Comparing the performance and coverage of selected in silico (liver) metabolism tools relative to reported studies in the literature to inform analogue selection in read-across: A case study

IF 3.1 Q2 TOXICOLOGY
Matthew Boyce , Brian Meyer , Chris Grulke , Lucina Lizarraga , Grace Patlewicz
{"title":"Comparing the performance and coverage of selected in silico (liver) metabolism tools relative to reported studies in the literature to inform analogue selection in read-across: A case study","authors":"Matthew Boyce ,&nbsp;Brian Meyer ,&nbsp;Chris Grulke ,&nbsp;Lucina Lizarraga ,&nbsp;Grace Patlewicz","doi":"10.1016/j.comtox.2021.100208","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>Changes in the regulatory landscape of chemical safety assessment call for the use of New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) including read-across to fill data gaps. One critical aspect of analogue evaluation is the extent to which target and source analogues are metabolically similar. In this study, a set of 37 structurally diverse chemicals were compiled from the EPA ToxCast inventory to compare and contrast a selection of metabolism </span><em>in silico</em><span><span> tools, in terms of their coverage and performance relative to metabolism information reported in the literature. The aim was to build understanding of the scope and capabilities of these tools and how they could be utilised in a read-across assessment. The tools were Systematic Generation of Metabolites (SyGMa), Meteor Nexus, BioTransformer, Tissue Metabolism Simulator (TIMES), OECD Toolbox, and Chemical Transformation Simulator (CTS). Performance was characterised by sensitivity and precision determined by comparing predictions against literature reported metabolites (from 44 publications). A coverage score was derived to provide a relative quantitative comparison between the tools. Meteor, TIMES, Toolbox, and CTS predictions were run in batch mode, using default settings. SyGMa and BioTransformer were run with user-defined settings, (two passes of phase I and one pass of phase II). </span>Hierarchical clustering revealed high similarity between TIMES and Toolbox. SyGMa had the highest coverage, matching an average of 38.63% of predictions generated by the other tools though was prone to significant overprediction. It generated 5125 metabolites, which represented 54.67% of all predictions. Precision and sensitivity values ranged from 1.1 to 29% and 14.7–28.3% respectively. The Toolbox had the highest performance overall. A case study was presented for 3,4-Toluenediamine (3,4-TDA), assessed for the derivation of screening-level Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTVs), was used to demonstrate the practical role </span><em>in silico</em> metabolism information can play in analogue evaluation as part of a read-across approach.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":37651,"journal":{"name":"Computational Toxicology","volume":"21 ","pages":"Article 100208"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computational Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468111321000542","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"TOXICOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

Changes in the regulatory landscape of chemical safety assessment call for the use of New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) including read-across to fill data gaps. One critical aspect of analogue evaluation is the extent to which target and source analogues are metabolically similar. In this study, a set of 37 structurally diverse chemicals were compiled from the EPA ToxCast inventory to compare and contrast a selection of metabolism in silico tools, in terms of their coverage and performance relative to metabolism information reported in the literature. The aim was to build understanding of the scope and capabilities of these tools and how they could be utilised in a read-across assessment. The tools were Systematic Generation of Metabolites (SyGMa), Meteor Nexus, BioTransformer, Tissue Metabolism Simulator (TIMES), OECD Toolbox, and Chemical Transformation Simulator (CTS). Performance was characterised by sensitivity and precision determined by comparing predictions against literature reported metabolites (from 44 publications). A coverage score was derived to provide a relative quantitative comparison between the tools. Meteor, TIMES, Toolbox, and CTS predictions were run in batch mode, using default settings. SyGMa and BioTransformer were run with user-defined settings, (two passes of phase I and one pass of phase II). Hierarchical clustering revealed high similarity between TIMES and Toolbox. SyGMa had the highest coverage, matching an average of 38.63% of predictions generated by the other tools though was prone to significant overprediction. It generated 5125 metabolites, which represented 54.67% of all predictions. Precision and sensitivity values ranged from 1.1 to 29% and 14.7–28.3% respectively. The Toolbox had the highest performance overall. A case study was presented for 3,4-Toluenediamine (3,4-TDA), assessed for the derivation of screening-level Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTVs), was used to demonstrate the practical role in silico metabolism information can play in analogue evaluation as part of a read-across approach.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

比较所选择的计算机(肝脏)代谢工具的性能和覆盖范围,与文献中报道的研究相比较,以告知read- through中的类似物选择:一个案例研究
化学品安全评估监管环境的变化要求使用新方法方法(NAMs),包括读取以填补数据空白。类似物评价的一个关键方面是目标和源类似物代谢相似的程度。在本研究中,从EPA ToxCast清单中编译了一组37种结构不同的化学物质,以比较和对比选择的硅代谢工具,就其覆盖率和性能而言,相对于文献中报道的代谢信息。目的是建立对这些工具的范围和能力的理解,以及如何在通读评估中使用它们。这些工具是系统代谢物生成(SyGMa), Meteor Nexus, BioTransformer,组织代谢模拟器(TIMES), OECD工具箱和化学转化模拟器(CTS)。性能的特点是灵敏度和精度,通过比较预测与文献报道的代谢物(来自44个出版物)。得到一个覆盖率分数,以提供工具之间的相对定量比较。Meteor、TIMES、Toolbox和CTS预测使用默认设置以批处理模式运行。SyGMa和BioTransformer在用户自定义设置下运行(phase I通过两次,phase II通过一次)。分层聚类显示TIMES和Toolbox之间高度相似。SyGMa具有最高的覆盖率,与其他工具生成的预测平均匹配38.63%,尽管容易出现明显的过度预测。它产生了5125种代谢物,占所有预测的54.67%。精密度为1.1 ~ 29%,灵敏度为14.7 ~ 28.3%。工具箱的整体性能最高。对3,4-甲苯二胺(3,4- tda)进行了一个案例研究,评估了筛选水平的临时同行评审毒性值(pprtv)的推导,用于证明硅代谢信息在模拟物评估中可以发挥的实际作用,作为跨读方法的一部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Computational Toxicology
Computational Toxicology Computer Science-Computer Science Applications
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
53
审稿时长
56 days
期刊介绍: Computational Toxicology is an international journal publishing computational approaches that assist in the toxicological evaluation of new and existing chemical substances assisting in their safety assessment. -All effects relating to human health and environmental toxicity and fate -Prediction of toxicity, metabolism, fate and physico-chemical properties -The development of models from read-across, (Q)SARs, PBPK, QIVIVE, Multi-Scale Models -Big Data in toxicology: integration, management, analysis -Implementation of models through AOPs, IATA, TTC -Regulatory acceptance of models: evaluation, verification and validation -From metals, to small organic molecules to nanoparticles -Pharmaceuticals, pesticides, foods, cosmetics, fine chemicals -Bringing together the views of industry, regulators, academia, NGOs
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信