe S, Siegl PKS, Strang I, Sullivan AT, Wallis R, Camm AJ, Hammond TG (2003) Relationships between preclinical cardiac electrophysiology, clinical QT interval prolongation and torsade de pointes for a broad range of drugs: evidence for a provisional safety margin in drug development. Cardiovasc Res 58:32–45

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Kola I, Landis J (2004) Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates? Nat Rev Drug Discov 3:711–715

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Mullard A (2011) 2010 FDA drug approvals. Nat Rev Drug Discov 10:82–85

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kola I (2008) The state of innovation in drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther 83:227–230

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. FDA (2004) Challenge and opportunity on the critical path to new medical products. US Department of Health and Human Services, F (ed), FDA, Rockville. http://wcms.fda.gov/FDAgov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/CriticalPathInitiative/CriticalPathOpportunitiesReports/ucm077262.htm

  6. FDA (2011) FDA Critical Path Initiative. In: Critical path website, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring. http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/CriticalPathInitiative/default.htm

  7. Arvidson KB, Chanderbhan R, Muldoon-Jacobs K, Mayer J, Ogungbesan A (2010) Regulatory use of computational toxicology tools and databases at the United States Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Food Additive Safety. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 6:793–796

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Yang C, Valerio LG Jr, Arvidson KB (2009) Computational toxicology approaches at the US Food and Drug Administration. Altern Lab Anim 37:523–531

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Valerio LG Jr (2009) In silico toxicology for the pharmaceutical sciences. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 241:356–370

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Arvidson KB, Valerio LG, Diaz M, Chanderbhan RF (2008) In silico toxicological screening of natural products. Toxicol Mech Methods 18:229–242

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Matthews EJ, Kruhlak NL, Benz RD, Contrera JF, Marchant CA, Yang C (2008) Combined Use of MC4PC, MDL-QSAR, BioEpisteme, Leadscope PDM, and Derek for Windows Software to Achieve High-Performance, High-Confidence, Mode of Action-Based Predictions of Chemical Carcinogenesis in Rodents. Toxicol Mech Methods 18:189–206

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Contrera JF, Matthews EJ, Kruhlak NL, Benz RD (2008) In Silico Screening of Chemicals for Genetic Toxicity Using MDL-QSAR, Nonparametric Discriminant Analysis, E-State, Connectivity, and Molecular Property Descriptors. Toxicol Mech Methods 18:207–216

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Valerio LG, Yang C, Arvidson KB, Kruhlak NL (2010) A structural feature-based computational approach for toxicology predictions. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 6:505–518

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Arvidson KB (2008) FDA toxicity databases and real-time data entry. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 233:17–19

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. FDA (2008) Draft guidance for industry: genotoxic and carcinogenic impurities in drug substances and products: recommended approaches. U.S FDA/CDER, Silver Spring

    Google Scholar 

  16. ICH (2010) Final concept paper. M7: genotoxic impurities. In: International conference on harmonisation of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use. International Conference on Harmonisation, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ashby J, Lefevre PA, Styles JA, Charlesworth J, Paton D (1982) Comparisons between carcinogenic potency and mutagenic potency to Salmonella in a series of derivatives of 4-dimethylaminoazobenzene (DAB). Mutat Res 93:67–81

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Kazius J, McGuire R, Bursi R (2005) Derivation and validation of toxicophores for mutagenicity prediction. J Med Chem 48:312–320

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Bailey AB, Chanderbhan R, Collazo-Braier N, Cheeseman MA, Twaroski ML (2005) The use of structure-activity relationship analysis in the food contact notification program. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 42:225–235

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Munro IC, Ford RA, Kennepohl E, Sprenger JG (1996) Correlation of structural class with no-observed-effect levels: a proposal for establishing a threshold of concern. Food Chem Toxicol 34:829–867

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Benigni R, Bossa C (2008) Structure alerts for carcinogenicity, and the Salmonella assay system: a novel insight through the chemical relational databases technology. Mutat Res 659:248–261

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Cramer GM, Ford RA, Hall RL (1978) Estimation of toxic hazard–a decision tree approach. Food Cosmet Toxicol 16:255–276

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Worth A, Lapenna S, Lo Piparo E, Mostrag-Szlichtyng A, Serafimova R (2010) The applicability of software tools for genotoxicity and carcinogenicity prediction: case studies relevant to the assessment of pesticides. In: JRC scientific and technical reports. EC Joint Research Centre Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, Ispra, pp. 18–19

    Google Scholar 

  24. Gasteiger J (2007) De novo design and synthetic accessibility. J Comput Aided Mol Des 21:307–309

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Gasteiger J (2003) Physicochemical effects in the representation of molecular structures for drug designing. Mini Rev Med Chem 3:789–796

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Naven RT, Louise-May S, Greene N (2010) The computational prediction of genotoxicity. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 6:797–807

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Snyder RD (2009) An update on the genotoxicity and carcinogenicity of marketed pharmaceuticals with reference to in silico predictivity. Environ Mol Mutagen 50:435–450

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Durham SK, Pearl GM (2001) Computational methods to predict drug safety liabilities. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 4:110–115

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Snyder RD, Ewing DE, Hendry LB (2004) Evaluation of DNA intercalation potential of pharmaceuticals and other chemicals by cell-based and three-dimensional computational approaches. Environ Mol Mutagen 44:163–173

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Contrera JF, Matthews EJ, Kruhlak NL, Benz RD (2005) In silico screening of chemicals for bacterial mutagenicity using electrotopological E-state indices and MDL QSAR software. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 43:313–323

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Myatt G, Cross KP, Valerio LG (2011) Supporting safety assessment of drug impurities through examination of an Ames assay QSAR model. In: SOT (ed) The toxicologist. Society of Toxicology, Washington, DC, p 1812

    Google Scholar 

  32. Benigni R, Bossa C (2008) Predictivity of QSAR. J Chem Inf Model 48:971–980

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Boyer S (2009) The use of computer models in pharmaceutical safety evaluation. Altern Lab Anim 37:467–475

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Ekins S, Andreyev S, Ryabov A, Kirillov E, Rakhmatulin EA, Sorokina S, Bugrim A, Nikolskaya T (2006) A combined approach to drug metabolism and toxicity assessment. Drug Metab Dispos 34:495–503

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Bercu JP, Morton SM, Deahl JT, Gombar VK, Callis CM, van Lier RB (2010) In silico approaches to predicting cancer potency for risk assessment of genotoxic impurities in drug substances. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 57(2–3):300–306

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Boyer S (2010) The use of computer models in pharmaceutical safety evaluation. Altern Lab Anim 37:467–475

    Google Scholar 

  37. Richard AM, Yang C, Judson RS (2008) Toxicity data informatics: supporting a New paradigm for toxicity prediction. Toxicol Mech Methods 18:103–118

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Mostrag-Szlichtyng A, Zaldivar Comenges JM, Worth AP (2010) Computational toxicology at the European commission’s joint research centre. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 6:785–792

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Saiakhov RD, Klopman G (2008) MultiCASE Expert Systems and the REACH Initiative. Toxicol Mech Methods 18:159–175

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Marchant CA, Briggs KA, Long A (2008) In silico tools for sharing data and knowledge on toxicity and metabolism: derek for windows, meteor, and vitic. Toxicol Mech Methods 18:177–187

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Jaworska JS, Comber M, Auer C, Van Leeuwen CJ (2003) Summary of a workshop on regulatory acceptance of (Q)SARs for human health and environmental endpoints. Environ Health Perspect 111:1358–1360

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Fjodorova N, Novich M, Vrachko M, Smirnov V, Kharchevnikova N, Zholdakova Z, Novikov S, Skvortsova N, Filimonov D, Poroikov V, Benfenati E (2008) Directions in QSAR modeling for regulatory uses in OECD member countries, EU and in Russia. J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev 26:201–236

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Yang C, Hasselgren CH, Boyer S, Arvidson K, Aveston S, Dierkes P, Benigni R, Benz RD, Contrera J, Kruhlak NL, Matthews EJ, Han X, Jaworska J, Kemper RA, Rathman JF, Richard AM (2008) Understanding genetic toxicity through data mining: the process of building knowledge by integrating multiple genetic toxicity databases. Toxicol Mech Methods 18:277–295

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Benigni R, Zito R (2003) Designing safer drugs: (Q)SAR-based identification of mutagens and carcinogens. Curr Top Med Chem 3:1289–1300

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Matthews EJ, Kruhlak NL, Cimino MC, Benz RD, Contrera JF (2006) An analysis of genetic toxicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, and carcinogenicity data: I. Identification of carcinogens using surrogate endpoints. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 44:83–96

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Contrera JF, Kruhlak NL, Matthews EJ, Benz RD (2007) Comparison of MC4PC and MDL-QSAR rodent carcinogenicity predictions and the enhancement of predictive performance by combining QSAR models. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 49:172–182

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Benigni R, Bossa C (2008) Predictivity and reliability of QSAR models: the case of mutagens and carcinogens. Toxicol Mech Methods 18:137–147

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Benfenati E, Benigni R, Demarini DM, Helma C, Kirkland D, Martin TM, Mazzatorta P, Ouedraogo-Arras G, Richard AM, Schilter B, Schoonen WG, Snyder RD, Yang C (2009) Predictive models for carcinogenicity and mutagenicity: frameworks, state-of-the-art, and perspectives. J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev 27:57–90

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Di Carlo FJ (1990) Structure-activity relationships (SAR) and structure-metabolism relationships (SMR) affecting the teratogenicity of carboxylic acids. Drug Metab Rev 22:411–449

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Pearl GM, Livingston-Carr S, Durham SK (2001) Integration of computational analysis as a sentinel tool in toxicological assessments. Curr Top Med Chem 1:247–255

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Matthews EJ, Kruhlak NL, Daniel Benz R, Ivanov J, Klopman G, Contrera JF (2007) A comprehensive model for reproductive and developmental toxicity hazard identification: II. Construction of QSAR models to predict activities of untested chemicals. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 47:136–155

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Pery AR, Desmots S, Mombelli E (2010) Substance-tailored testing strategies in toxicology: an in silico methodology based on QSAR modeling of toxicological thresholds and Monte Carlo simulations of toxicological testing. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 56:82–92

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Glowienke S, Hasselgren C (2011) Use of structure activity relationship (SAR) evaluation as a critical tool in the evaluation of the genotoxic potential of impurities. In: Teasdale A (ed) Genotoxic impurities: strategies for identification and control. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 97–120

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  54. Arvidson K, McCarthy A, Yang C, Hristozov D (2011) Design and development of an institutional knowledgebase at FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. In: SOT (ed) The toxicologist. Society of Toxicology, Washington, DC, p 155

    Google Scholar 

  55. Matthews EJ, Ursem CJ, Kruhlak NL, Daniel Benz R, Sabate DA, Yang C, Klopman G, Contrera JF (2009) Identification of structure-activity relationships for adverse effects of pharmaceuticals in humans: B. Use of (Q)SAR systems for early detection of drug-induced hepatobiliary and urinary tract toxicities. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 54(1):23–42

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Ursem CJ, Kruhlak NL, Contrera JF, MacLaughlin PM, Benz RD, Matthews EJ (2009) Identification of structure-activity relationships for adverse effects of pharmaceuticals in humans. Part A: use of FDA post-market reports to create a database of hepatobiliary and urinary tract toxicities. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 54:1–22

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Matthews EJ, Frid AA (2010) Prediction of drug-related cardiac adverse effects in humans—A: creation of a database of effects and identification of factors affecting their occurrence. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 56:247–275

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Keiser MJ, Setola V, Irwin JJ, Laggner C, Abbas AI, Hufeisen SJ, Jensen NH, Kuijer MB, Matos RC, Tran TB, Whaley R, Glennon RA, Hert J, Thomas KLH, Edwards DD, Shoichet BK, Roth BL (2009) Predicting new molecular targets for known drugs. Nature 462:175–181

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Berger SI, Ma’ayan A, Iyengar R (2010) Systems pharmacology of arrhythmias. Sci Signal 3:ra30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Rodgers AD, Zhu H, Fourches D, Rusyn I, Tropsha A (2010) Modeling liver-related adverse effects of drugs using knearest neighbor quantitative structure-activity relationship method. Chem Res Toxicol 23:724–732

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Franke R, Gruska A, Bossa C, Benigni R (2010) QSARs of aromatic amines: identification of potent carcinogens. Mutat Res 691:27–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. NRC (2007) Toxicity testing in the 21st century: a vision and a strategy. National Research Council of the National Academies, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  63. Valerio LG Jr, Cross KP (2012) Characterization and validation of an in silico toxicology model to predict the mutagenic potential of drug impurities. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 260:209–221.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Valerio LG Jr, Dixit A, Moghaddam S, Mora O, Prous J, Valencia A. (2012) QSAR Modeling for the mutagenic potential of drug impurities with Symmetry® Suppl. Toxicol. Sci. 2906, 437

    Google Scholar 

  65. Nigsch F, Lounkine E, McCarren P, Cornett B, Glick M, Azzaoui K, Urban L, Marc P, Muller A, Hahne F, Heard DJ, Jenkins JL (2011) Computational methods for early predictive safety assessment from biological and chemical data. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 7:1497–1511

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Valerio LG Jr (2012) Application of advanced in silico methods for predictive modeling and information integration. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 8:395–398

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Myshkin E, Brennan R, Khasanova T, Sitnik T, Serebriyskaya T, Litvinova E, Guryanov A, Nikolsky Y, Nikolskaya T, Bureeva S (2012) Prediction of organ toxicity endpoints by QSAR modeling based on precise chemical-histopathology annotations DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-0285. 2012.01411.x

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Office of Pharmaceutical Science, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA

    Luis G. Valerio Jr.

Authors
  1. Luis G. Valerio Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luis G. Valerio Jr. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Biomedical Engineering, Chemical & Biological Engineering, Colorado State University, Campus Delivery 1370, Fort Collins, 80523-1370, Colorado, USA

    Brad Reisfeld

  2. , Chemical & Biological Engineering, Colorado State University, Campus Delivery 1370, Fort Collins, 80523-1370, Colorado, USA

    Arthur N. Mayeno

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this protocol

Cite this protocol

Valerio, L.G. (2013). Predictive Computational Toxicology to Support Drug Safety Assessment. In: Reisfeld, B., Mayeno, A. (eds) Computational Toxicology. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 930. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-62703-059-5_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-62703-059-5_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press, Totowa, NJ

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-62703-058-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-62703-059-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Protocols

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation