Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34017929›Full record

ArticleComputational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2021

Evaluation of Quantitative Structure Property Relationship Algorithms for Predicting Plasma Protein Binding in Humans.

Yejin Esther Yun, Rogelio Tornero-Velez, S Thomas Purucker, Daniel T Chang, Andrea N Edginton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Computational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Machine learning and artificial intelligence in physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Exposure forecasting - ExpoCast - for data-poor chemicals in commerce and the environment.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2022
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. High-throughput PBTK models forExpert opinion on drug metabolism & toxicology · 2021
    Review
  12. 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.

Yejin Esther YunSchool of Pharmacy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Rogelio Tornero-VelezCenter for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
S Thomas PuruckerCenter for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Daniel T ChangCenter for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Andrea N EdgintonSchool of Pharmacy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The extent of plasma protein binding is an important compound-specific property that influences a compound's pharmacokinetic behavior and is a critical input parameter for predicting exposure in physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling. When experimentally determined fraction unbound in plasma (fup) data are not available, quantitative structure-property relationship (QSPR) models can be used for prediction. Because available QSPR models were developed based on training sets containing pharmaceutical-like compounds, we compared their prediction accuracy for environmentally relevant and pharmaceutical compounds. Fup values were calculated using Ingle et al., Watanabe et al. and ADMET Predictor (Simulation Plus). The test set included 818 pharmaceutical and environmentally relevant compounds with fup values ranging from 0.01 to 1. Overall, the three QSPR models resulted in over-prediction of fup for highly binding compounds and under-prediction for low or moderately binding compounds. For highly binding compounds (0.01≤ fup ≤ 0.25), Watanabe et al. performed better with a lower mean absolute error (MAE) of 6.7% and a lower mean absolute relative prediction error (RPE) of 171.7 % than other methods. For low to moderately binding compounds, both Ingle et al. and ADMET Predictor performed better than Watanabe et al. with superior MAE and RPE values. The positive polar surface area, the number of basic functional groups and lipophilicity were the most important chemical descriptors for predicting fup. This study demonstrated that the prediction of fup was the most uncertain for highly binding compounds. This suggested that QSPR-predicted fup values should be used with caution in PBPK modeling.

Indexed as

environmentally relevant chemicalshuman health risk assessmentPlasma protein bindingquantitative structure-property relationship (QSPR) models

Identifiers

PMID34017929
PMCPMC8128700

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.