ToxRead: A tool to assist in read across and its use to assess mutagenicity of chemicals

Life sciences, and toxicology in particular, are heavily impacted by the development of methods for data collection and data analysis; they are moving from an analytical approach to a modelling approach. The scarce availability of experimental data is a known bottleneck in assessing the properties of new chemicals. Even when a model is available, the resulting predictions have to be assessed by close scrutiny of the chemicals and the biological properties of the compounds concerned. To avoid unnecessary testing, a read across strategy is often suggested and used. In this paper we discuss how to improve and standardize read across activity using ad hoc visualization and data search methods which use similarity measures and fragment search to organize in a chart a picture of all the relevant information that the expert needs to make an assessment. We show in particular how to apply our system to the case of mutagenicity.     

An evaluation of selected (Q)SARs/expert systems for predicting skin sensitisation potential

Predictive testing to characterise substances for their skin sensitisation potential has historically been based on animal models such as the Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA) and the Guinea Pig Maximisation Test (GPMT). In recent years, EU regulations, have provided a strong incentive to develop non-animal alternatives, such as expert systems software. Here we selected three different types of expert systems: VEGA (statistical), Derek Nexus (knowledge-based) and TIMES-SS (hybrid), and evaluated their performance using two large sets of animal data: one set of 1249 substances from eChemportal and a second set of 515 substances from NICEATM. A model was considered successful at predicting skin sensitisation potential if it had at least the same balanced accuracy as the LLNA and the GPMT had in predicting the other outcomes, which ranged from 79% to 86%. We found that the highest balanced accuracy of any of the expert systems evaluated was 65% when making global predictions. For substances within the domain of TIMES-SS, however, balanced accuracies for the two datasets were found to be 79% and 82%. In those cases where a chemical was within the TIMES-SS domain, the TIMES-SS skin sensitisation hazard prediction had the same confidence as the result from LLNA or GPMT.