| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Chavan, Swapnil, et al.
(författare)
-
Towards Global QSAR Model Building for Acute Toxicity : Munro Database Case Study
- 2014
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Molecular Sciences. - : MDPI AG. - 1661-6596 .- 1422-0067. ; 15:10, s. 18162-18174
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- A series of 436 Munro database chemicals were studied with respect to their corresponding experimental LD50 values to investigate the possibility of establishing a global QSAR model for acute toxicity. Dragon molecular descriptors were used for the QSAR model development and genetic algorithms were used to select descriptors better correlated with toxicity data. Toxic values were discretized in a qualitative class on the basis of the Globally Harmonized Scheme: the 436 chemicals were divided into 3 classes based on their experimental LD50 values: highly toxic, intermediate toxic and low to non-toxic. The k-nearest neighbor (k-NN) classification method was calibrated on 25 molecular descriptors and gave a non-error rate (NER) equal to 0.66 and 0.57 for internal and external prediction sets, respectively. Even if the classification performances are not optimal, the subsequent analysis of the selected descriptors and their relationship with toxicity levels constitute a step towards the development of a global QSAR model for acute toxicity.
|
|
| 3. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(författare)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Autophagy. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1554-8635 .- 1554-8627. ; 8:4, s. 445-544
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.
|
|
| 4. |
- Mansouri, Kamel, et al.
(författare)
-
CoMPARA : Collaborative Modeling Project for Androgen Receptor Activity
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Journal of Environmental Health Perspectives. - 0091-6765 .- 1552-9924. ; 128:2, s. 1-17
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are xenobiotics that mimic the interaction of natural hormones and alter synthesis, transport, or metabolic pathways. The prospect of EDCs causing adverse health effects in humans and wildlife has led to the development of scientific and regulatory approaches for evaluating bioactivity. This need is being addressed using high-throughput screening (HTS) in vitro approaches and computational modeling.OBJECTIVES: In support of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) led two worldwide consortiums to virtually screen chemicals for their potential estrogenic and androgenic activities. Here, we describe the Collaborative Modeling Project for Androgen Receptor Activity (CoMPARA) efforts, which follows the steps of the Collaborative Estrogen Receptor Activity Prediction Project (CERAPP).METHODS: The CoMPARA list of screened chemicals built on CERAPP's list of 32,464 chemicals to include additional chemicals of interest, as well as simulated ToxCast (TM) metabolites, totaling 55,450 chemical structures. Computational toxicology scientists from 25 international groups contributed 91 predictive models for binding, agonist, and antagonist activity predictions. Models were underpinned by a common training set of 1,746 chemicals compiled from a combined data set of 11 ToxCast (TM)/Tox21 HTS in vitro assays.RESULTS: The resulting models were evaluated using curated literature data extracted from different sources. To overcome the limitations of single-model approaches, CoMPARA predictions were combined into consensus models that provided averaged predictive accuracy of approximately 80% for the evaluation set.DISCUSSION: The strengths and limitations of the consensus predictions were discussed with example chemicals; then, the models were implemented into the free and open-source OPERA application to enable screening of new chemicals with a defined applicability domain and accuracy assessment. This implementation was used to screen the entire EPA DSSTox database of similar to 875,000 chemicals, and their predicted AR activities have been made available on the EPA CompTox Chemicals dashboard and National Toxicology Program's Integrated Chemical Environment.
|
|
