In silico prediction of chemical genotoxicity using machine learning methods and structural alerts
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
SVM performs the best among many machine learning models, including SVM, RF, k-nearest neighbor (k-NN), and naive Bayes.
“SVM performs the best among many machine learning models, including SVM, RF, k-nearest neighbor (k-NN), and naive Bayes [83].”
From Machine Learning Based Toxicity Prediction: From Chemical Structural Description to Transcriptome Analysis (2018) · cites this paper as [83]
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
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2018
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 211-220
- ISSN
- 2045-452X (ISSN-L)
- 2045-4538
- PMC
- PMC6062245
- 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
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- 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