Cited by 377Computational Drug Discovery MethodsEffects and risks of endocrine disrupting chemicalsEstrogen and related hormone effects

CERAPP: Collaborative Estrogen Receptor Activity Prediction Project

Open access
Mansouri, Kamel, Abdelaziz, Ahmed, Rybacka, Aleksandra, Roncaglioni, Alessandra, Tropsha, Alexander, Varnek, Alexandre, Zakharov, Alexey, Worth, Andrew +33 more·2016·Environmental Health Perspectives

Abstract

Background: Humans are exposed to thousands of man-made chemicals in the environment. Some chemicals mimic natural endocrine hormones and, thus, have the potential to be endocrine disruptors. Most of these chemicals have never been tested for their ability to interact with the estrogen receptor (ER). Risk assessors need tools to prioritize chemicals for evaluation in costly in vivo tests, for instance, within the U.S. EPA Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. Objectives: We describe a large-scale modeling project called CERAPP (Collaborative Estrogen Receptor Activity Prediction Project) and demonstrate the efficacy of using predictive computational models trained on high-throughput screening data to evaluate thousands of chemicals for ER-related activity and prioritize them for further testing. Methods: CERAPP combined multiple models developed in collaboration with 17 groups in the United States and Europe to predict ER activity of a common set of 32,464 chemical structures. Quantitative structure–activity relationship models and docking approaches were employed, mostly using a common training set of 1,677 chemical structures provided by the U.S. EPA, to build a total of 40 categorical and 8 continuous models for binding, agonist, and antagonist ER activity. All predictions were evaluated on a set of 7,522 chemicals curated from the literature. To overcome the limitations of single models, a consensus was built by weighting models on scores based on their evaluated accuracies. Results: Individual model scores ranged from 0.69 to 0.85, showing high prediction reliabilities. Out of the 32,464 chemicals, the consensus model predicted 4,001 chemicals (12.3%) as high priority actives and 6,742 potential actives (20.8%) to be considered for further testing. Conclusion: This project demonstrated the possibility to screen large libraries of chemicals using a consensus of different in silico approaches. This concept will be applied in future projects related to other end points. Citation: Mansouri K, Abdelaziz A, Rybacka A, Roncaglioni A, Tropsha A, Varnek A, Zakharov A, Worth A, Richard AM, Grulke CM, Trisciuzzi D, Fourches D, Horvath D, Benfenati E, Muratov E, Wedebye EB, Grisoni F, Mangiatordi GF, Incisivo GM, Hong H, Ng HW, Tetko IV, Balabin I, Kancherla J, Shen J, Burton J, Nicklaus M, Cassotti M, Nikolov NG, Nicolotti O, Andersson PL, Zang Q, Politi R, Beger RD, Todeschini R, Huang R, Farag S, Rosenberg SA, Slavov S, Hu X, Judson RS. 2016. CERAPP: Collaborative Estrogen Receptor Activity Prediction Project. Environ Health Perspect 124:1023–1033; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1510267

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.1510267

Cites

85 of 85 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Consensus QSAR models from CERAPP and CoMPARA predicted ER and AR potentials of 32,464 new chemicals.

    “The resulting consensus QSAR models leveraged knowledge from the groups and were used to predict ER and AR potentials of 32,464 new chemicals.”

    From QSAR without borders (2020) · cites this paper as [89]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mansouri, K., Abdelaziz, A., Rybacka, A., Roncaglioni, A., Tropsha, A., Varnek, A., Zakharov, A., Worth, A., Richard, A. M., Grulke, C. M., Trisciuzzi, D., Fourches, D., Horvath, D., Benfenati, E., Muratov, E., Wedebye, E. B., Grisoni, F., Mangiatordi, G. F., Incisivo, G. M., Hong, H., Ng, H. W., Tetko, I. V., Balabin, I., Kancherla, J., Shen, J., Burton, J., Nicklaus, M., Cassotti, M., Nikolov, N. G., Nicolotti, O., Andersson, P. L., Zang, Q., Politi, R., Beger, R. D., Todeschini, R., Huang, R., Farag, S., Rosenberg, S. A., Slavov, S., Hu, X., & Judson, R. S.
Affiliations
  • Environmental Protection Agency (US)
  • Helmholtz Munich (DE)
  • Umeå University (SE)
  • Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research (IT)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Université de Strasbourg (FR)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • European Commission (BE)
  • National Center for Computational Toxicology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
  • University of Bari Aldo Moro (IT)
  • Technical University of Denmark (DK)
  • University of Milano-Bicocca (IT)
  • National Center for Toxicological Research (US)
  • Lockheed Martin (United States) (US)
  • Research Institute for Fragrance Materials (US)
  • Integrated Laboratory Systems, Inc. (US)
Corresponding author
Judson, Richard S.
Venue
Environmental Health Perspectives
Published
2016-02-23
Volume
124
Issue
7
Pages
1023-1033
ISSN
  • 0091-6765 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-9924
OpenAlex
W2394108223
Cited by
375
References
85
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 27
FWCI
38.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environmental Health Perspectives (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PuSH - Publication Server of Helmholtz Zentrum München (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • BOA (University of Milano-Bicocca) (submittedVersion)
  • Site cant be reached (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Joint Research Centre (European Commission) (submittedVersion)
  • Technical University of Denmark, DTU Orbit (Technical University of Denmark, DTU) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • CINECA IRIS Institutional Research Information System (University of Bari Aldo Moro) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32GM067553)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Effects and risks of endocrine disrupting chemicals
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Estrogen and related hormone effects
Keywords
endocrine disruptors, estrogen receptor, QSAR, molecular docking, consensus model, chemical prioritization, high-throughput screening, chemical risk assessment
MeSH terms
Computer Simulation, Receptors, Estrogen, United States, Toxicity Tests, Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship, Endocrine Disruptors, Environmental Policy

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