Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29762898›Full record

ReviewPest management science2018

Predicting mammalian metabolism and toxicity of pesticides in silico.

Robert D Clark

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pest management science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Identification of Potential Insect Growth Inhibitor againstInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Robert D ClarkSimulations Plus, Inc., Lancaster, CA, 93534, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9509-8132
Simulations Plus (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pesticides must be effective to be commercially viable but they must also be reasonably safe for those who manufacture them, apply them, or consume the food they are used to produce. Animal testing is key to ensuring safety, but it comes late in the agrochemical development process, is expensive, and requires relatively large amounts of material. Surrogate assays used as in vitro models require less material and shift identification of potential mammalian toxicity back to earlier stages in development. Modern in silico methods are cost-effective complements to such in vitro models that make it possible to predict mammalian metabolism, toxicity and exposure for a pesticide, crop residue or other metabolite before it has been synthesized. Their broader use could substantially reduce the amount of time and effort wasted in pesticide development. This contribution reviews the kind of in silico models that are currently available for vetting ideas about what to synthesize and how to focus development efforts; the limitations of those models; and the practical considerations that have slowed development in the area. Detailed discussions are provided of how bacterial mutagenicity, human cytochrome P450 (CYP) metabolism, and bioavailability in humans and rats can be predicted. © 2018 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.

Indexed as

absorptionabsorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion (ADME)bioavailabilitycytochrome P450 (CYP)mammalian toxicitymetabolismmodelingquantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR)

Identifiers

PMID29762898
PMCPMC6099302
OpenAlexW2804877942

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.