Validity and validation of expert (Q)SAR systems

At a recent workshop in Setubal (Portugal) principles were drafted to assess the suitability of (quantitative) structure–activity relationships ((Q)SARs) for assessing the hazards and risks of chemicals. In the present study we applied some of the Setubal principles to test the validity of three (Q)SAR expert systems and validate the results. These principles include a mechanistic basis, the availability of a training set and validation. ECOSAR, BIOWIN and DEREK for Windows have a mechanistic or empirical basis. ECOSAR has a training set for each QSAR. For half of the structural fragments the number of chemicals in the training set is >4. Based on structural fragments and log Kow, ECOSAR uses linear regression to predict ecotoxicity. Validating ECOSAR for three ‘valid’ classes results in predictivity of ?≥?64%. BIOWIN uses (non-)linear regressions to predict the probability of biodegradability based on fragments and molecular weight. It has a large training set and predicts non-ready biodegradability well. DEREK for Windows predictions are supported by a mechanistic rationale and literature references. The structural alerts in this program have been developed with a training set of positive and negative toxicity data. However, to support the prediction only a limited number of chemicals in the training set is presented to the user. DEREK for Windows predicts effects by ‘if-then’ reasoning. The program predicts best for mutagenicity and carcinogenicity. Each structural fragment in ECOSAR and DEREK for Windows needs to be evaluated and validated separately.