Assessment of the sensitivity of the computational programs DEREK, TOPKAT, and MCASE in the prediction of the genotoxicity of pharmaceutical molecules
- PMID: 15065202
- DOI: 10.1002/em.20013
Assessment of the sensitivity of the computational programs DEREK, TOPKAT, and MCASE in the prediction of the genotoxicity of pharmaceutical molecules
Erratum in
- Environ Mol Mutagen. 2006 Apr;47(3):225
Abstract
Computational models are currently being used by regulatory agencies and within the pharmaceutical industry to predict the mutagenic potential of new chemical entities. These models rely heavily, although not exclusively, on bacterial mutagenicity data of nonpharmaceutical-type molecules as the primary knowledge base. To what extent, if any, this has limited the ability of these programs to predict genotoxicity of pharmaceuticals is not clear. In order to address this question, a panel of 394 marketed pharmaceuticals with Ames Salmonella reversion assay and other genetic toxicology findings was extracted from the 2000-2002 Physicians' Desk Reference and evaluated using MCASE, TOPKAT, and DEREK, the three most commonly used computational databases. These evaluations indicate a generally poor sensitivity of all systems for predicting Ames positivity (43.4-51.9% sensitivity) and even poorer sensitivity in prediction of other genotoxicities (e.g., in vitro cytogenetics positive; 21.3-31.9%). As might be expected, all three programs were more highly predictive for molecules containing carcinogenicity structural alerts (i.e., the so-called Ashby alerts; 61% +/- 14% sensitivity) than for those without such alerts (12% +/- 6% sensitivity). Taking all genotoxicity assay findings into consideration, there were 84 instances in which positive genotoxicity results could not be explained in terms of structural alerts, suggesting the possibility of alternative mechanisms of genotoxicity not relating to covalent drug-DNA interaction. These observations suggest that the current computational systems when applied in a traditional global sense do not provide sufficient predictivity of bacterial mutagenicity (and are even less accurate at predicting genotoxicity in tests other than the Salmonella reversion assay) to be of significant value in routine drug safety applications. This relative inability of all three programs to predict the genotoxicity of drugs not carrying obvious DNA-reactive moieties is discussed with respect to the nature of the drugs whose positive responses were not predicted and to expectations of improving the predictivity of these programs. Limitations are primarily a consequence of incomplete understanding of the fundamental genotoxic mechanisms of nonstructurally alerting drugs rather than inherent deficiencies in the computational programs. Irrespective of their predictive power, however, these programs are valuable repositories of structure-activity relationship mutagenicity data that can be useful in directing chemical synthesis in early drug discovery.
Copyright 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Similar articles
-
Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens I. Sensitivity, specificity and relative predictivity.Mutat Res. 2005 Jul 4;584(1-2):1-256. doi: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2005.02.004. Mutat Res. 2005. PMID: 15979392
-
Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens II. Further analysis of mammalian cell results, relative predictivity and tumour profiles.Mutat Res. 2006 Sep 19;608(1):29-42. doi: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2006.04.017. Mutat Res. 2006. PMID: 16769241
-
DNA intercalative potential of marketed drugs testing positive in in vitro cytogenetics assays.Mutat Res. 2006 Oct 10;609(1):47-59. doi: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2006.06.001. Epub 2006 Jul 20. Mutat Res. 2006. PMID: 16857419
-
Role of in silico genotoxicity tools in the regulatory assessment of pharmaceutical impurities.SAR QSAR Environ Res. 2012;23(3-4):257-77. doi: 10.1080/1062936X.2012.657236. Epub 2012 Feb 28. SAR QSAR Environ Res. 2012. PMID: 22369620 Review.
-
Possible structural and functional determinants contributing to the clastogenicity of pharmaceuticals.Environ Mol Mutagen. 2010 Oct-Dec;51(8-9):800-14. doi: 10.1002/em.20626. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2010. PMID: 20872827 Review.
Cited by
-
Global structure-activity relationship model for nonmutagenic carcinogens using virtual ligand-protein interactions as model descriptors.Carcinogenesis. 2012 Oct;33(10):1940-5. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgs197. Epub 2012 Jun 7. Carcinogenesis. 2012. PMID: 22678118 Free PMC article.
-
An investigation into pharmaceutically relevant mutagenicity data and the influence on Ames predictive potential.J Cheminform. 2011 Nov 22;3:51. doi: 10.1186/1758-2946-3-51. J Cheminform. 2011. PMID: 22107807 Free PMC article.
-
Multidimensional insights involving electrochemical and in silico investigation into the corrosion inhibition of newly synthesized pyrazolotriazole derivatives on carbon steel in a HCl solution.RSC Adv. 2019 Oct 29;9(60):34761-34771. doi: 10.1039/c9ra05881h. eCollection 2019 Oct 28. RSC Adv. 2019. PMID: 35530707 Free PMC article.
-
In Silico Model for Chemical-Induced Chromosomal Damages Elucidates Mode of Action and Irrelevant Positives.Genes (Basel). 2020 Oct 11;11(10):1181. doi: 10.3390/genes11101181. Genes (Basel). 2020. PMID: 33050664 Free PMC article.
-
Computational toxicology: realizing the promise of the toxicity testing in the 21st century.Environ Health Perspect. 2010 Aug;118(8):1047-50. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1001925. Epub 2010 May 18. Environ Health Perspect. 2010. PMID: 20483702 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials