Cited by 240Computational Drug Discovery MethodsAnimal testing and alternativesCarcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment

In silico toxicology protocols

Open access
Myatt, Glenn J., Ahlberg, Ernst, Akahori, Yumi, Allen, David, Amberg, Alexander, Anger, Lennart T., Aptula, Aynur, Auerbach, Scott +76 more·2018·Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

Abstract

The present publication surveys several applications of in silico (i.e., computational) toxicology approaches across different industries and institutions. It highlights the need to develop standardized protocols when conducting toxicity-related predictions. This contribution articulates the information needed for protocols to support in silico predictions for major toxicological endpoints of concern (e.g., genetic toxicity, carcinogenicity, acute toxicity, reproductive toxicity, developmental toxicity) across several industries and regulatory bodies. Such novel in silico toxicology (IST) protocols, when fully developed and implemented, will ensure in silico toxicological assessments are performed and evaluated in a consistent, reproducible, and well-documented manner across industries and regulatory bodies to support wider uptake and acceptance of the approaches. The development of IST protocols is an initiative developed through a collaboration among an international consortium to reflect the state-of-the-art in in silico toxicology for hazard identification and characterization. A general outline for describing the development of such protocols is included and it is based on in silico predictions and/or available experimental data for a defined series of relevant toxicological effects or mechanisms. The publication presents a novel approach for determining the reliability of in silico predictions alongside experimental data. In addition, we discuss how to determine the level of confidence in the assessment based on the relevance and reliability of the information.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.yrtph.2018.04.014

Cites

61 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. EFSA 2016 Guidance on the establishment of the residue definition for dietary risk assessment: EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR) EFSA Journal 14 1 12 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4549/epdf PMC13088888 42006027 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Myatt, G. J., Ahlberg, E., Akahori, Y., Allen, D., Amberg, A., Anger, L. T., Aptula, A., Auerbach, S., Beilke, L., Bellion, P., Benigni, R., Bercu, J., Booth, E. D., Bower, D., Brigo, A., Burden, N., Cammerer, Z., Cronin, M. T. D., Cross, K. P., Custer, L., Dettwiler, M., Dobo, K., Ford, K. A., Fortin, M. C., Gad-McDonald, S. E., Gellatly, N., Gervais, V., Glover, K. P., Glowienke, S., Van Gompel, J., Gutsell, S., Hardy, B., Harvey, J. S., Hillegass, J., Honma, M., Hsieh, J.-H., Hsu, C.-W., Hughes, K., Johnson, C., Jolly, R., Jones, D., Kemper, R., Kenyon, M. O., Kim, M. T., Kruhlak, N. L., Kulkarni, S. A., Kümmerer, K., Leavitt, P., Majer, B., Masten, S., Miller, S., Moser, J., Mumtaz, M., Muster, W., Neilson, L., Oprea, T. I., Patlewicz, G., Paulino, A., Lo Piparo, E., Powley, M., Quigley, D. P., Reddy, M. V., Richarz, A.-N., Ruiz, P., Schilter, B., Serafimova, R., Simpson, W., Stavitskaya, L., Stidl, R., Suarez-Rodriguez, D., Szabo, D. T., Teasdale, A., Trejo-Martin, A., Valentin, J.-P., Vuorinen, A., Wall, B. A., Watts, P., White, A. T., Wichard, J., Witt, K. L., Woolley, A., Woolley, D., Zwickl, C., & Hasselgren, C.
Affiliations
  • LeadScope (United States) (US)
  • AstraZeneca (Sweden) (SE)
  • Chemicals Evaluation and Research Institute (JP)
  • Integrated Laboratory Systems, Inc. (US)
  • Sanofi (Germany) (DE)
  • Unilever (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • DSM (Switzerland) (CH)
  • Gilead Sciences (United States) (US)
  • Syngenta (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG (CH)
  • National Centre for the Replacement Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (GB)
  • Janssen Research & Development (United States) (US)
  • Liverpool John Moores University (GB)
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb (United States) (US)
  • Pfizer (United States) (US)
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
  • Defense Threat Reduction Agency (US)
  • Novartis (Switzerland) (CH)
  • GlaxoSmithKline (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • National Institute of Health Sciences (JP)
  • United States Food and Drug Administration (US)
  • Leuphana University of Lüneburg (DE)
  • Eli Lilly (United States) (US)
  • Vertex Pharmaceuticals (United States) (US)
  • Takeda (United States) (US)
  • United States Department of Homeland Security (US)
  • Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (US)
  • British American Tobacco (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • University of New Mexico (US)
  • Environmental Protection Agency (US)
  • Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA (United States) (US)
  • European Commission (BE)
  • European Food Safety Authority (IT)
  • AstraZeneca (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • UCB Pharma (Belgium) (BE)
  • Colgate-Palmolive (United States) (US)
  • Bibra International (GB)
Corresponding author
Myatt, Glenn J.
Venue
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-07
Volume
96
Pages
1-17
ISSN
0273-2300 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2799297366
Cited by
240
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 7
FWCI
18.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Multilingual Matters (Channel View Publications) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Liverpool John Moores University (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Joint Research Centre (European Commission) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
  • National Institutes of Health (R43ES026909)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Carcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
Keywords
computational toxicology, standardized protocols, toxicity prediction, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, acute toxicity, reproductive toxicity, developmental toxicity, hazard identification, forecast reliability, confidence level, regulatory acceptance, reproducibility
MeSH terms
Animals, Computer Simulation, Humans, Toxicology, Toxicity Tests

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review