No abstract

Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship modeling is one of the major computational tools employed in medicinal chemistry. However, throughout its entire history it has drawn both praise and criticism concerning its reliability, limitations, successes, and failures. In this paper, we discuss: (i) the development and evolution of QSAR; (ii) the current trends, unsolved problems, and pressing challenges; and (iii) several novel and emerging applications of QSAR modeling. Throughout this discussion, we provide guidelines for QSAR development, validation, and application, which are summarized in best practices for building rigorously validated and externally predictive QSAR models. We hope that this Perspective will help communications between computational and experimental chemists towards collaborative development and use of QSAR models. We also believe that the guidelines presented here will help journal editors and reviewers apply more stringent scientific standards to manuscripts reporting new QSAR studies, as well as encourage the use of high quality, validated QSARs for regulatory decision making.

No abstract

Internet technology offers an excellent opportunity for the development of tools by the cooperative effort of various groups and institutions. We have developed a multi-platform software system, Virtual Computational Chemistry Laboratory, http://www.vcclab.org, allowing the computational chemist to perform a comprehensive series of molecular indices/properties calculations and data analysis. The implemented software is based on a three-tier architecture that is one of the standard technologies to provide client-server services on the Internet. The developed software includes several popular programs, including the indices generation program, DRAGON, a 3D structure generator, CORINA, a program to predict lipophilicity and aqueous solubility of chemicals, ALOGPS and others. All these programs are running at the host institutes located in five countries over Europe. In this article we review the main features and statistics of the developed system that can be used as a prototype for academic and industry models.

The estimation of the accuracy of predictions is a critical problem in QSAR modeling. The "distance to model" can be defined as a metric that defines the similarity between the training set molecules and the test set compound for the given property in the context of a specific model. It could be expressed in many different ways, e.g., using Tanimoto coefficient, leverage, correlation in space of models, etc. In this paper we have used mixtures of Gaussian distributions as well as statistical tests to evaluate six types of distances to models with respect to their ability to discriminate compounds with small and large prediction errors. The analysis was performed for twelve QSAR models of aqueous toxicity against T. pyriformis obtained with different machine-learning methods and various types of descriptors. The distances to model based on standard deviation of predicted toxicity calculated from the ensemble of models afforded the best results. This distance also successfully discriminated molecules with low and large prediction errors for a mechanism-based model developed using log P and the Maximum Acceptor Superdelocalizability descriptors. Thus, the distance to model metric could also be used to augment mechanistic QSAR models by estimating their prediction errors. Moreover, the accuracy of prediction is mainly determined by the training set data distribution in the chemistry and activity spaces but not by QSAR approaches used to develop the models. We have shown that incorrect validation of a model may result in the wrong estimation of its performance and suggested how this problem could be circumvented. The toxicity of 3182 and 48774 molecules from the EPA High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program and EINECS (European chemical Substances Information System), respectively, was predicted, and the accuracy of prediction was estimated. The developed models are available online at http://www.qspr.org site.

Abstract:One of the OECD principles for model validation requires defining the Applicability Domain (AD) for the QSAR models. This is important since the reliable predictions are generally limited to query chemicals structurally similar to the training compounds used to build the model. Therefore, characterization of interpolation space is significant in defining the AD and in this study some existing descriptor-based approaches performing this task are discussed and compared by implementing them on existing validated datasets from the literature. Algorithms adopted by different approaches allow defining the interpolation space in several ways, while defined thresholds contribute significantly to the extrapolations. For each dataset and approach implemented for this study, the comparison analysis was carried out by considering the model statistics and relative position of test set with respect to the training space.

Background:Humans are exposed to thousands of man-made chemicals in the environment. Some chemicals mimic natural endocrine hormones and, thus, have the potential to be endocrine disruptors. Most of these chemicals have never been tested for their ability to interact with the estrogen receptor (ER). Risk assessors need tools to prioritize chemicals for evaluation in costly in vivo tests, for instance, within the U.S. EPA Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program.Objectives:We describe a large-scale modeling project called CERAPP (Collaborative Estrogen Receptor Activity Prediction Project) and demonstrate the efficacy of using predictive computational models trained on high-throughput screening data to evaluate thousands of chemicals for ER-related activity and prioritize them for further testing.Methods:CERAPP combined multiple models developed in collaboration with 17 groups in the United States and Europe to predict ER activity of a common set of 32,464 chemical structures. Quantitative structure–activity relationship models and docking approaches were employed, mostly using a common training set of 1,677 chemical structures provided by the U.S. EPA, to build a total of 40 categorical and 8 continuous models for binding, agonist, and antagonist ER activity. All predictions were evaluated on a set of 7,522 chemicals curated from the literature. To overcome the limitations of single models, a consensus was built by weighting models on scores based on their evaluated accuracies.Results:Individual model scores ranged from 0.69 to 0.85, showing high prediction reliabilities. Out of the 32,464 chemicals, the consensus model predicted 4,001 chemicals (12.3%) as high priority actives and 6,742 potential actives (20.8%) to be considered for further testing.Conclusion:This project demonstrated the possibility to screen large libraries of chemicals using a consensus of different in silico approaches. This concept will be applied in future projects related to other end points.Citation:Mansouri K, Abdelaziz A, Rybacka A, Roncaglioni A, Tropsha A, Varnek A, Zakharov A, Worth A, Richard AM, Grulke CM, Trisciuzzi D, Fourches D, Horvath D, Benfenati E, Muratov E, Wedebye EB, Grisoni F, Mangiatordi GF, Incisivo GM, Hong H, Ng HW, Tetko IV, Balabin I, Kancherla J, Shen J, Burton J, Nicklaus M, Cassotti M, Nikolov NG, Nicolotti O, Andersson PL, Zang Q, Politi R, Beger RD, Todeschini R, Huang R, Farag S, Rosenberg SA, Slavov S, Hu X, Judson RS. 2016. CERAPP: Collaborative Estrogen Receptor Activity Prediction Project. Environ Health Perspect 124:1023–1033; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1510267

This paper deals with the problem of evaluating the predictive ability of QSAR models and continues the discussion about proper estimates of the predictive ability from an external evaluation set reported in Schüürmann G., Ebert R.-U., et al. External Validation and Prediction Employing the Predictive Squared Correlation Coefficient--Test Set Activity Mean vs Training Set Activity Mean. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48, 2140-2145 . The two formulas for calculating the predictive squared correlation coefficient Q2 previously discussed by Schüürmann et al. are one that adopted by the current OECD guidelines about QSAR validation and based on SS (sum of squares) of the external test set referring to the training set response mean and the other based on SS of the external test set referring to the test set response mean. In addition to these two formulas, another formula is evaluated here, based on SS referring to mean deviations of observed values from the training set mean over the training set instead of the external evaluation set.