Cargando…
The Good, The Bad, and The Perplexing: Structural Alerts and Read-Across for Predicting Skin Sensitization Using Human Data
[Image: see text] 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 (larg...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
American Chemical Society
2023
|
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10189792/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37126467 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrestox.2c00383 |
_version_ | 1785043160234196992 |
---|---|
author | Golden, Emily Ukaegbu, Daniel C. Ranslow, Peter Brown, Robert H. Hartung, Thomas Maertens, Alexandra |
author_facet | Golden, Emily Ukaegbu, Daniel C. Ranslow, Peter Brown, Robert H. Hartung, Thomas Maertens, Alexandra |
author_sort | Golden, Emily |
collection | PubMed |
description | [Image: see text] 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10189792 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | American Chemical Society |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-101897922023-05-18 The Good, The Bad, and The Perplexing: Structural Alerts and Read-Across for Predicting Skin Sensitization Using Human Data Golden, Emily Ukaegbu, Daniel C. Ranslow, Peter Brown, Robert H. Hartung, Thomas Maertens, Alexandra Chem Res Toxicol [Image: see text] 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. American Chemical Society 2023-05-01 /pmc/articles/PMC10189792/ /pubmed/37126467 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrestox.2c00383 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Permits non-commercial access and re-use, provided that author attribution and integrity are maintained; but does not permit creation of adaptations or other derivative works (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Golden, Emily Ukaegbu, Daniel C. Ranslow, Peter Brown, Robert H. Hartung, Thomas Maertens, Alexandra The Good, The Bad, and The Perplexing: Structural Alerts and Read-Across for Predicting Skin Sensitization Using Human Data |
title | The Good,
The Bad, and The Perplexing: Structural
Alerts and Read-Across for Predicting Skin Sensitization Using Human
Data |
title_full | The Good,
The Bad, and The Perplexing: Structural
Alerts and Read-Across for Predicting Skin Sensitization Using Human
Data |
title_fullStr | The Good,
The Bad, and The Perplexing: Structural
Alerts and Read-Across for Predicting Skin Sensitization Using Human
Data |
title_full_unstemmed | The Good,
The Bad, and The Perplexing: Structural
Alerts and Read-Across for Predicting Skin Sensitization Using Human
Data |
title_short | The Good,
The Bad, and The Perplexing: Structural
Alerts and Read-Across for Predicting Skin Sensitization Using Human
Data |
title_sort | good,
the bad, and the perplexing: structural
alerts and read-across for predicting skin sensitization using human
data |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10189792/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37126467 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrestox.2c00383 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT goldenemily thegoodthebadandtheperplexingstructuralalertsandreadacrossforpredictingskinsensitizationusinghumandata AT ukaegbudanielc thegoodthebadandtheperplexingstructuralalertsandreadacrossforpredictingskinsensitizationusinghumandata AT ranslowpeter thegoodthebadandtheperplexingstructuralalertsandreadacrossforpredictingskinsensitizationusinghumandata AT brownroberth thegoodthebadandtheperplexingstructuralalertsandreadacrossforpredictingskinsensitizationusinghumandata AT hartungthomas thegoodthebadandtheperplexingstructuralalertsandreadacrossforpredictingskinsensitizationusinghumandata AT maertensalexandra thegoodthebadandtheperplexingstructuralalertsandreadacrossforpredictingskinsensitizationusinghumandata AT goldenemily goodthebadandtheperplexingstructuralalertsandreadacrossforpredictingskinsensitizationusinghumandata AT ukaegbudanielc goodthebadandtheperplexingstructuralalertsandreadacrossforpredictingskinsensitizationusinghumandata AT ranslowpeter goodthebadandtheperplexingstructuralalertsandreadacrossforpredictingskinsensitizationusinghumandata AT brownroberth goodthebadandtheperplexingstructuralalertsandreadacrossforpredictingskinsensitizationusinghumandata AT hartungthomas goodthebadandtheperplexingstructuralalertsandreadacrossforpredictingskinsensitizationusinghumandata AT maertensalexandra goodthebadandtheperplexingstructuralalertsandreadacrossforpredictingskinsensitizationusinghumandata |