Novel Uses of In Vitro Data to Develop Quantitative Biological Activity Relationship Models for in Vivo Carcinogenicity Prediction

Abstract

The availability of large in vitro datasets enables better insight into the mode of action of chemicals and better identification of potential mechanism(s) of toxicity. Several studies have shown that not all in vitro assays can contribute as equal predictors of in vivo carcinogenicity for development of hybrid Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship (QSAR) models. We propose two novel approaches for the use of mechanistically relevant in vitro assay data in the identification of relevant biological descriptors and development of Quantitative Biological Activity Relationship (QBAR) models for carcinogenicity prediction. We demonstrate that in vitro assay data can be used to develop QBAR models for in vivo carcinogenicity prediction via two case studies corroborated with firm scientific rationale. The case studies demonstrate the similarities between QBAR and QSAR modeling in: (i) the selection of relevant descriptors to be used in the machine learning algorithm, and (ii) the development of a computational model that maps chemical or biological descriptors to a toxic endpoint. The results of both the case studies show: (i) improved accuracy and sensitivity which is especially desirable under regulatory requirements, and (ii) overall adherence with the OECD/REACH guidelines. Such mechanism based models can be used along with QSAR models for prediction of mechanistically complex toxic endpoints.

The formation of furan-like disinfection byproducts from phenolic precursors

“…Mutagenicity is a commonly used indicator of carcinogenicity. 39 The US EPA's T.E.S.T. software 40 was used for predicting the mutagenicity of selected DBPs.…”

Navigating through the minefield of read-across frameworks: A commentary perspective

“…Yet, this has also prompted a more critical examination of its application and scientific justification. Whilst read-across is traditionally anchored with conventional in vivo and in vitro data, concerted efforts are starting to be made to exploit high throughput (HT) and high content (HC) screening data as a means of substantiating biological similarity [4][5][6][7][8].…”

Navigating through the minefield of read-across tools: A review of in silico tools for grouping

“…The context of how these in vitro approaches can be interpreted is still evolving, though examples using adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) have started to be developed (Patlewicz et al, 2015, Delrue et al, 2016NRC, 2017). Read-across is also undergoing a transformation with increasingly efforts to exploit High Throughput/High Content (HT/HC) screening data as a means of substantiating biological similarity (Low et al, 2013;Pradeep et al, 2015;Shah et al, 2016;Zhu et al, 2016). An OECD work programme under the auspices of the Task Force of Hazard Assessment (TFHA) 1 has published several examples of AOP informed Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment (IATA) that have been based on read-across where data generated as part of the EPA ToxCast program have been utilised (see http://www.oecd.org/ chemicalsafety/risk-assessment/iata-integrated-approaches-to-testing-and-assessment.htm for a list of case studies both published and under review).…”