好的、坏的和令人困惑的:结构警报和解读使用人类数据预测皮肤致敏

IF 3.8 3区 医学 Q2 CHEMISTRY, MEDICINAL
Emily Golden, Daniel C. Ukaegbu, Peter Ranslow, Robert H. Brown, Thomas Hartung and Alexandra Maertens*, 
{"title":"好的、坏的和令人困惑的:结构警报和解读使用人类数据预测皮肤致敏","authors":"Emily Golden,&nbsp;Daniel C. Ukaegbu,&nbsp;Peter Ranslow,&nbsp;Robert H. Brown,&nbsp;Thomas Hartung and Alexandra Maertens*,&nbsp;","doi":"10.1021/acs.chemrestox.2c00383","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p >In our earlier work (Golden et al., 2021), we showed 70–80% accuracies for several skin sensitization computational tools using human data. Here, we expanded the data set using the NICEATM human skin sensitization database to create a final data set of 1355 discrete chemicals (largely negative, ∼70%). Using this expanded data set, we analyzed model performance and evaluated mispredictions using Toxtree (v 3.1.0), OECD QSAR Toolbox (v 4.5), VEGA’s (1.2.0 BETA) CAESAR (v 2.1.7), and a <i>k</i>-nearest-neighbor (kNN) classification approach. We show that the accuracy on this data set was lower than previous estimates, with balanced accuracies being 63% and 65% for Toxtree and OECD QSAR Toolbox, respectively, 46% for VEGA, and 59% for a kNN approach, with the lower accuracy likely due to the higher percentage of nonsensitizing chemicals. Two hundred eighty seven chemicals were mispredicted by both Toxtree and OECD QSAR Toolbox, which was approximately 20% of the entire data set, and 84% of these were false positives. The absence or presence of metabolic simulation in OECD QSAR Toolbox made no overall difference. While Toxtree is known for overpredicting, 60% of the chemicals in the data set had no alert for skin sensitization, and a substantial number of these chemicals were in fact sensitizers, pointing to sensitization mechanisms not recognized by Toxtree. Interestingly, we observed that chemicals with more than one Toxtree alert were more likely to be nonsensitizers. Finally, a kNN approach tended to mispredict different chemicals than either OECD QSAR Toolbox or Toxtree, suggesting that there was additional information to be garnered from a kNN approach. Overall, the results demonstrate that while there is merit in structural alerts as well as QSAR or read-across approaches (perhaps even more so in their combination), additional improvement will require a more nuanced understanding of mechanisms of skin sensitization.</p>","PeriodicalId":31,"journal":{"name":"Chemical Research in Toxicology","volume":"36 5","pages":"734–746"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/5e/86/tx2c00383.PMC10189792.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Good, The Bad, and The Perplexing: Structural Alerts and Read-Across for Predicting Skin Sensitization Using Human Data\",\"authors\":\"Emily Golden,&nbsp;Daniel C. Ukaegbu,&nbsp;Peter Ranslow,&nbsp;Robert H. Brown,&nbsp;Thomas Hartung and Alexandra Maertens*,&nbsp;\",\"doi\":\"10.1021/acs.chemrestox.2c00383\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p >In our earlier work (Golden et al., 2021), we showed 70–80% accuracies for several skin sensitization computational tools using human data. Here, we expanded the data set using the NICEATM human skin sensitization database to create a final data set of 1355 discrete chemicals (largely negative, ∼70%). Using this expanded data set, we analyzed model performance and evaluated mispredictions using Toxtree (v 3.1.0), OECD QSAR Toolbox (v 4.5), VEGA’s (1.2.0 BETA) CAESAR (v 2.1.7), and a <i>k</i>-nearest-neighbor (kNN) classification approach. We show that the accuracy on this data set was lower than previous estimates, with balanced accuracies being 63% and 65% for Toxtree and OECD QSAR Toolbox, respectively, 46% for VEGA, and 59% for a kNN approach, with the lower accuracy likely due to the higher percentage of nonsensitizing chemicals. Two hundred eighty seven chemicals were mispredicted by both Toxtree and OECD QSAR Toolbox, which was approximately 20% of the entire data set, and 84% of these were false positives. The absence or presence of metabolic simulation in OECD QSAR Toolbox made no overall difference. While Toxtree is known for overpredicting, 60% of the chemicals in the data set had no alert for skin sensitization, and a substantial number of these chemicals were in fact sensitizers, pointing to sensitization mechanisms not recognized by Toxtree. Interestingly, we observed that chemicals with more than one Toxtree alert were more likely to be nonsensitizers. Finally, a kNN approach tended to mispredict different chemicals than either OECD QSAR Toolbox or Toxtree, suggesting that there was additional information to be garnered from a kNN approach. Overall, the results demonstrate that while there is merit in structural alerts as well as QSAR or read-across approaches (perhaps even more so in their combination), additional improvement will require a more nuanced understanding of mechanisms of skin sensitization.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":31,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chemical Research in Toxicology\",\"volume\":\"36 5\",\"pages\":\"734–746\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/5e/86/tx2c00383.PMC10189792.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chemical Research in Toxicology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chemrestox.2c00383\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MEDICINAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chemical Research in Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chemrestox.2c00383","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MEDICINAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

在我们早期的工作中(Golden et al., 2021),我们展示了使用人类数据的几种皮肤致敏计算工具的70-80%准确性。在这里,我们使用NICEATM人体皮肤致敏数据库扩展数据集,以创建1355种离散化学物质的最终数据集(大部分为阴性,约70%)。利用这个扩展的数据集,我们分析了模型的性能,并使用Toxtree (v 3.1.0)、OECD QSAR工具箱(v 4.5)、VEGA的(1.2.0 BETA) CAESAR (v 2.1.7)和k-最近邻(kNN)分类方法评估了模型的错误预测。我们发现该数据集的准确性低于之前的估计,Toxtree和OECD QSAR工具箱的平衡准确性分别为63%和65%,VEGA为46%,kNN方法为59%,准确性较低可能是由于非致敏化学物质的百分比较高。Toxtree和OECD QSAR工具箱都错误预测了287种化学物质,约占整个数据集的20%,其中84%为假阳性。经合组织QSAR工具箱中代谢模拟的缺失或存在没有总体差异。虽然Toxtree以过度预测而闻名,但数据集中60%的化学物质没有皮肤致敏警报,而且这些化学物质中有相当一部分实际上是致敏剂,这表明Toxtree未识别致敏机制。有趣的是,我们观察到具有不止一个弓形虫警报的化学物质更有可能是非致敏剂。最后,与OECD QSAR工具箱或Toxtree相比,kNN方法往往会错误地预测不同的化学物质,这表明kNN方法还需要获得额外的信息。总的来说,结果表明,虽然结构警报、QSAR或读取方法都有优点(在它们的组合中可能更有价值),但进一步的改进将需要对皮肤致敏机制有更细致的了解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The Good, The Bad, and The Perplexing: Structural Alerts and Read-Across for Predicting Skin Sensitization Using Human Data

The Good, The Bad, and The Perplexing: Structural Alerts and Read-Across for Predicting Skin Sensitization Using Human Data

In our earlier work (Golden et al., 2021), we showed 70–80% accuracies for several skin sensitization computational tools using human data. Here, we expanded the data set using the NICEATM human skin sensitization database to create a final data set of 1355 discrete chemicals (largely negative, ∼70%). Using this expanded data set, we analyzed model performance and evaluated mispredictions using Toxtree (v 3.1.0), OECD QSAR Toolbox (v 4.5), VEGA’s (1.2.0 BETA) CAESAR (v 2.1.7), and a k-nearest-neighbor (kNN) classification approach. We show that the accuracy on this data set was lower than previous estimates, with balanced accuracies being 63% and 65% for Toxtree and OECD QSAR Toolbox, respectively, 46% for VEGA, and 59% for a kNN approach, with the lower accuracy likely due to the higher percentage of nonsensitizing chemicals. Two hundred eighty seven chemicals were mispredicted by both Toxtree and OECD QSAR Toolbox, which was approximately 20% of the entire data set, and 84% of these were false positives. The absence or presence of metabolic simulation in OECD QSAR Toolbox made no overall difference. While Toxtree is known for overpredicting, 60% of the chemicals in the data set had no alert for skin sensitization, and a substantial number of these chemicals were in fact sensitizers, pointing to sensitization mechanisms not recognized by Toxtree. Interestingly, we observed that chemicals with more than one Toxtree alert were more likely to be nonsensitizers. Finally, a kNN approach tended to mispredict different chemicals than either OECD QSAR Toolbox or Toxtree, suggesting that there was additional information to be garnered from a kNN approach. Overall, the results demonstrate that while there is merit in structural alerts as well as QSAR or read-across approaches (perhaps even more so in their combination), additional improvement will require a more nuanced understanding of mechanisms of skin sensitization.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
7.30%
发文量
215
审稿时长
3.5 months
期刊介绍: Chemical Research in Toxicology publishes Articles, Rapid Reports, Chemical Profiles, Reviews, Perspectives, Letters to the Editor, and ToxWatch on a wide range of topics in Toxicology that inform a chemical and molecular understanding and capacity to predict biological outcomes on the basis of structures and processes. The overarching goal of activities reported in the Journal are to provide knowledge and innovative approaches needed to promote intelligent solutions for human safety and ecosystem preservation. The journal emphasizes insight concerning mechanisms of toxicity over phenomenological observations. It upholds rigorous chemical, physical and mathematical standards for characterization and application of modern techniques.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信