Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22918548›Full record

ArticleJournal of computer-aided molecular design2012

Integrated in silico approaches for the prediction of Ames test mutagenicity.

Sandeep Modi, Jin Li, Sophie Malcomber, Claire Moore, Andrew Scott, Andrew White, Paul Carmichael

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of computer-aided molecular design, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Sandeep ModiSafety & Environmental Assurance Centre, Unilever, Colworth Science Park, Sharnbrook, Bedford, MK44 1LQ, UK. sandeep.modi@unilever.com
Jin Li
Sophie Malcomber
Claire Moore
Andrew Scott
Andrew White
Paul Carmichael

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The bacterial reverse mutation assay (Ames test) is a biological assay used to assess the mutagenic potential of chemical compounds. In this paper approaches for the development of an in silico mutagenicity screening tool are described. Three individual in silico models, which cover both structure activity relationship methods (SARs) and quantitative structure activity relationship methods (QSARs), were built using three different modelling techniques: (1) an in-house alert model: which uses SAR approach where alerts are generated based on experts judgements; (2) a kNN approach (k-Nearest Neighbours), which is a QSAR model where a prediction is given based on outcomes of its k chemical neighbours; (3) a naive Bayesian model (NB), which is another QSAR model, where a prediction is derived using a Bayesian formula through preselected identified informative chemical features (e.g., physico-chemical, structural descriptors). These in silico models, were compared against two well-known alert models (DEREK and ToxTree) and also against three different consensus approaches (Categorical Bayesian Integration Approach (CBI), Partial Least Squares Discriminate Analysis (PLS-DA) and simple majority vote approach). By applying these integration methods on the validation sets it was shown that both integration models (PLS-DA and CBI) achieved better performance than any of the individual models or consensus obtained by simple majority rule. In conclusion, the recommendation of this paper is that when obtaining consensus predictions for Ames mutagenicity, approaches like PLS-DA or CBI should be the first choice for the integration as compared to a simple majority vote approach.

Indexed as

Mutagenicity TestsBayes TheoremComputer SimulationDiscriminant AnalysisStructure-Activity Relationship

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.