An integrated "4-phase" approach for setting endocrine disruption screening priorities - Phase I and II predictions of estrogen receptor binding affinity

被引:58
作者
Shi, L
Tong, W
Fang, H
Xie, Q
Hong, H
Perkins, R
Wu, J
Tu, M
Blair, RM
Branham, WS
Waller, C
Walker, J
Sheehan, DM
机构
[1] ROW Sci Inc, Jefferson, AR 72079 USA
[2] Natl Ctr Toxicol Res, Div Genet & Reprod Toxicol, Jefferson, AR 72079 USA
[3] Sphinz Pharmaceut, Res Triangle Pk, NC 27709 USA
[4] US EPA, TSCA Interagency Testing Comm, Washington, DC 20460 USA
关键词
endocrine disrupting chemicals; estrogens; priority setting; estrogen receptor binding; QSAR;
D O I
10.1080/10629360290002235
中图分类号
O6 [化学];
学科分类号
0703 ;
摘要
Recent legislation mandates the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop a screening and testing program for potential endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), of which xenoestrogens figure prominently. Under the legislation, a large number of chemicals will undergo various in vitro and in vivo assays for their potential estrogenicity, as well as other hormonal activities. There is a crucial need for priority setting before this strategy can be effectively implemented. Here we report an integrated computational approach to priority setting using estrogen receptor (ER) binding as an example. This approach rationally integrates different predictive computational models into a "Four-Phase" scheme so that it can effectively identify potential estrogenic EDCs based on their predicted ER relative binding affinity (RBA). The system has been validated using an in-house ER binding assay dataset for 232 chemicals that was designed to have both broad structural diversity and a wide range of binding affinities. When applied to 58,000 chemicals identified by Walker et at. as candidates for endocrine disruption screening, some 9 100 chemicals were predicted to bind to ER. Of these, only 3600 were expected to bind to ER at RBA values up to 100,000-fold less than that of 17beta-estradiol. The method ruled out 83% of the chemicals as non-binders with a very low rate of false negatives. We believe that the same integrated scheme will be equally applicable to endpoints of other endocrine disrupting mechanisms, e.g, androgen receptor binding.
引用
收藏
页码:69 / 88
页数:20
相关论文
共 35 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1996, Clustering and Classification
[2]   The estrogen receptor relative binding affinities of 188 natural and xenochemicals: Structural diversity of ligands [J].
Blair, RM ;
Fang, H ;
Branham, WS ;
Hass, BS ;
Dial, SL ;
Moland, CL ;
Tong, WD ;
Shi, LM ;
Perkins, R ;
Sheehan, DM .
TOXICOLOGICAL SCIENCES, 2000, 54 (01) :138-153
[3]   Molecular basis of agonism and antagonism in the oestrogen receptor [J].
Brzozowski, AM ;
Pike, ACW ;
Dauter, Z ;
Hubbard, RE ;
Bonn, T ;
Engstrom, O ;
Ohman, L ;
Greene, GL ;
Gustafsson, JA ;
Carlquist, M .
NATURE, 1997, 389 (6652) :753-758
[4]  
CLARK LA, 1992, TREE BASED MODELS
[5]  
Colburn T., 1996, OUR STOLEN FUTURE
[6]   Quantitative comparisons of in vitro assays for estrogenic activities [J].
Fang, H ;
Tong, WD ;
Perkins, R ;
Soto, AM ;
Prechtl, NV ;
Sheehan, DM .
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES, 2000, 108 (08) :723-729
[7]  
FANG H, 2001, IN PRESS CHEM RES TO
[8]  
Gordon A. D., 1981, CLASSIFICATION METHO
[9]   Tiered screening and testing strategy for xenoestrogens and antiandrogens [J].
Gray, LE .
TOXICOLOGY LETTERS, 1998, 103 :677-680
[10]   Pharmacophores incorporating numerous excluded volumes defined by X-ray crystallographic structure in three-dimensional database searching: Application to the thyroid hormone receptor [J].
Greenidge, PA ;
Carlsson, B ;
Bladh, LG ;
Gillner, M .
JOURNAL OF MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY, 1998, 41 (14) :2503-2512