1. Comparison of In Silico Models for Prediction of Mutagenicity
- Author
-
Douglas M. Young, Nazanin Golbamaki Bakhtyari, Todd M. Martin, Emilio Benfenati, and Giuseppa Raitano
- Subjects
Cancer Research ,Quantitative structure–activity relationship ,Computer science ,Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis ,Software tool ,In silico ,Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship ,Machine learning ,computer.software_genre ,Bioinformatics ,Hazardous Substances ,Predictive Value of Tests ,Computer Simulation ,Training set ,Mutagenicity Tests ,business.industry ,Quantitative structure ,Models, Chemical ,Mutagenesis ,Artificial intelligence ,Mutagenicity Test ,business ,computer ,Software ,Mutagens ,Applicability domain - Abstract
Using a dataset with more than 6000 compounds, the performance of eight quantitative structure activity relationships (QSAR) models was evaluated: ACD/Tox Suite, Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Elimination, and Toxicity of chemical substances (ADMET) predictor, Derek, Toxicity Estimation Software Tool (T.E.S.T.), TOxicity Prediction by Komputer Assisted Technology (TOPKAT), Toxtree, CEASAR, and SARpy (SAR in python). In general, the results showed a high level of performance. To have a realistic estimate of the predictive ability, the results for chemicals inside and outside the training set for each model were considered. The effect of applicability domain tools (when available) on the prediction accuracy was also evaluated. The predictive tools included QSAR models, knowledge-based systems, and a combination of both methods. Models based on statistical QSAR methods gave better results.
- Published
- 2013
- Full Text
- View/download PDF