The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Derivation and Validation of Toxicophores for Mutagenicity Prediction
Abstract
Mutagenicity is one of the numerous adverse properties of a compound that hampers its potential to become a marketable drug. Toxic properties can often be related to chemical structure, more specifically, to particular substructures, which are generally identified as toxicophores. A number of toxicophores have already been identified in the literature. This study aims at increasing the current degree of reliability and accuracy of mutagenicity predictions by identifying novel toxicophores from the application of new criteria for toxicophore rule derivation and validation to a considerably sized mutagenicity dataset. For this purpose, a dataset of 4337 molecular structures with corresponding Ames test data (2401 mutagens and 1936 nonmutagens) was constructed. An initial substructure-search of this dataset showed that most mutagens were detected by applying only eight general toxicophores. From these eight, more specific toxicophores were derived and approved by employing chemical and mechanistic knowledge in combination with statistical criteria. A final set of 29 toxicophores containing new substructures was assembled that could classify the mutagenicity of the investigated dataset with a total classification error of 18%. Furthermore, mutagenicity predictions of an independent validation set of 535 compounds were performed with an error percentage of 15%. Since these error percentages approach the average interlaboratory reproducibility error of Ames tests, which is 15%, it was concluded that these toxicophores can be applied to risk assessment processes and can guide the design of chemical libraries for hit and lead optimization.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Building Predictive Models in R Using the caret Package
Kuhn, M. (2008) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v028.i05 · Cited by 8,863
Cross-validation pitfalls when selecting and assessing regression and classification models
Krstajic, D., Buturovic, L. J., Leahy, D. E., & Thomas, S. (2014) · Journal of Cheminformatics · doi:10.1186/1758-2946-6-10 · Cited by 1,090
DeepTox: toxicity prediction using deep learning
Mayr, A., Klambauer, G., Unterthiner, T., & Hochreiter, S. (2016) · Frontiers in Environmental Science · doi:10.3389/fenvs.2015.00080 · Cited by 1,081
Advancing drug discovery via artificial intelligence
Chan, H. C. S., Shan, H., Dahoun, T., Vogel, H., & Yuan, S. (2019) · Trends in Pharmacological Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tips.2019.06.004 · Cited by 654
Large-scale comparison of machine learning methods for drug target prediction on ChEMBL
Mayr, A., Klambauer, G., Unterthiner, T., Steijaert, M., Wegner, J. K., Ceulemans, H., Clevert, D.-A., & Hochreiter, S. (2018) · Chemical Science · doi:10.1039/c8sc00148k · Cited by 584
Metadata
- Authors
- Kazius, J., McGuire, R., & Bursi, R.
- Venue
- Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2004-12-17
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 312-320
- ISSN
- 0022-2623 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-4804
- OpenAlex
- W1977340881
- Cited by
- 666
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Derivation and Validation of Toxicophores for Mutagenicity Prediction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/jm040835a
- The paper
- Kazius, J., McGuire, R., & Bursi, R. (2005). Derivation and Validation of Toxicophores for Mutagenicity Prediction. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm040835a
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.