Cited by 119Computational Drug Discovery MethodsAnimal testing and alternativesEnvironmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology

Use of in Vitro HTS-Derived Concentration–Response Data as Biological Descriptors Improves the Accuracy of QSAR Models of in Vivo Toxicity

Open access
Sedykh, Alexander, Zhu, Hao, Tang, Hao, Zhang, Liying, Richard, Ann, Rusyn, Ivan, Tropsha, Alexander·2011·Environmental Health Perspectives

Abstract

Background: Quantitative high-throughput screening (qHTS) assays are increasingly being used to inform chemical hazard identification. Hundreds of chemicals have been tested in dozens of cell lines across extensive concentration ranges by the National Toxicology Program in collaboration with the National Institutes of Health Chemical Genomics Center. Objectives: Our goal was to test a hypothesis that dose–response data points of the qHTS assays can serve as biological descriptors of assayed chemicals and, when combined with conventional chemical descriptors, improve the accuracy of quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) models applied to prediction of in vivo toxicity end points. Methods: We obtained cell viability qHTS concentration–response data for 1,408 substances assayed in 13 cell lines from PubChem; for a subset of these compounds, rodent acute toxicity half-maximal lethal dose (LD50) data were also available. We used the k nearest neighbor classification and random forest QSAR methods to model LD50 data using chemical descriptors either alone (conventional models) or combined with biological descriptors derived from the concentration–response qHTS data (hybrid models). Critical to our approach was the use of a novel noise-filtering algorithm to treat qHTS data. Results: Both the external classification accuracy and coverage (i.e., fraction of compounds in the external set that fall within the applicability domain) of the hybrid QSAR models were superior to conventional models. Conclusions: Concentration–response qHTS data may serve as informative biological descriptors of molecules that, when combined with conventional chemical descriptors, may considerably improve the accuracy and utility of computational approaches for predicting in vivo animal toxicity end points.

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 · 10.1289/ehp.1002476

Cites

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

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?

  • Sedykh et al. described and implemented a workflow for using HTS data in combination with molecular descriptors to predict in vivo toxicity.

    “In another such study, Sedykh et al.127 described and implemented a workflow for using HTS data in combination with molecular descriptors to predict in vivo toxicity.”

    From QSAR without borders (2020) · cites this paper as [127]

Self-check

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

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sedykh, A., Zhu, H., Tang, H., Zhang, L., Richard, A., Rusyn, I., & Tropsha, A.
Affiliations
  • Environmental Protection Agency (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Tropsha, Alexander
Venue
Environmental Health Perspectives
Published
2010-10-27
Volume
119
Issue
3
Pages
364-370
ISSN
  • 0091-6765 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-9924
OpenAlex
W2067943075
Cited by
119
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 11
FWCI
7.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environmental Health Perspectives (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
  • Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • National Institutes of Health (ES005948)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM066940, GM076059, R01GM066940, R21GM076059)
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (R01ES015241, P42ES005948, ES005948, P30ES010126)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Environmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
Keywords
quantitative high-throughput screening, QSAR models, acute toxicity, LD50, cell viability assay, noise reduction, chemical hazard identification, applicability domain, chemical genomics
MeSH terms
Animals, Cell Line, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Humans, Models, Chemical, Hazardous Substances, Toxicity Tests, Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship, Rats, High-Throughput Screening Assays

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