Drugs, cosmetics, preservatives, fragrances, pesticides, metals, and other chemicals can cause skin sensitization. The ability to predict the skin sensitization potential and potency of substances is therefore of enormous importance to a host of different industries, to customers' and workers' safety. Animal experiments have been the preferred testing method for most risk assessment and regulatory purposes but considerable efforts to replace them with non-animal models and in silico models are ongoing. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the computational approaches and models that have been developed for skin sensitization prediction over the last 10 years. The scope and limitations of rule-based approaches, read-across, linear and nonlinear (quantitative) structure-activity relationship ((Q)SAR) modeling, hybrid or combined approaches, and models integrating computational methods with experimental results are discussed followed by examples of relevant models. Emphasis is placed on models that are accessible to the scientific community, and on model validation. A dedicated section reports on comparative performance assessments of various approaches and models. The review also provides a concise overview of relevant data sources on skin sensitization.
Skin sensitization potential or potency is an important end point in the safety assessment of new chemicals and new chemical mixtures. Formerly, animal experiments such as the local lymph node assay (LLNA) were the main form of assessment. Today, however, the focus lies on the development of nonanimal testing approaches (i.e., in vitro and in chemico assays) and computational models. In this work, we investigate, based on publicly available LLNA data, the ability of aggregated, Mondrian conformal prediction classifiers to differentiate between non- sensitizing and sensitizing compounds as well as between two levels of skin sensitization potential (weak to moderate sensitizers, and strong to extreme sensitizers). The advantage of the conformal prediction framework over other modeling approaches is that it assigns compounds to activity classes only if a defined minimum level of confidence is reached for the individual predictions. This eliminates the need for applicability domain criteria that often are arbitrary in their nature and less flexible. Our new binary classifier, named Skin Doctor CP, differentiates nonsensitizers from sensitizers with a higher reliability-to-efficiency ratio than the corresponding nonconformal prediction workflow that we presented earlier. When tested on a set of 257 compounds at the significance levels of 0.10 and 0.30, the model reached an efficiency of 0.49 and 0.92, and an accuracy of 0.83 and 0.75, respectively. In addition, we developed a ternary classification workflow to differentiate nonsensitizers, weak to moderate sensitizers, and strong to extreme sensitizers. Although this model achieved satisfactory overall performance (accuracies of 0.90 and 0.73, and efficiencies of 0.42 and 0.90, at significance levels 0.10 and 0.30, respectively), it did not obtain satisfying class-wise results (at a significance level of 0.30, the validities obtained for nonsensitizers, weak to moderate sensitizers, and strong to extreme sensitizers were 0.70, 0.58, and 0.63, respectively). We argue that the model is, in consequence, unable to reliably identify strong to extreme sensitizers and suggest that other ternary models derived from the currently accessible LLNA data might suffer from the same problem. Skin Doctor CP is available via a public web service at .
The ability to predict the skin sensitization potential of small organic molecules is of high importance to the development and safe application of cosmetics, drugs and pesticides. One of the most widely accepted methods for predicting this hazard is the local lymph node assay (LLNA). The goal of this work was to develop in silico models for the prediction of the skin sensitization potential of small molecules that go beyond the state of the art, with larger LLNA data sets and, most importantly, a robust and intuitive definition of the applicability domain, paired with additional indicators of the reliability of predictions. We explored a large variety of molecular descriptors and fingerprints in combination with random forest and support vector machine classifiers. The most suitable models were tested on holdout data, on which they yielded competitive performance (Matthews correlation coefficients up to 0.52; accuracies up to 0.76; areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves up to 0.83). The most favorable models are available via a public web service that, in addition to predictions, provides assessments of the applicability domain and indicators of the reliability of the individual predictions.
In recent years, a number of machine learning models for the prediction of the skin sensitization potential of small organic molecules have been reported and become available. These models generally perform well within their applicability domains but, as a result of the use of molecular fingerprints and other non-intuitive descriptors, the interpretability of the existing models is limited. The aim of this work is to develop a strategy to replace the non-intuitive features by predicted outcomes of bioassays. We show that such replacement is indeed possible and that as few as ten interpretable, predicted bioactivities are sufficient to reach competitive performance. On a holdout data set of 257 compounds, the best model (“Skin Doctor CP:Bio”) obtained an efficiency of 0.82 and an MCC of 0.52 (at the significance level of 0.20). Skin Doctor CP:Bio is available free of charge for academic research. The modeling strategies explored in this work are easily transferable and could be adopted for the development of more interpretable machine learning models for the prediction of the bioactivity and toxicity of small organic compounds.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.