The Good, The Bad, and The Perplexing : Structural Alerts and Read-Across for Predicting Skin Sensitization Using Human Data

dc.contributor.authorGolden, Emily
dc.contributor.authorUkaegbu, Daniel C.
dc.contributor.authorRanslow, Peter
dc.contributor.authorBrown, Robert H.
dc.contributor.authorHartung, Thomas
dc.contributor.authorMaertens, Alexandra
dc.date.accessioned2023-06-02T07:42:44Z
dc.date.available2023-06-02T07:42:44Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.description.abstractIn 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.
dc.description.versionpublisheddeu
dc.identifier.doi10.1021/acs.chemrestox.2c00383
dc.identifier.ppn1848867328
dc.identifier.urihttps://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/67035
dc.language.isoeng
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.subject.ddc570
dc.titleThe Good, The Bad, and The Perplexing : Structural Alerts and Read-Across for Predicting Skin Sensitization Using Human Dataeng
dc.typeJOURNAL_ARTICLE
dspace.entity.typePublication
kops.citation.bibtex
@article{Golden2023Perpl-67035,
  year={2023},
  doi={10.1021/acs.chemrestox.2c00383},
  title={The Good, The Bad, and The Perplexing : Structural Alerts and Read-Across for Predicting Skin Sensitization Using Human Data},
  number={5},
  volume={36},
  issn={0893-228X},
  journal={Chemical Research in Toxicology},
  pages={734--746},
  author={Golden, Emily and Ukaegbu, Daniel C. and Ranslow, Peter and Brown, Robert H. and Hartung, Thomas and Maertens, Alexandra}
}
kops.citation.iso690GOLDEN, Emily, Daniel C. UKAEGBU, Peter RANSLOW, Robert H. BROWN, Thomas HARTUNG, Alexandra MAERTENS, 2023. The Good, The Bad, and The Perplexing : Structural Alerts and Read-Across for Predicting Skin Sensitization Using Human Data. In: Chemical Research in Toxicology. ACS Publications. 2023, 36(5), pp. 734-746. ISSN 0893-228X. eISSN 1520-5010. Available under: doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.2c00383deu
kops.citation.iso690GOLDEN, Emily, Daniel C. UKAEGBU, Peter RANSLOW, Robert H. BROWN, Thomas HARTUNG, Alexandra MAERTENS, 2023. The Good, The Bad, and The Perplexing : Structural Alerts and Read-Across for Predicting Skin Sensitization Using Human Data. In: Chemical Research in Toxicology. ACS Publications. 2023, 36(5), pp. 734-746. ISSN 0893-228X. eISSN 1520-5010. Available under: doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.2c00383eng
kops.citation.rdf
<rdf:RDF
    xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/"
    xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#"
    xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
    xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#"
    xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > 
  <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/67035">
    <dc:contributor>Maertens, Alexandra</dc:contributor>
    <dc:rights>Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International</dc:rights>
    <dcterms:rights rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/"/>
    <dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/67035/1/Golden_2-uyppe78p4w9y1.PDF"/>
    <dcterms:abstract>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.</dcterms:abstract>
    <dc:contributor>Hartung, Thomas</dc:contributor>
    <bibo:uri rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/67035"/>
    <dc:creator>Ukaegbu, Daniel C.</dc:creator>
    <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/28"/>
    <dc:contributor>Golden, Emily</dc:contributor>
    <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/>
    <dcterms:title>The Good, The Bad, and The Perplexing : Structural Alerts and Read-Across for Predicting Skin Sensitization Using Human Data</dcterms:title>
    <dspace:hasBitstream rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/67035/1/Golden_2-uyppe78p4w9y1.PDF"/>
    <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/28"/>
    <dc:creator>Ranslow, Peter</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Golden, Emily</dc:creator>
    <dc:contributor>Brown, Robert H.</dc:contributor>
    <dc:creator>Maertens, Alexandra</dc:creator>
    <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/>
    <dc:contributor>Ranslow, Peter</dc:contributor>
    <dcterms:issued>2023</dcterms:issued>
    <dc:creator>Brown, Robert H.</dc:creator>
    <dc:contributor>Ukaegbu, Daniel C.</dc:contributor>
    <dc:creator>Hartung, Thomas</dc:creator>
    <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2023-06-02T07:42:44Z</dcterms:available>
    <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2023-06-02T07:42:44Z</dc:date>
    <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
kops.description.openAccessopenaccesshybrid
kops.flag.isPeerReviewedtrue
kops.flag.knbibliographytrue
kops.identifier.nbnurn:nbn:de:bsz:352-2-uyppe78p4w9y1
kops.sourcefieldChemical Research in Toxicology. ACS Publications. 2023, <b>36</b>(5), pp. 734-746. ISSN 0893-228X. eISSN 1520-5010. Available under: doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.2c00383deu
kops.sourcefield.plainChemical Research in Toxicology. ACS Publications. 2023, 36(5), pp. 734-746. ISSN 0893-228X. eISSN 1520-5010. Available under: doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.2c00383deu
kops.sourcefield.plainChemical Research in Toxicology. ACS Publications. 2023, 36(5), pp. 734-746. ISSN 0893-228X. eISSN 1520-5010. Available under: doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.2c00383eng
relation.isAuthorOfPublication36e501e4-b8aa-46a8-9514-4a52792e3f9a
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery36e501e4-b8aa-46a8-9514-4a52792e3f9a
source.bibliographicInfo.fromPage734
source.bibliographicInfo.issue5
source.bibliographicInfo.toPage746
source.bibliographicInfo.volume36
source.identifier.eissn1520-5010
source.identifier.issn0893-228X
source.periodicalTitleChemical Research in Toxicology
source.publisherACS Publications

Dateien

Originalbündel

Gerade angezeigt 1 - 1 von 1
Vorschaubild nicht verfügbar
Name:
Golden_2-uyppe78p4w9y1.PDF
Größe:
9.4 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Golden_2-uyppe78p4w9y1.PDF
Golden_2-uyppe78p4w9y1.PDFGröße: 9.4 MBDownloads: 94