Abstract
The evaluation of developmental and reproductive toxicity of food contact materials (FCMs) is an important task for food safety. Since traditional experiments are both time-consuming and labor-intensive, only a small number of FCMs have sufficient toxicological data for evaluating their effects on human health. While computational methods such as structural alerts and quantitative structure–activity relationships can serve as first-line tools for the identification of chemicals of high toxicity concern, models with binary outputs and unsatisfied accuracy and coverage prevent the use of computational methods for prioritizing chemicals of high concern. This study proposed a genetic algorithm-based method to develop a weight-of-evidence (WoE) model leveraging complementary methods of structural alerts, quantitative structure–activity relationships and in silico toxicogenomics models for chemical prioritization. The WoE model was applied to evaluate 623 food contact chemicals and identify 26 chemicals of high toxicity concern, where 13 chemicals have been reported to be developmental or reproductive toxic and further experiments are suggested for the remaining 13 chemicals without toxicity data related to developmental and reproductive effects. The proposed WoE model is potentially useful for prioritizing chemicals of high toxicity concern and the methodology may be applied to toxicities other than developmental and reproductive toxicity.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
ANSES (2017) Annex XV Report. Proposal for identification of a substance of very high concern on the basis of the criteria set out in REACH article 57. Substance name(s): 4,4’-isopropylidenediphenol (Bisphenol a) EC Number: 201–245–8. CAS Number: 80–05–7. Submitted by: France. Date: 02/03/2017. https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/93bf4be3-9af6-d7ca-8b07-4e8fb42bad11
Arena VC, Sussman NB, Mazumdar S et al (2004) The utility of structure-activity relationship (SAR) models for prediction and covariate selection in developmental toxicity: comparative analysis of logistic regression and decision tree models. SAR QSAR Environ Res 15:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062936032000169633
Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA et al (2000) Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. The gene ontology consortium. Nat Genet 25:25–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/75556
Benfenati E, Lombardo A, Roncaglioni A (2018) Computational toxicology and reach. In: Sean E (ed) Computational toxicology: risk assessment for chemicals. Wiley, New Jersey, US, pp 245–268. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119282594.ch9
Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Ser B Methodol 57:289–300
Bossa C, Benigni R, Tcheremenskaia O, Battistelli CL (2018) (Q)SAR methods for predicting genotoxicity and carcinogenicity: scientific rationale and regulatory frameworks. Methods Mol Biol Clifton NJ 1800:447–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-7899-1_20
Buchan DWA, Jones DT (2018) Improved protein contact predictions with the MetaPSICOV2 server in CASP12. Proteins 86(Suppl 1):78–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.25379
Cassano A, Manganaro A, Martin T et al (2010) CAESAR models for developmental toxicity. Chem Cent J 4(Suppl 1):S4. https://doi.org/10.1186/1752-153X-4-S1-S4
Chakravarti SK, Saiakhov RD, Klopman G (2012) Optimizing predictive performance of CASE Ultra expert system models using the applicability domains of individual toxicity alerts. J Chem Inf Model 52:2609–2618. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci300111r
Contrera JF (2013) Validation of Toxtree and SciQSAR in silico predictive software using a publicly available benchmark mutagenicity database and their applicability for the qualification of impurities in pharmaceuticals. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol RTP 67:285–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2013.08.008
Davis AP, Grondin CJ, Johnson RJ et al (2019) The comparative toxicogenomics database: update 2019. Nucleic Acids Res 47:D948–D954. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gky868
Davis AP, Wiegers TC, King BL et al (2016) Generating gene ontology-disease inferences to explore mechanisms of human disease at the comparative toxicogenomics database. PLoS ONE 11:e0155530. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155530
Fabregat A, Jupe S, Matthews L et al (2018) The reactome pathway knowledgebase. Nucleic Acids Res 46:D649–D655. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkx1132
Geueke B, Wagner CC, Muncke J (2014) Food contact substances and chemicals of concern: a comparison of inventories. Food Addit Contam Part Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess 31:1438–1450. https://doi.org/10.1080/19440049.2014.931600
Grob K, Biedermann M, Scherbaum E et al (2006) Food contamination with organic materials in perspective: packaging materials as the largest and least controlled source? A view focusing on the European situation. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 46:529–535. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408390500295490
Huang S-H, Tung C-W (2017) Identification of consensus biomarkers for predicting non-genotoxic hepatocarcinogens. Sci Rep 7:41176. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep41176
Jewison T, Su Y, Disfany FM et al (2014) SMPDB 2.0: big improvements to the small molecule pathway database. Nucleic Acids Res 42:D478–484. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt1067
Kanehisa M, Goto S, Sato Y et al (2014) Data, information, knowledge and principle: back to metabolism in KEGG. Nucleic Acids Res 42:D199–205. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt1076
Lin Y-C, Wang C-C, Tung C-W (2014) An in silico toxicogenomics approach for inferring potential diseases associated with maleic acid. Chem Biol Interact 223:38–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbi.2014.09.004
Magnuson B, Munro I, Abbot P et al (2013) Review of the regulation and safety assessment of food substances in various countries and jurisdictions. Food Addit Contam Part Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess 30:1147–1220. https://doi.org/10.1080/19440049.2013.795293
Mertens B, Van Hoeck E, Blaude M-N et al (2016) Evaluation of the potential health risks of substances migrating from polycarbonate replacement baby bottles. Food Chem Toxicol Int J Publ Br Ind Biol Res Assoc 97:108–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2016.08.019
Muncke J (2009) Exposure to endocrine disrupting compounds via the food chain: is packaging a relevant source? Sci Total Environ 407:4549–4559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.05.006
Myatt GJ, Ahlberg E, Akahori Y et al (2018) In silico toxicology protocols. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol RTP 96:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2018.04.014
Neltner TG, Alger HM, Leonard JE, Maffini MV (2013) Data gaps in toxicity testing of chemicals allowed in food in the US. Reprod Toxicol Elmsford N 42:85–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reprotox.2013.07.023
Roberts G, Myatt GJ, Johnson WP et al (2000) LeadScope: software for exploring large sets of screening data. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 40:1302–1314
Schriml LM, Mitraka E, Munro J et al (2019) Human Disease Ontology 2018 update: classification, content and workflow expansion. Nucleic Acids Res 47:D955–D962. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gky1032
Schultz TW, Diderich R, Kuseva CD, Mekenyan OG (2018) The OECD QSAR Toolbox starts its second decade. In: Nicolotti O (ed) Computational toxicology: methods and protocols. Springer, New York, pp 55–77
Scrucca L (2013) GA: a package for genetic algorithms in R. J Stat Softw 53:1–37
Scrucca L (2017) On some extensions to ga package: hybrid optimisation, parallelisation and islands evolutionon some extensions to ga package: hybrid optimisation, parallelisation and islands evolution. R J 9:187–206
Sushko I, Salmina E, Potemkin VA et al (2012) ToxAlerts: a Web server of structural alerts for toxic chemicals and compounds with potential adverse reactions. J Chem Inf Model 52:2310–2316. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci300245q
Szklarczyk D, Santos A, von Mering C et al (2016) STITCH 5: augmenting protein-chemical interaction networks with tissue and affinity data. Nucleic Acids Res 44:D380–384. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkv1277
The Gene Ontology Consortium (2019) The gene ontology resource: 20 years and still GOing strong. Nucleic Acids Res 47:D330–D338. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gky1055
Trasande L, Zoeller RT, Hass U et al (2015) Estimating burden and disease costs of exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the European union. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 100:1245–1255. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2014-4324
Tung C-W (2013) Prediction of non-genotoxic hepatocarcinogenicity using chemical-protein interactions. In: Ngom A, Formenti E, Hao JK, Zhao XM, van Laarhoven T (eds) Pattern recognition in bioinformatics. PRIB 2013. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 7986. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 231–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39159-0_21
Tung C-W (2014) Acquiring decision rules for predicting ames-negative hepatocarcinogens using chemical–chemical interactions. In: Comin M, Käll L, Marchiori E, Ngom A, Rajapakse J (eds) Pattern recognition in bioinformatics. PRIB 2014. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 8626. Springer, Cham, pp 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09192-1_1
Tung C-W (2015) ChemDIS: a chemical-disease inference system based on chemical-protein interactions. J Cheminform 7:25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13321-015-0077-3
Tung C-W, Ho S-Y (2007) POPI: predicting immunogenicity of MHC class I binding peptides by mining informative physicochemical properties. Bioinforma Oxf Engl 23:942–949. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btm061
Tung C-W, Ho S-Y (2008) Computational identification of ubiquitylation sites from protein sequences. BMC Bioinform 9:310. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-9-310
Tung C-W, Jheng J-L (2014) Interpretable prediction of non-genotoxic hepatocarcinogenic chemicals. Neurocomputing 145:68–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2014.05.073
Tung C-W, Lin Y-H, Wang S-S (2019) Transfer learning for predicting human skin sensitizers. Arch Toxicol 93:931–940. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-019-02420-x
Tung C-W, Wang C-C, Wang S-S, Lin P (2018) ChemDIS-Mixture: an online tool for analyzing potential interaction effects of chemical mixtures. Sci Rep 8:10047. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-28361-6
Tung C-W, Wang S-S (2018) ChemDIS 2: an update of chemical-disease inference system. Database J Biol Databases Curation 2018:bay077. https://doi.org/10.1093/database/bay077
Wang C-C, Lin Y-C, Cheng Y-H, Tung C-W (2017) Profiling transcriptomes of human SH-SY5Y neuroblastoma cells exposed to maleic acid. PeerJ 5:e3175. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3175
Wedebye EB, Dybdahl M, Reffstrup TK et al (2016) The new Danish (Q)SAR database: a freely available tool with predictions for >600,000 substances. Toxicol Lett 258:S118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2016.06.1479
Wu S, Fisher J, Naciff J et al (2013) Framework for identifying chemicals with structural features associated with the potential to act as developmental or reproductive toxicants. Chem Res Toxicol 26:1840–1861. https://doi.org/10.1021/tx400226u
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan (MOST-107–2221-E-038–020-MY3) and National Health Research Institutes (NHRI-108A1-EMCO-0319204).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Study design: CWT, CCW and PL; methodology: CWT and SSW; toxicity data review: HJC and CCW; manuscript preparation: CWT, CCW and PL.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tung, CW., Cheng, HJ., Wang, CC. et al. Leveraging complementary computational models for prioritizing chemicals of developmental and reproductive toxicity concern: an example of food contact materials. Arch Toxicol 94, 485–494 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-019-02641-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-019-02641-0