Cargando…
Comparison of seven in silico tools for evaluating of daphnia and fish acute toxicity: case study on Chinese Priority Controlled Chemicals and new chemicals
BACKGROUND: A number of predictive models for aquatic toxicity are available, however, the accuracy and extent of easy to use of these in silico tools in risk assessment still need further studied. This study evaluated the performance of seven in silico tools to daphnia and fish: ECOSAR, T.E.S.T., D...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7992851/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33761866 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12859-020-03903-w |
_version_ | 1783669465397854208 |
---|---|
author | Zhou, Linjun Fan, Deling Yin, Wei Gu, Wen Wang, Zhen Liu, Jining Xu, Yanhua Shi, Lili Liu, Mingqing Ji, Guixiang |
author_facet | Zhou, Linjun Fan, Deling Yin, Wei Gu, Wen Wang, Zhen Liu, Jining Xu, Yanhua Shi, Lili Liu, Mingqing Ji, Guixiang |
author_sort | Zhou, Linjun |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: A number of predictive models for aquatic toxicity are available, however, the accuracy and extent of easy to use of these in silico tools in risk assessment still need further studied. This study evaluated the performance of seven in silico tools to daphnia and fish: ECOSAR, T.E.S.T., Danish QSAR Database, VEGA, KATE, Read Across and Trent Analysis. 37 Priority Controlled Chemicals in China (PCCs) and 92 New Chemicals (NCs) were used as validation dataset. RESULTS: In the quantitative evaluation to PCCs with the criteria of 10-fold difference between experimental value and estimated value, the accuracies of VEGA is the highest among all of the models, both in prediction of daphnia and fish acute toxicity, with accuracies of 100% and 90% after considering AD, respectively. The performance of KATE, ECOSAR and T.E.S.T. is similar, with accuracies are slightly lower than VEGA. The accuracy of Danish Q.D. is the lowest among the above tools with which QSAR is the main mechanism. The performance of Read Across and Trent Analysis is lowest among all of the tested in silico tools. The predictive ability of models to NCs was lower than that of PCCs possibly because never appeared in training set of the models, and ECOSAR perform best than other in silico tools. CONCLUSION: QSAR based in silico tools had the greater prediction accuracy than category approach (Read Across and Trent Analysis) in predicting the acute toxicity of daphnia and fish. Category approach (Read Across and Trent Analysis) requires expert knowledge to be utilized effectively. ECOSAR performs well in both PCCs and NCs, and the application shoud be promoted in both risk assessment and priority activities. We suggest that distribution of multiple data and water solubility should be considered when developing in silico models. Both more intelligent in silico tools and testing are necessary to identify hazards of Chemicals. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7992851 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-79928512021-03-25 Comparison of seven in silico tools for evaluating of daphnia and fish acute toxicity: case study on Chinese Priority Controlled Chemicals and new chemicals Zhou, Linjun Fan, Deling Yin, Wei Gu, Wen Wang, Zhen Liu, Jining Xu, Yanhua Shi, Lili Liu, Mingqing Ji, Guixiang BMC Bioinformatics Research Article BACKGROUND: A number of predictive models for aquatic toxicity are available, however, the accuracy and extent of easy to use of these in silico tools in risk assessment still need further studied. This study evaluated the performance of seven in silico tools to daphnia and fish: ECOSAR, T.E.S.T., Danish QSAR Database, VEGA, KATE, Read Across and Trent Analysis. 37 Priority Controlled Chemicals in China (PCCs) and 92 New Chemicals (NCs) were used as validation dataset. RESULTS: In the quantitative evaluation to PCCs with the criteria of 10-fold difference between experimental value and estimated value, the accuracies of VEGA is the highest among all of the models, both in prediction of daphnia and fish acute toxicity, with accuracies of 100% and 90% after considering AD, respectively. The performance of KATE, ECOSAR and T.E.S.T. is similar, with accuracies are slightly lower than VEGA. The accuracy of Danish Q.D. is the lowest among the above tools with which QSAR is the main mechanism. The performance of Read Across and Trent Analysis is lowest among all of the tested in silico tools. The predictive ability of models to NCs was lower than that of PCCs possibly because never appeared in training set of the models, and ECOSAR perform best than other in silico tools. CONCLUSION: QSAR based in silico tools had the greater prediction accuracy than category approach (Read Across and Trent Analysis) in predicting the acute toxicity of daphnia and fish. Category approach (Read Across and Trent Analysis) requires expert knowledge to be utilized effectively. ECOSAR performs well in both PCCs and NCs, and the application shoud be promoted in both risk assessment and priority activities. We suggest that distribution of multiple data and water solubility should be considered when developing in silico models. Both more intelligent in silico tools and testing are necessary to identify hazards of Chemicals. BioMed Central 2021-03-24 /pmc/articles/PMC7992851/ /pubmed/33761866 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12859-020-03903-w Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Zhou, Linjun Fan, Deling Yin, Wei Gu, Wen Wang, Zhen Liu, Jining Xu, Yanhua Shi, Lili Liu, Mingqing Ji, Guixiang Comparison of seven in silico tools for evaluating of daphnia and fish acute toxicity: case study on Chinese Priority Controlled Chemicals and new chemicals |
title | Comparison of seven in silico tools for evaluating of daphnia and fish acute toxicity: case study on Chinese Priority Controlled Chemicals and new chemicals |
title_full | Comparison of seven in silico tools for evaluating of daphnia and fish acute toxicity: case study on Chinese Priority Controlled Chemicals and new chemicals |
title_fullStr | Comparison of seven in silico tools for evaluating of daphnia and fish acute toxicity: case study on Chinese Priority Controlled Chemicals and new chemicals |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of seven in silico tools for evaluating of daphnia and fish acute toxicity: case study on Chinese Priority Controlled Chemicals and new chemicals |
title_short | Comparison of seven in silico tools for evaluating of daphnia and fish acute toxicity: case study on Chinese Priority Controlled Chemicals and new chemicals |
title_sort | comparison of seven in silico tools for evaluating of daphnia and fish acute toxicity: case study on chinese priority controlled chemicals and new chemicals |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7992851/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33761866 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12859-020-03903-w |
work_keys_str_mv | AT zhoulinjun comparisonofseveninsilicotoolsforevaluatingofdaphniaandfishacutetoxicitycasestudyonchineseprioritycontrolledchemicalsandnewchemicals AT fandeling comparisonofseveninsilicotoolsforevaluatingofdaphniaandfishacutetoxicitycasestudyonchineseprioritycontrolledchemicalsandnewchemicals AT yinwei comparisonofseveninsilicotoolsforevaluatingofdaphniaandfishacutetoxicitycasestudyonchineseprioritycontrolledchemicalsandnewchemicals AT guwen comparisonofseveninsilicotoolsforevaluatingofdaphniaandfishacutetoxicitycasestudyonchineseprioritycontrolledchemicalsandnewchemicals AT wangzhen comparisonofseveninsilicotoolsforevaluatingofdaphniaandfishacutetoxicitycasestudyonchineseprioritycontrolledchemicalsandnewchemicals AT liujining comparisonofseveninsilicotoolsforevaluatingofdaphniaandfishacutetoxicitycasestudyonchineseprioritycontrolledchemicalsandnewchemicals AT xuyanhua comparisonofseveninsilicotoolsforevaluatingofdaphniaandfishacutetoxicitycasestudyonchineseprioritycontrolledchemicalsandnewchemicals AT shilili comparisonofseveninsilicotoolsforevaluatingofdaphniaandfishacutetoxicitycasestudyonchineseprioritycontrolledchemicalsandnewchemicals AT liumingqing comparisonofseveninsilicotoolsforevaluatingofdaphniaandfishacutetoxicitycasestudyonchineseprioritycontrolledchemicalsandnewchemicals AT jiguixiang comparisonofseveninsilicotoolsforevaluatingofdaphniaandfishacutetoxicitycasestudyonchineseprioritycontrolledchemicalsandnewchemicals |