Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28319747›Full record

ArticleChemosphere2017

Integration of in silico methods and computational systems biology to explore endocrine-disrupting chemical binding with nuclear hormone receptors.

P Ruiz, A Sack, M Wampole, S Bobst, M Vracko

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Chemosphere, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Computer-Aided Ligand Discovery for Estrogen Receptor Alpha.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020
    Review
  4. Article
  5. In silico prediction of toxicity and its applications for chemicals at work.Toxicology and environmental health sciences · 2020
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. In Silico Prediction for Intestinal Absorption and Brain Penetration of Chemical Pesticides in Humans.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2017
    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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

P RuizComputational Toxicology and Methods Development Laboratory, Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, GA, USA. Electronic address: pruiz@cdc.gov.
A SackComputational Toxicology and Methods Development Laboratory, Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, GA, USA.
M WampoleThomson Reuters, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
S BobstToxSci Advisors, Houston, TX, USA.
M VrackoKemijski Inštitut/National Institute of Chemistry, Hajdrihova 19, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry · USNational Institute of Chemistry · SIThomson Reuters (United States) · US

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Thousands of potential endocrine-disrupting chemicals present difficult regulatory challenges. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals can interfere with several nuclear hormone receptors associated with a variety of adverse health effects. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has released its reviews of Tier 1 screening assay results for a set of pesticides in the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP), and recently, the Collaborative Estrogen Receptor Activity Prediction Project (CERAPP) data. In this study, the predictive ability of QSAR and docking approaches is evaluated using these data sets. This study also presents a computational systems biology approach using carbaryl (1-naphthyl methylcarbamate) as a case study. For estrogen receptor and androgen receptor binding predictions, two commercial and two open source QSAR tools were used, as was the publicly available docking tool Endocrine Disruptome. For estrogen receptor binding predictions, the ADMET Predictor, VEGA, and OCHEM models (specificity: 0.88, 0.88, and 0.86, and accuracy: 0.81, 0.84, and 0.88, respectively) were each more reliable than the MetaDrug™ model (specificity 0.81 and accuracy 0.77). For androgen receptor binding predictions, the Endocrine Disruptome and ADMET Predictor models (specificity: 0.94 and 0.8, and accuracy: 0.78 and 0.71, respectively) were more reliable than the MetaDrug™ model (specificity 0.33 and accuracy 0.4). A consensus approach is proposed that reaches general agreement among the models (specificity 0.94 and accuracy 0.89). This study integrates QSAR, docking, and systems biology approaches as a virtual screening tool for use in risk assessment. As such, this systems biology pathways and network analysis approach provides a means to more critically assess the potential effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationEndocrine DisruptorsEndocrine SystemHumansProtein BindingReceptors, AndrogenReceptors, EstrogenSystems BiologyEndocrine DisruptorsReceptors, AndrogenReceptors, EstrogenAndrogen receptorDevelopmental toxicityEstrogen receptorIn silico metabolismPesticidesQSARSystems biology

Identifiers

PMID28319747
PMCPMC8265162
OpenAlexW2593715503

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.