Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34153183›Full record

ArticleJournal of chemical information and modeling2021

ChemBioSim: Enhancing Conformal Prediction of In Vivo Toxicity by Use of Predicted Bioactivities.

Marina Garcia de Lomana, Andrea Morger, Ulf Norinder, Roland Buesen, Robert Landsiedel, Andrea Volkamer, Johannes Kirchmair, Miriam Mathea

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of chemical information and modeling, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Advancing Toxicity Predictions: A Review onEnvironment & health (Washington, D.C.) · 2024
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

8 authors.

Marina Garcia de LomanaBASF SE, Ludwigshafen am Rhein 67063, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9310-7290
Andrea MorgerIn Silico Toxicology and Structural Bioinformatics, Institute of Physiology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, Berlin 10117, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4774-6291
Ulf NorinderMTM Research Centre, School of Science and Technology, Örebro University, Örebro SE-70182, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-3107-331X
Roland BuesenBASF SE, Ludwigshafen am Rhein 67063, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6531-1200
Robert LandsiedelBASF SE, Ludwigshafen am Rhein 67063, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3756-1904
Andrea VolkamerIn Silico Toxicology and Structural Bioinformatics, Institute of Physiology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, Berlin 10117, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3760-580X
Johannes KirchmairDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Vienna, Vienna 1090, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-2667-5877
Miriam MatheaBASF SE, Ludwigshafen am Rhein 67063, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3214-1487

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computational methods such as machine learning approaches have a strong track record of success in predicting the outcomes of in vitro assays. In contrast, their ability to predict in vivo endpoints is more limited due to the high number of parameters and processes that may influence the outcome. Recent studies have shown that the combination of chemical and biological data can yield better models for in vivo endpoints. The ChemBioSim approach presented in this work aims to enhance the performance of conformal prediction models for in vivo endpoints by combining chemical information with (predicted) bioactivity assay outcomes. Three in vivo toxicological endpoints, capturing genotoxic (MNT), hepatic (DILI), and cardiological (DICC) issues, were selected for this study due to their high relevance for the registration and authorization of new compounds. Since the sparsity of available biological assay data is challenging for predictive modeling, predicted bioactivity descriptors were introduced instead. Thus, a machine learning model for each of the 373 collected biological assays was trained and applied on the compounds of the in vivo toxicity data sets. Besides the chemical descriptors (molecular fingerprints and physicochemical properties), these predicted bioactivities served as descriptors for the models of the three in vivo endpoints. For this study, a workflow based on a conformal prediction framework (a method for confidence estimation) built on random forest models was developed. Furthermore, the most relevant chemical and bioactivity descriptors for each in vivo endpoint were preselected with lasso models. The incorporation of bioactivity descriptors increased the mean F1 scores of the MNT model from 0.61 to 0.70 and for the DICC model from 0.72 to 0.82 while the mean efficiencies increased by roughly 0.10 for both endpoints. In contrast, for the DILI endpoint, no significant improvement in model performance was observed. Besides pure performance improvements, an analysis of the most important bioactivity features allowed detection of novel and less intuitive relationships between the predicted biological assay outcomes used as descriptors and the in vivo endpoints. This study presents how the prediction of in vivo toxicity endpoints can be improved by the incorporation of biological information-which is not necessarily captured by chemical descriptors-in an automated workflow without the need for adding experimental workload for the generation of bioactivity descriptors as predicted outcomes of bioactivity assays were utilized. All bioactivity CP models for deriving the predicted bioactivities, as well as the in vivo toxicity CP models, can be freely downloaded from https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4761225.

Indexed as

LiverMachine LearningBiological AssayMolecular Conformation

Identifiers

PMID34153183
PMCPMC8317154

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.