PreprintCited by 82Computational Drug Discovery MethodsEnvironmental Toxicology and EcotoxicologyMachine Learning in Materials Science

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Transformers enable accurate prediction of acute and chronic chemical toxicity in aquatic organisms

Open access

Preprint — published as 10.1126/sciadv.adk6669 · Paper page

Abstract

Environmental safety assessments, as mandated by many regulations, require that toxicity data is generated for up to three trophic levels, algae, aquatic invertebrates, and fish. Conducting these tests in vivo is resource-intensive, time-consuming, and causes undue suffering. Computational methods are fast and cost-efficient alternatives, however, their adaptation in regulatory settings has been slow, both due to low accuracy and narrow applicability domains. Here we present a new method for predicting chemical toxicity based on molecular structure. The method is based on a transformer, capturing structural features associated with toxicity, followed by a deep neural network that predicts the corresponding effect concentrations. After training on data from tens of thousands of exposure experiments, the model shows high predictive performance for each of the three trophic levels. Compared to commonly used QSAR methods, the model has both a larger applicability domain and a considerably lower error. In addition, training the model on data that combines multiple types of effect concentrations further improves the performance. We conclude that transformer-based models have the potential to significantly advance computational predictions of chemical toxicity and make in silico approaches a more attractive alternative when compared to animal-based exposure experiments.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/2023.04.17.537138

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. 2016, Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the USA: a population-based disease burden and cost analysis, Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol, 4, 996, 10.1016/S2213-8587(16)30275-3 · DOI
  2. 2013, VEGA-QSAR: AI inside a platform for predictive toxicology. Proceedings of the workshop “Popularize Artificial Intelligence 2013”, CEUR Workshop Proc, 1107, 21
  3. 2019, Industrial chemical regulation in the European Union and the United States: a comparison of REACH and the amended TSCA, J. Risk Res, 22, 1187, 10.1080/13669877.2018.1454495 · DOI
  4. 10.1021/jm4004285 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 2021, Predictive modeling of estrogen receptor agonism, antagonism, and binding activities using machine- and deep-learning approaches, Lab. Investig, 101, 490, 10.1038/s41374-020-00477-2 · DOI
  6. 10.1016/j.envint.2015.02.001 · DOI · Paper page
  7. ECHA, 2008. Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment. Chapter R.10: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for environment.
  8. 10.1002/jcc.24764 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 2022, Artificial Intelligence-Based Toxicity Prediction of Environmental Chemicals: Future Directions for Chemical Management Applications, Environ. Sci. Technol, 56, 7532, 10.1021/acs.est.1c07413 · DOI
  10. 10.1038/nature14539 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1073/pnas.1816039116 · DOI
  12. 10.1073/pnas.1321082111 · DOI
  13. Mayr, A. , Klambauer, G. , Unterthiner, T. , Hochreiter, S. , 2016. DeepTox: Toxicity prediction using deep learning. Front. Environ. Sci. 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2015.00080 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 2020, QSAR without borders, Chem. Soc. Rev, 49, 3525, 10.1039/D0CS00098A · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1038/nature02317 · DOI
  16. 1987, Acute bioassays and hazard evaluation of representative contaminants detected in great lakes fish, Environ. Toxicol. Chem, 6, 901, 10.1002/etc.5620061111 · DOI
  17. 10.1021/acs.est.1c04158 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 2019, Mixtures of chemicals are important drivers of impacts on ecological status in European surface waters, Environ. Sci. Eur, 31, 71, 10.1186/s12302-019-0247-4 · DOI
  19. 10.1038/461472a · DOI · Paper page
  20. 2020, Bees and pesticide regulation: Lessons from the neonicotinoid experience, Biol. Conserv, 241, 108356, 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108356 · DOI
  21. 2019, Ensemble QSAR Modeling to Predict Multispecies Fish Toxicity Lethal Concentrations and Points of Departure, Environ. Sci. Technol, 53, 12793, 10.1021/acs.est.9b03957 · DOI
  22. 2019, Comparative Study of Multitask Toxicity Modeling on a Broad Chemical Space, J. Chem. Inf. Model, 59, 1062, 10.1021/acs.jcim.8b00685 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 0402, Removing the threat of diclofenac to critically endangered Asian vultures, PLoS Biol, 4, 0395
  24. 10.1210/jc.2014-4324 · DOI
  25. 2020, Screening-Level Estimates of Environmental Release Rates, Predicted Exposures, and Toxic Pressures of Currently Used Chemicals, Environ. Toxicol. Chem, 39, 1839, 10.1002/etc.4801 · DOI
  26. 2022, Safe and sustainable by design: A computer-based approach to redesign chemicals for reduced environmental hazards, Chemosphere, 296, 134050, 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.134050 · DOI
  27. 2021, Towards ‘one substance – one assessment’: An analysis of EU chemical registration and aquatic risk assessment frameworks, J. Environ. Manage, 280, 111692, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111692 · DOI
  28. Vaswani, A. , Shazeer, N. , Parmar, N. , Uszkoreit, J. , Jones, L. , Gomez, A.N. , Kaiser, L. , Polosukhin, I. , 2017. Attention Is All You Need. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 2017-Decem, 5999–6009.
  29. 2020, Toward a Global Understanding of Chemical Pollution: A First Comprehensive Analysis of National and Regional Chemical Inventories, Environ. Sci. Technol, 54, 5
  30. 2016, The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship, Sci. Data, 3, 160018, 10.1038/sdata.2016.18 · DOI · Paper page

Metadata

Authors
Gustavsson, M., Käll, S., Svedberg, P., Inda-Diaz, J. S., Molander, S., Coria, J., Backhaus, T., & Kristiansson, E.
Affiliations
  • University of Gothenburg (SE)
  • Chalmers University of Technology (SE)
Corresponding author
Kristiansson, Erik
Venue
Science Advances
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2023-04-18
Volume
10
Issue
10
Pages
eadk6669-eadk6669
ISSN
2375-2548 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4392529738
Cited by
82
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 38 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 9
FWCI
17.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Science Advances (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Chalmers Research (Chalmers University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Vetenskapsrådet
  • Göteborgs Universitet
  • Framsenteret
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Drug Discovery › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Environmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Machine Learning in Materials Science
Keywords
chemical toxicity prediction, transformer models, deep neural network, aquatic organisms, acute toxicity, chronic toxicity, effect concentrations, applicability domain, algae, aquatic invertebrates, fish, environmental hazard assessment
MeSH terms
Animals, Electric Power Supplies, Neural Networks, Computer, Aquatic Organisms

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