25
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      CERAPP: Collaborative Estrogen Receptor Activity Prediction Project

      research-article
      1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 1 , 1 , 10 , 6 , 7 , 5 , 6 , 11 , 12 , 10 , 5 , 13 , 13 , 3 , 14 , 15 , 1 , 16 , 9 , 8 , 12 , 11 , 10 , 4 , 17 , 6 , 18 , 12 , 19 , 6 , 11 , 17 , 19 , 1 ,
      Environmental Health Perspectives
      National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          Humans are exposed to thousands of man-made chemicals in the environment. Some chemicals mimic natural endocrine hormones and, thus, have the potential to be endocrine disruptors. Most of these chemicals have never been tested for their ability to interact with the estrogen receptor (ER). Risk assessors need tools to prioritize chemicals for evaluation in costly in vivo tests, for instance, within the U.S. EPA Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program.

          Objectives:

          We describe a large-scale modeling project called CERAPP (Collaborative Estrogen Receptor Activity Prediction Project) and demonstrate the efficacy of using predictive computational models trained on high-throughput screening data to evaluate thousands of chemicals for ER-related activity and prioritize them for further testing.

          Methods:

          CERAPP combined multiple models developed in collaboration with 17 groups in the United States and Europe to predict ER activity of a common set of 32,464 chemical structures. Quantitative structure–activity relationship models and docking approaches were employed, mostly using a common training set of 1,677 chemical structures provided by the U.S. EPA, to build a total of 40 categorical and 8 continuous models for binding, agonist, and antagonist ER activity. All predictions were evaluated on a set of 7,522 chemicals curated from the literature. To overcome the limitations of single models, a consensus was built by weighting models on scores based on their evaluated accuracies.

          Results:

          Individual model scores ranged from 0.69 to 0.85, showing high prediction reliabilities. Out of the 32,464 chemicals, the consensus model predicted 4,001 chemicals (12.3%) as high priority actives and 6,742 potential actives (20.8%) to be considered for further testing.

          Conclusion:

          This project demonstrated the possibility to screen large libraries of chemicals using a consensus of different in silico approaches. This concept will be applied in future projects related to other end points.

          Citation:

          Mansouri K, Abdelaziz A, Rybacka A, Roncaglioni A, Tropsha A, Varnek A, Zakharov A, Worth A, Richard AM, Grulke CM, Trisciuzzi D, Fourches D, Horvath D, Benfenati E, Muratov E, Wedebye EB, Grisoni F, Mangiatordi GF, Incisivo GM, Hong H, Ng HW, Tetko IV, Balabin I, Kancherla J, Shen J, Burton J, Nicklaus M, Cassotti M, Nikolov NG, Nicolotti O, Andersson PL, Zang Q, Politi R, Beger RD, Todeschini R, Huang R, Farag S, Rosenberg SA, Slavov S, Hu X, Judson RS. 2016. CERAPP: Collaborative Estrogen Receptor Activity Prediction Project. Environ Health Perspect 124:1023–1033; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1510267

          Related collections

          Most cited references86

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Comparison of the ligand binding specificity and transcript tissue distribution of estrogen receptors alpha and beta.

          The rat estrogen receptor (ER) exists as two subtypes, ER alpha and ER beta, which differ in the C-terminal ligand binding domain and in the N-terminal transactivation domain. In this study we investigated the messenger RNA expression of both ER subtypes in rat tissues by RT-PCR and compared the ligand binding specificity of the ER subtypes. Saturation ligand binding analysis of in vitro synthesized human ER alpha and rat ER beta protein revealed a single binding component for 16 alpha-iodo-17 beta-estradiol with high affinity [dissociation constant (Kd) = 0.1 nM for ER alpha protein and 0.4 nM for ER beta protein]. Most estrogenic substances or estrogenic antagonists compete with 16 alpha-[125I]iodo-17 beta-estradiol for binding to both ER subtypes in a very similar preference and degree; that is, diethylstilbestrol > hexestrol > dienestrol > 4-OH-tamoxifen > 17 beta-estradiol > coumestrol, ICI-164384 > estrone, 17 alpha-estradiol > nafoxidine, moxestrol > clomifene > estriol, 4-OH-estradiol > tamoxifen, 2-OH-estradiol, 5-androstene-3 beta, 17 beta-diol, genistein for the ER alpha protein and dienestrol > 4-OH-tamoxifen > diethylstilbestrol > hexestrol > coumestrol, ICI-164384 > 17 beta-estradiol > estrone, genistein > estriol > nafoxidine, 5-androstene-3 beta, 17 beta-diol > 17 alpha-estradiol, clomifene, 2-OH-estradiol > 4-OH-estradiol, tamoxifen, moxestrol for the ER beta protein. The rat tissue distribution and/or the relative level of ER alpha and ER beta expression seems to be quite different, i.e. moderate to high expression in uterus, testis, pituitary, ovary, kidney, epididymis, and adrenal for ER alpha and prostate, ovary, lung, bladder, brain, uterus, and testis for ER beta. The described differences between the ER subtypes in relative ligand binding affinity and tissue distribution could contribute to the selective action of ER agonists and antagonists in different tissues.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Trust, but verify: on the importance of chemical structure curation in cheminformatics and QSAR modeling research.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Online chemical modeling environment (OCHEM): web platform for data storage, model development and publishing of chemical information

              The Online Chemical Modeling Environment is a web-based platform that aims to automate and simplify the typical steps required for QSAR modeling. The platform consists of two major subsystems: the database of experimental measurements and the modeling framework. A user-contributed database contains a set of tools for easy input, search and modification of thousands of records. The OCHEM database is based on the wiki principle and focuses primarily on the quality and verifiability of the data. The database is tightly integrated with the modeling framework, which supports all the steps required to create a predictive model: data search, calculation and selection of a vast variety of molecular descriptors, application of machine learning methods, validation, analysis of the model and assessment of the applicability domain. As compared to other similar systems, OCHEM is not intended to re-implement the existing tools or models but rather to invite the original authors to contribute their results, make them publicly available, share them with other users and to become members of the growing research community. Our intention is to make OCHEM a widely used platform to perform the QSPR/QSAR studies online and share it with other users on the Web. The ultimate goal of OCHEM is collecting all possible chemoinformatics tools within one simple, reliable and user-friendly resource. The OCHEM is free for web users and it is available online at http://www.ochem.eu.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Environ Health Perspect
                Environ. Health Perspect
                EHP
                Environmental Health Perspectives
                National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
                0091-6765
                1552-9924
                23 February 2016
                July 2016
                : 124
                : 7
                : 1023-1033
                Affiliations
                [1 ]National Center for Computational Toxicology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
                [2 ]Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA
                [3 ]Institute of Structural Biology, Helmholtz Zentrum Muenchen-German Research Center for Environmental Health (GmbH), Neuherberg, Germany
                [4 ]Chemistry Department, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
                [5 ]Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology Laboratory, IRCCS (Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico)-Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Milan, Italy
                [6 ]Laboratory for Molecular Modeling, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
                [7 ]Laboratoire de Chemoinformatique, University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France
                [8 ]National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Bethesda, Maryland, USA
                [9 ]Institute for Health and Consumer Protection (IHCP), Joint Research Centre of the European Commission in Ispra, Ispra, Italy
                [10 ]Department of Pharmacy-Drug Sciences, University of Bari, Bari, Italy
                [11 ]Division of Toxicology and Risk Assessment, National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark
                [12 ]Milano Chemometrics and QSAR Research Group, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
                [13 ]Division of Bioinformatics and Biostatistics, National Center for Toxicological Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (USDA), Jefferson, Arizona, USA
                [14 ]BigChem GmbH, Neuherberg, Germany
                [15 ]High Performance Computing, Lockheed Martin, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
                [16 ]Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc., Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey, USA
                [17 ]Integrated Laboratory Systems, Inc., Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
                [18 ]Division of Systems Biology, National Center for Toxicological Research, USDA, Jefferson, Arizona, USA
                [19 ]National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, NIH, DHHS, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
                Author notes
                []Address correspondence to R.S. Judson, U.S. EPA, National Center for Computational Toxicology, 109 T.W. Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 USA. Telephone: (919) 541-3085. E-mail: judson.richard@ 123456epa.gov
                Article
                ehp.1510267
                10.1289/ehp.1510267
                4937869
                26908244
                35b1c0bb-5aad-455f-b840-b38f4d871841

                Publication of EHP lies in the public domain and is therefore without copyright. All text from EHP may be reprinted freely. Use of materials published in EHP should be acknowledged (for example, “Reproduced with permission from Environmental Health Perspectives”); pertinent reference information should be provided for the article from which the material was reproduced. Articles from EHP, especially the News section, may contain photographs or illustrations copyrighted by other commercial organizations or individuals that may not be used without obtaining prior approval from the holder of the copyright.

                History
                : 27 May 2015
                : 05 October 2015
                : 08 February 2016
                : 23 February 2016
                Categories
                Research

                Public health
                Public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article