Cited by 70Carcinogens and Genotoxicity AssessmentComputational Drug Discovery MethodsMachine Learning in Materials Science

In silico prediction of chemical genotoxicity using machine learning methods and structural alerts

Open access
Fan, Defang, Yang, Hongbin, Li, Fuxing, Sun, Lixia, Di, Peiwen, Li, Weihua, Tang, Yun, Liu, Guixia·2018·Toxicology Research

Abstract

micronucleus assay, a genotoxicity test method, has been widely used to evaluate the presence and extent of chromosomal damage in human beings. Due to the high cost and laboriousness of experimental tests, computational approaches for predicting genotoxicity based on chemical structures and properties are recognized as an alternative. In this study, a dataset containing 641 diverse chemicals was collected and the molecules were represented by both fingerprints and molecular descriptors. Then classification models were constructed by six machine learning methods, including the support vector machine (SVM), naïve Bayes (NB), k-nearest neighbor (kNN), C4.5 decision tree (DT), random forest (RF) and artificial neural network (ANN). The performance of the models was estimated by five-fold cross-validation and an external validation set. The top ten models showed excellent performance for the external validation with accuracies ranging from 0.846 to 0.938, among which models Pubchem_SVM and MACCS_RF showed a more reliable predictive ability. The applicability domain was also defined to distinguish favorable predictions from unfavorable ones. Finally, ten structural fragments which can be used to assess the genotoxicity potential of a chemical were identified by using information gain and structural fragment frequency analysis. Our models might be helpful for the initial screening of potential genotoxic compounds.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1039/c7tx00259a

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 48 · Cited by 70

Authors
Fan, D., Yang, H., Li, F., Sun, L., Di, P., Li, W., Tang, Y., & Liu, G.
Affiliations
  • Shanghai Key Laboratory of New Drug Design
  • East China University of Science and Technology (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Tang, Yun
  • Liu, Guixia
Venue
Toxicology Research
Published
2018
Volume
7
Issue
2
Pages
211-220
ISSN
  • 2045-452X (ISSN-L)
  • 2045-4538
OpenAlex
W2773131117
Cited by
70
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3
FWCI
1.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Toxicology Research (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Natural Science Foundation of China (81273438, 81373329, 81673356)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Carcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Machine Learning in Materials Science
Keywords
micronucleus test, structural alerts, structural fragments, molecular fingerprints, molecular descriptors, machine learning classification, support vector machine, random forest, applicability domain, information gain, genotoxicity testing, chromosomal damage

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