Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research article
  • Open Access

OPERA models for predicting physicochemical properties and environmental fate endpoints

Journal of Cheminformatics201810:10

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13321-018-0263-1

  • Received: 13 December 2017
  • Accepted: 16 February 2018
  • Published:

Abstract

The collection of chemical structure information and associated experimental data for quantitative structure–activity/property relationship (QSAR/QSPR) modeling is facilitated by an increasing number of public databases containing large amounts of useful data. However, the performance of QSAR models highly depends on the quality of the data and modeling methodology used. This study aims to develop robust QSAR/QSPR models for chemical properties of environmental interest that can be used for regulatory purposes. This study primarily uses data from the publicly available PHYSPROP database consisting of a set of 13 common physicochemical and environmental fate properties. These datasets have undergone extensive curation using an automated workflow to select only high-quality data, and the chemical structures were standardized prior to calculation of the molecular descriptors. The modeling procedure was developed based on the five Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) principles for QSAR models. A weighted k-nearest neighbor approach was adopted using a minimum number of required descriptors calculated using PaDEL, an open-source software. The genetic algorithms selected only the most pertinent and mechanistically interpretable descriptors (2–15, with an average of 11 descriptors). The sizes of the modeled datasets varied from 150 chemicals for biodegradability half-life to 14,050 chemicals for logP, with an average of 3222 chemicals across all endpoints. The optimal models were built on randomly selected training sets (75%) and validated using fivefold cross-validation (CV) and test sets (25%). The CV Q2 of the models varied from 0.72 to 0.95, with an average of 0.86 and an R2 test value from 0.71 to 0.96, with an average of 0.82. Modeling and performance details are described in QSAR model reporting format and were validated by the European Commission’s Joint Research Center to be OECD compliant. All models are freely available as an open-source, command-line application called OPEn structure–activity/property Relationship App (OPERA). OPERA models were applied to more than 750,000 chemicals to produce freely available predicted data on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s CompTox Chemistry Dashboard.
Graphical Abstract image

Keywords

  • OPERA
  • QSAR/QSPR
  • Physicochemical properties
  • Environmental fate
  • OECD principles
  • Open data
  • Open source
  • Model validation
  • QMRF

Background

The increase in the number and quantity of manufactured chemicals finding their way into the environment is proportionally increasing potential exposures of humans and wildlife to potentially harmful substances [17]. Due to constraints associated with time, costs, and animal welfare issues, most of these chemicals lack experimentally measured properties [811]. To quickly assess large numbers of chemicals for potential toxicity at reasonable cost, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other regulatory agencies need to develop new, more efficient testing and evaluation methods [2, 1218]. Over the past decade, high-throughput screening (HTS) approaches developed by the pharmaceutical industry for drug discovery have been used as alternative approaches to traditional toxicity tests for environmental chemicals [1922]. At the EPA, since 2007, the National Center for Computational Toxicology (NCCT) has been evaluating HTS approaches through its ToxCast program [9, 2224]. However, because tens of thousands of chemicals require screening [3, 7, 15, 18, 25], faster and more cost-effective in silico methods such as quantitative structure–activity/property relationships (QSAR/QSPR) modeling approaches [13, 16, 18, 2628] are needed to prioritize chemicals for testing.

The growing use of QSAR modeling approaches for virtual screening and data gap filling by the scientific community is establishing QSAR models as internationally recognized alternatives to empirical testing by regulatory agencies and organizations such as REACH and the United Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Hazardous Chemicals [18, 2833]. In addition to aiding in prioritization, QSAR models including other calculated descriptors and predicted chemical properties [23, 34] can help overcome difficulties that may arise during in vitro to in vivo extrapolation (IVIVE) or exposure assessment. Therefore, reliable predictions for both physicochemical properties and environmental fate endpoints are needed for risk assessment as well as prioritization for testing, among other applications.

The most widely used chemical properties in toxicological studies, risk assessment, and exposure studies are associated with bioavailability, permeability, absorption, transport, and persistence of chemicals in the body and in the environment [3539]. These properties (including, but not limited to, the octanol–water partition coefficient, water solubility, melting point, bioconcentration factor, and biodegradability) have been extensively modeled using QSAR/QSPR approaches using existing experimental data [18, 36, 37, 4043]. The QSAR concept is based on the congenericity principle, which hypothesizes that similar structures have similar properties and exhibit similar biological activities [4447]. However, not all QSAR models are suitable for regulatory purposes because most use proprietary data and algorithms or lack documentation and transparency.

Several modeling guidance documents have been published [29, 4852] to support the use of QSAR models in regulatory decision. In this study, OECD principles for building robust QSAR models were followed, if possible. The five OECD principles were: a defined endpoint; an unambiguous algorithm; a defined applicability domain (AD); appropriate measures for goodness-of-fit, robustness, and predictivity; and a mechanistic interpretation, if possible. This study, focused on development of QSAR/QSPR models for physicochemical properties, primarily using data from the publicly available PHYSPROP database [53] consisting of a set of 13 common physicochemical properties and environmental fate endpoints (Table 1).
Table 1

Endpoint datasets in the PHYSPROP database

Property abbreviation

Property

Source SD file

AOH

Atmospheric hydroxylation rate

EPI_AOP_Data_SDF.sdf

BCF

Bioconcentration factor

EPI_BCF_Data_SDF.sdf

BioHL

Biodegradability half-life

EPI_BioHC_Data_SDF.sdf

BP

Boiling point

EPI_Boil_Pt_Data_SDF.sdf

HL

Henry’s Law constant

EPI_Henry_Data_SDF.sdf

KM

Fish biotransformation half-life

EPI_KM_Data_SDF.sdf

KOA

Octanol–air partition coefficient

EPI_KOA_Data_SDF.sdf

KOC

Soil adsorption coefficient

EPI_PCKOC_Data_SDF.sdf

logP

Octanol–water partition coefficient

EPI_Kowwin_Data_SDF.sdf

MP

Melting point

EPI_Melt_Pt_Data_SDF.sdf

RB

Readily biodegradable

EPI_Biowin_Data_SDF.sdf

VP

Vapor pressure

EPI_VP_Data_SDF.sdf

WS

Water solubility

EPI_Wskowwin_Data_SDF.sdf

In this study, every endpoint was well defined, with documented sources and data curated from the publicly available PHYSPROP database [5355]. In addition, genetic algorithms (GA) were employed during the variable selection step to identify a minimum number of the most suitable descriptors for each endpoint [5658]. A weighted k-nearest neighbor (kNN) approach was used for model fitting to make the models as simple as possible [59, 60]. Goodness-of-fit, robustness, and predictivity were evaluated using internal fivefold cross-validation (CV) and external test set techniques [51, 61, 62]. The AD of the developed models were defined using local five-nearest neighbor and global leverage approaches [6365]. The mechanistic associations between the descriptors and the endpoint being predicted were investigated and provided in QSAR model reporting format reports (QMRF) and registered in the European Commission’s Joint Research Center (JRC) QMRF Inventory [66, 67].

All models are freely available as an open-source, command-line application called OPERA (OPEn structure–activity/property Relationship App) [68, 69]. For transparency, all curated data used for training and testing as well as the QMRF documentation for each model are available in the Additional file 1: S1, a GitHub repository, ResearchGate, and the JRC’s QMRF Inventory [67, 6982]. The OPERA models were used to predict properties for about 750,000 organic chemicals from the Distributed Structure-Searchable Toxicity (DSSTox) database and made publicly available, along with the experimental data, detailed prediction reports, and JRC validated QMRFs, through the EPA’s CompTox Chemistry Dashboard at https://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard/ [83, 84].

Methods

Datasets

Although there has been a dramatic increase in the number of data collections available for QSAR modeling over the last decades, the quality of the chemical structure information and associated experimental data remains of concern [8588]. For the purpose of this modeling study, extensive curation work was conducted on 13 publicly available PHYSPROP physicochemical property and environmental fate datasets as previously reported [53, 54]. Data quality is important for QSAR/QSPR models and their predictive ability, as been demonstrated in previous work using the logP dataset which showed improved performance after curation [54]. The curation and correction of errors in the structure and identity of chemicals was performed using an automated workflow developed using the Konstanz Information Miner (KNIME), a free open-source data analytics, reporting, and integration platform [89].

As a first step in data curation, the workflow identified and corrected (when possible) errors and mismatches in chemical structure formats and identifiers (chemical names, Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Numbers [CASRN], Simplified Molecular Input Line Entry Specification [SMILES], and MOL), and various structure validation issues, including hypervalency and stereochemistry descriptions [9093]. Data quality then was rated on a scale of 1–4, and only the top 2 classes (annotated as 3- and 4-star classes) were used as the model training data as explained in Mansouri et al. [54].

During the second step, QSAR-ready structures were generated from the high-quality chemical structure and property data using a KNIME standardization workflow developed previously [6, 94, 95]. The QSAR-ready workflow decreases the number of structures through the removal of duplicates generated by the standardization procedure. The standardization procedure includes removal of salt counterions (while retaining salt information in a separate field for potential later use), removal of stereochemistry, standardization of tautomers and nitro groups, correction of valences, neutralization of structures when possible, and removal of duplicates, among other steps, based on the International Chemical Identifier (InChI) code of the QSAR-ready structure. Due to its importance for melting point and boiling point endpoints, information regarding salts was considered, together with the QSAR-ready InChI code, during the duplicates removal step of these two specific datasets (see “Discussion”).

During the third step, modeling, the average experimental value was used if the difference between the duplicates was not significantly high (based on the standard deviation of the whole dataset). Otherwise, both duplicates were considered outliers and removed. Table 2 summarizes the evolution of the number of chemicals for the 13 datasets over the three steps.
Table 2

Numbers of chemicals associated with PHYSPROP datasets before and after curation and QSAR-ready standardization workflows

Property

No. of chemicals in dataset

No. of top-quality chemicalsa

No. of QSAR-ready chemicalsa

AOH

818

818 (100%)

745 (91.1%)

BCF

685

618 (90.2%)

608 (88.7%)

BioHL

175

151 (86.3%)

150 (85.7%)

BP

5890

5591 (94.9%)

5436 (92.3%)

HL

1829

1758 (96.1%)

1711 (93.5%)

KM

631

548 (86.8%)

541 (85.7%)

KOA

308

277 (90%)

270 (87.7%)

KOC

788

750 (95.2%)

735 (93.3%)

LogP

15,806

14,544 (92%)

14,041 (88.8%)

MP

10,051

9120 (90.7%)

8656 (86.1%)

RB

1265

1196 (94.5%)

1171 (92.5%)

VP

3037

2840 (93.5%)

2716 (89.4%)

WS

5764

4372 (75.8%)

4224 (73.3%)

aPercentages relative to the original dataset shown in parentheses; 2D descriptors only used

Descriptor calculation

The curated chemical structures were used to calculate molecular descriptors using the free and open-source software PaDEL [96]. PaDel was used to calculate only 1D and 2D descriptors; 3D descriptors were avoided even though they could potentially add useful chemical information about the molecules [27, 97]. We decided to use only 2D descriptors to keep the models as simple as possible, to speed up predictions, and to avoid repeatability problems associated with 3D descriptor values. These can arise due to differences between conformers, especially with very flexible molecules requiring geometry optimization. These differences can affect the predictability of the resulting chemical properties [98, 99]. To avoid inconsistencies due to explicit hydrogen atoms and interpretation of aromatic rings by the software during descriptor calculations, the aromaticity option was set to auto-detection as suggested by the PaDEL developers to fix known issues [100]. The need for the auto-detection setting was verified by performing tests that confirmed that PaDEL can interpret aromaticity in different ways for the same chemical, depending on whether it is provided in MOL, SMILES, or SDF format, and can provide different values for certain descriptors, such as number of aromatic rings.

A total of 1444 molecular descriptors were calculated, including constitutional, topological, functional group counts; fragmental, atom-type E-state indices; and other physicochemical descriptors. To reduce collinearity among descriptors, a correlation filter with a threshold of 0.96 was applied. For each pair of descriptors with a correlation coefficient higher than the threshold, the one showing the largest pair correlation with all the other descriptors was excluded. Then, descriptors with constant, near-constant (using a standard deviation of 0.25 as a threshold), or at least one missing value were removed. The remaining reduced sets ranging from 800 to 1000 descriptors were used for subsequent modeling analysis.

Fitting algorithm

Several model-fitting techniques have been used in the literature to model physicochemical properties and biological activity endpoints [101106]. The application of these methods, based on different mathematical strategies with varying degrees of complexity, aims to explore chemical space and balance potential biases inherent in each single modeling algorithm. However, the increase in model complexity is not always justified with statistically significant increases in predictive accuracy [107, 108]. Because the goal of this study is to facilitate the interpretability of the models (a requirement of regulators according to OECD guidelines), one of the simplest yet highly reliable methods, kNN, was selected [59, 60, 103, 109]. This method can be applied to both quantitative and qualitative data and is very similar to read-across, a widely used method in the regulatory field [110, 111].

The kNN method was applied to estimate the best relationship between chemical information, encoded in molecular descriptors, and the modeled activity of chemicals based on the closest chemicals to the query chemical. Its classification rule is conceptually quite simple: each predicted chemical is classified according to the majority of its k nearest neighbors in the selected descriptor space of the training set. In this study, the classical kNN classification algorithm has been refined so that the contribution of each of the k neighbors is weighted according to distance to the query point, giving greater weight to closer neighbors [18, 112]. The weighted kNN algorithm uses the Euclidean metric to measure distances between molecules. The Euclidean distance was calculated using the auto-scaled descriptor values [113, 114]. For each dataset, first the training set was scaled, and its parameters saved. Then, the test set was scaled using the same parameters. Even with this refinement, the weighted kNN is an unambiguous algorithm that fulfills the transparency requirements of OECD principle 2, with an optimal compromise between model complexity and performance.

Variable selection

Variable selection techniques are usually applied to find the optimal subset with a minimum number of molecular descriptors [57, 115]. This step consisted of coupling GA with the weighted kNN algorithm, and was applied in fivefold CV on the auto-scaled training set (75% of each dataset). GA starts from an initial random population of chromosomes, which are binary vectors representing the presence or absence of the molecular descriptors [5658]. An evolutionary process is simulated to optimize a defined fitness function, and new chromosomes are obtained by coupling the chromosomes of the initial population with genetic operations (crossover and mutation). This evolution process was repeated 100 times for each of the 100 consecutive independent runs, with a 0.01 probability of mutation and a 0.5 probability of crossover on 30 chromosomes. The generations of populations are evaluated and ranked during the evolution process based on goodness-of-fit functions used to optimize the models and calculated in CV, maximizing the accuracy and minimizing the number of descriptors. The number of neighbors (k) was optimized within the range of 3–7. The k value giving the lowest classification error in CV was selected as the optimal value. The descriptors were then ranked based on frequency of selection during the GA runs, and the final set of descriptors encoding the most relevant structural information to the modelled endpoint was picked in a forward-selection manner. If the algorithm did not converge during the first 100 runs, another round of 100 runs was performed on the top performing half of the initial set of descriptors, ranked by frequency of selection during the first 100 runs.

Validation methods

Each of the 13 datasets was randomly divided into training and test sets containing 75 and 25% of the total number of considered molecules, respectively. Selection was performed maintaining a distribution of the quantitative data values and class proportions for the qualitative data. The outcome was that the number of test molecules for each range/class was proportional to the number of training molecules of that range/class. Figure 1 shows the distribution of logP values across the training and test sets. Figures similar to Fig. 1 were generated for the full set of models and are provided in the Additional file 1: S1. These figures can be viewed in the calculation reports on the CompTox Chemistry Dashboard [84] (https://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard).
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Distribution of experimental logP values between training and test sets

The training set was used to select molecular descriptors and to build the models. Molecules within the test set were used to evaluate the predictive ability of the built models. Fivefold CV was used during model optimization and descriptor selection. This procedure is similar to constantly dividing the initial set into training and test sets, containing 80 and 20% of the total number of chemicals, respectively.

Model performance

This study used two types of models, a classification model for the RB dataset and continuous models for the other 12 datasets. The performance of each type of model was evaluated as summarized below.

Classification model

The performance of the classification model was evaluated using sensitivity (Sn), the true positive rate, and specificity (Sp), the true negative rate. These statistical indices represent the ability of the model to correctly predict two classes, such as active and inactive molecules (readily biodegradable and non-readily biodegradable) [59, 116]. These indices are calculated from the confusion matrix, which collects the number of samples of the observed and predicted classes in the rows and columns, respectively [117]. The classification parameters are defined using the number of true positives (TP), true negatives (TN), false positives (FP) and false negatives (FN).

The most important parameter considered during the evaluation step was the balanced accuracy (BA), usually expressed as a fraction calculated as follows:
$$BA = \frac{{\left({Sn + Sp} \right)}}{2}$$
(1)
where the Sn is calculated as follows:
$$Sn = \frac{TP}{TP + FN}$$
(2)
and the Sp is calculated as follows:
$$Sp = \frac{TN}{TN + FP}$$
(3)

In the case of two-class models, the Sn of one class corresponds to the Sp of the other class. These indices were used to better estimate performance of the classification model in the presence of a dataset with an unequal number of molecules in each class. In this study, BA, Sn, and Sp are expressed as ratios and not as percentages.

Continuous models

The quality of continuous models was evaluated using two groups of statistical indices, goodness-of-fit parameters and goodness-of-prediction parameters. Goodness-of-fit parameters measure the fitting ability and are used to measure the degree to which the model is able to explain the variance contained in the training set [118]. Traditionally, regression model quality is evaluated using the root mean square error (RMSE) calculated as the root of the average of the residual sum of squares:
$$RMSE = \sqrt {\frac{{\mathop \sum \nolimits_{i = 1}^{n} \left( {y_{i} - \hat{y}_{i} } \right)^{2} }}{n}}$$
(4)
where n is the number of training compounds, and \(\hat{y}_{i}\) and \(y_{i}\) are the estimated and observed responses, respectively.
The coefficient of determination R 2 is a useful parameter because it is independent from the response scale, contrary to RMSE. (RMSE is in turn useful because it provides an estimate of the expected error magnitude on the scale of the property being calculated.) It is the square multiple correlation coefficient calculated as follows:
$$R^{2} = \frac{{\mathop \sum \nolimits_{i = 1}^{n} (\hat{y}_{i} - y_{i} )^{2} }}{{\mathop \sum \nolimits_{i = 1}^{n} \left( {y_{i} - \bar{y}} \right)^{2} }}$$
(5)
where \(\hat{y}_{i}\) and \(y_{i}\) are the estimated and observed responses, respectively, and \(\bar{y}\) is the average observed response over the n training compounds.
Goodness-of-prediction parameters measure the true predictive ability of a model and are related to the reliability of prediction. These parameters are used in the validation step. The most important parameters are the root mean square error in prediction (RMSEP) and the predictive squared correlation coefficient Q2. RMSEP is calculated as follows:
$$RMSEP = \sqrt {\frac{{\sum_{i = 1}^{{n_{EXT} }} \left( {y_{i} - \hat{y}_{i} } \right)^{2} }}{{n_{EXT} }}}$$
(6)
where \(n_{EXT}\) is number of test compounds, and \({\hat{y}}_{i}\) and \({y}_{i}\) are the estimated and observed responses respectively.
Different ways of calculating Q2 are available in the literature [50, 61, 62]. However, because RMSEP (and RMSE) depends on the scale reference, Q2 must fulfill the ability of R2 to be independent of the response scale [51]. Also, to be a subjective representative of the true predictivity of a model, Q2 must be invariant for a fixed RMSEP value, be invariant to the splitting of the external data into subsets (ergodic principle), and correlate perfectly with RMSEP. This study used the Q2 formula below demonstrated by Todeschini et al. [51] because it is the only formula that fulfils all these requirements.
$$Q^{2} = 1 - \frac{{\sum\nolimits_{i = 1}^{{n_{EXT} }} {{{\left( {y_{i} - \hat{y}_{i} } \right)^{2} } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\left( {y_{i} - \hat{y}_{i} } \right)^{2} } {n_{EXT} }}} \right. \kern-0pt} {n_{EXT} }}} }}{{\sum\nolimits_{i = 1}^{{n_{TR} }} {{{\left( {y_{i} - \bar{y}} \right)^{2} } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\left( {y_{i} - \bar{y}} \right)^{2} } {n_{TR} }}} \right. \kern-0pt} {n_{TR} }}}}}$$
(7)
where \(n_{EXT}\) and \(n_{TR}\) are the numbers of test and training compounds, respectively, and \(\hat{y}_{i}\) and \(y_{i}\) are the estimated and observed responses, respectively.

Applicability domain and reliability assessment

The modeling approach used in this study is applicable to heterogeneous collections of organic chemicals. As a result of the implementation of the models, several pieces of information are provided to help the user evaluate the reliability of a prediction. The chemical structure is first assessed to see if it falls within the AD of the training set chemical space. Then, the accuracy of the predicted value is reported based on the accuracy of prediction of the neighboring chemicals in the training set using a leave-one-out procedure, weighted by similarity to the query chemical. This approach fulfills the requirements of the third OECD principle by defining the limitations in terms of the types of chemical structures, physicochemical properties, and mechanisms of action for which the model can generate reliable predictions.

The AD of the model is assessed at two independent levels using two different distance-based methods. First, a global AD is determined using a leverage approach that checks whether the query structure falls within the multidimensional chemical space of the whole training set [63]. The leverage of a query chemical is proportional to its Mahalanobis distance measured from the centroid of the training set [119, 120]. The leverages of a given n-chemical by p-descriptor matrix, X, are obtained from the diagonal values of the hat matrix, H, calculated as follows:
$${\text{H}} = {\text{X}}({\text{X}}^{\text{T}} {\text{X}})^{ - 1} {\text{X}}^{\text{T}}$$
(8)
This approach is associated with a threshold leverage that corresponds to 3 * p/n, where p is the number of model variables (descriptors) and n is the number of training compounds. A query chemical with leverage higher than the threshold is considered outside the AD and can be associated with unreliable prediction.

The leverage approach has specific limitations, in particular with respect to gaps within the descriptor space of the model or at the boundaries of the training set. To obviate such limitations, a second tier of AD assessment was added. This is a local approach, which only investigates the vicinity of the query chemical. This local approach provides a continuous index ranging from 0 to 1, which differs from the first approach that provides only Boolean answers (yes or no). This local AD index is relative to the similarity of the query chemical to its five nearest neighbors in the p-dimensional space of the model using a weighted Euclidean distance. The higher this index, the more the prediction is expected to be reliable.

These two AD methods are complementary and can be interpreted as summarized below.

  • If a chemical is considered outside the global AD and has a low local AD index (< 0.4), the prediction can be unreliable.

  • If a chemical is considered outside the global AD but the local AD index is average (0.4–0.6), the query chemical is on the boundary of the training set but has quite similar neighbors (average reliability). If the local AD index is high (> 0.6), the prediction can be trusted.

  • If a chemical is considered inside the global AD but the local AD index is average (0.4–0.6), the query chemical falls in a “gap” of the chemical space of the model but still falls within the boundaries of the training set and is surrounded with training chemicals. The prediction therefore should be considered with caution.

  • If a chemical is considered inside the global AD and has a high local AD index (> 0.6), the prediction can be considered reliable.

A confidence level index also was calculated based on the accuracy of the predictions of the five nearest neighbors weighted by their distance to the query chemical. This index gives the user an estimate regarding the reliability of the prediction when the query chemical is inside the AD. Further details about the implementation of AD approaches can be found in Sahigara et al. [63].

Software and calculations

Data-mining steps, including structures and experimental data pre-treatment, QSAR-ready data preparation, and training/test set splitting were performed using KNIME (version 3) [89]. Molecular descriptors were calculated using PaDEL software (version 2.21) from QSAR-ready structures in SDF files [96]. All modeling steps and calculations, including GA variable selection, model fitting, and validation as well as AD and accuracy assessment were performed using MATLAB (version 8.2, glnxa64) [121].

Results

Descriptor selection and model fitting

The curation step performed during previous work [54] helped in the selection of the highest quality data from the publicly available PHYSPROP [53] database for the 13 available physicochemical property and environmental fate datasets (Table 1). The resulting validated chemical structures were used to calculate PaDEL 1D and 2D descriptors (a total set of 1444). Although certain filters were applied (collinearity, missing values, and constant and near-constant), large numbers of descriptors (800–1000 across all datasets) remained available for modeling. To include only the most pertinent descriptors in the QSAR models, the variable selection procedure was performed on training chemicals (75% of the data) in two subsequent steps. The initial 100 independent GA runs were conducted on the full list of the descriptors associated with each dataset, then a second set of 100 independent GA runs were conducted on the 50% of descriptors that showed the highest frequency of selection during the first round. This two-step approach was adopted in order to ensure the convergence of the selection towards the same final subset with the highest frequency of selection. The subsets of molecular descriptors yielding the highest model performance were selected at the end of the second round of GA (forward step selection based on decreased frequency of selection), and were used to fit and calibrate the final models. The final models were selected by considering a minimum number of descriptors and keeping a balance between statistics in fitting and in fivefold CV. This procedure has been shown to minimize the risk of overfitting [58, 61, 112].

The QSAR models were validated using the test set molecules, which did not participate in the descriptor selection and model fitting and calibration steps. Training and test sets for all OPERA models are provided in the Additional file 1: S1.

Models and performance

Table 3 summarizes the performance of the selected models.
Table 3

Performance of the selected models in fitting, CV, and on the test sets

Property

No. of descriptors

Fivefold CV (75%)

Training (75%)

Test (25%)

Q2

RMSE

Dataset

R2

RMSE

Dataset

R2

RMSEP

AOH

13

0.85

1.14

516

0.85

1.12

176

0.83

1.23

BCF

10

0.84

0.55

469

0.85

0.53

157

0.83

0.64

BioHL

6

0.89

0.25

112

0.88

0.26

38

0.75

0.38

BP

13

0.93

22.46

4077

0.93

22.06

1358

0.93

22.08

HL

9

0.84

1.96

441

0.84

1.91

150

0.85

1.82

KM

12

0.83

0.49

405

0.82

0.5

136

0.73

0.62

KOA

2

0.95

0.69

202

0.95

0.65

68

0.96

0.68

KOC

12

0.81

0.55

545

0.81

0.54

184

0.71

0.61

LogP

9

0.86

0.69

10,537

0.86

0.67

3513

0.86

0.78

MP

16

0.74

50.20

6486

0.75

49.12

2167

0.74

52.27

VP

12

0.91

1.08

2034

0.91

1.08

679

0.92

1

WS

11

0.87

0.81

3158

0.87

0.82

1066

0.86

0.86

Property

Descriptor

BA

Sn–Sp

Dataset

BA

Sn–Sp

Dataset

BA

Sn–Sp

RB

10

0.8

0.82–0.78

1197

0.8

0.82–0.79

411

0.79

0.81–0.77

The continuous models yielded Test R2 in the range of 0.71–0.96. For most of the models the external R2 and the internal Q2 are close in value, which indicates that overfitting has not occurred. The exceptions are BioHL (0.89–0.75), KM (0.83–0.73) and KOC (0.81–0.71). The drop in performance for these properties could be due to the biological complexity of these endpoints compared to the physicochemical properties. The final models use small numbers of descriptors which helps with model transparency and facilitates mechanistic interpretation, as required by OECD principles 2 and 5. Indeed, the number of descriptors ranged from only 2 descriptors for KOA to 16 descriptors for MP, with an average of about 10 descriptors. The RB model, a classification model, also shows the same robustness as the continuous models, with an additional characteristic that is the balance between the Sn and Sp parameters, indicating that the model is as good at predicting readily biodegradable molecules versus non-readily biodegradable molecules.

Implementation of the models in OPERA

All 13 models were implemented in MATLAB and compiled into OPERA, a standalone command-line application for Microsoft Windows and Linux [68, 69]. This application uses an input file containing one or multiple QSAR-ready structures in SMILES strings or MOL or SDF format. (A QSAR-ready workflow will be implemented in a future version of OPERA.) After parsing and checking the structures, OPERA calculates the necessary descriptors for the requested models using the embedded PaDEL software (version 2.21) with its developer’s recommended options for consistency [96, 100]. It then writes the requested results to a tab-delimited txt file or a comma-delimited csv file. The output file contains the OPERA predictions, AD and accuracy assessment, and up to five nearest neighbors from the training set. The neighbors are identified by their CASRNs, QSAR-ready InChI keys, and a unique DSSTox database substance identifier (DTXSID) that links them to the CompTox Chemistry Dashboard [84]. All these details are provided in the output of single chemical and batch mode calculation. However, the CompTox Dashboard provides AD and accuracy assessment for one chemical per page but in batch mode downloading provides predictions only [84, 122]. Pre-calculated PaDEL descriptors can also be used as inputs to avoid re-calculating them, which can be time-consuming for large files (such as the DSSTox database of over 700K structures). The users are given different options for both input and output to allow for additional flexibility. The available input/output options and usage arguments are described in a help file provided as Additional file 2: S2.

OPERA executables (current version 1.5), C/C++ libraries, and the associated MATLAB source code are available for free on Github under the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) license (https://github.com/kmansouri/OPERA.git) together with the data and QMRFs (Table 4) that are also available in the Additional file 1: S1 and on the JRC repository [67].
Table 4

The QMRF reports published online

OPERA applied to the CompTox Chemistry Dashboard

The curation of PHYSPROP datasets and the development of the OPERA models were part of the CompTox Chemistry Dashboard project [84]. The CompTox Chemistry Dashboard is a web-based application and data hub developed by EPA’s NCCT [83]. Chemical substances surfaced via the Dashboard are hosted in the underlying DSSTox database with associated identifiers (such as CASRNs, systematic and common names, and other chemical structure identifiers, including InChIs and SMILES strings). The Dashboard is used to search the DSSTox database using a simple alphanumeric text entry box accessible on the home page [83]. A successful search result will result in a chemical page header that provides the following [123]:
  • Chemical structure image (with the ability to download in MOL file format).

  • Intrinsic properties (such as molecular formula and monoisotopic mass).

  • Chemical identifiers (such as systematic name, SMILES string, InChI string, and InChIKey).

  • Related compounds (based on molecular skeleton search, molecular similarity search, and presence of the chemical in various mixtures and salt forms).

  • List of databases in which the chemical is present (such as ToxCast and Tox21).

  • Record citation, including the unique DTXSID.

Figure 2 shows a search chemical page header for atrazine.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Results search header for atrazine on the CompTox Chemistry Dashboard

Below the header are a series of data tabs (shown in the red box in Fig. 2). The “Chemical Properties” tab (expanded in Fig. 3) and Environmental Fate and Transport tabs contain experimental properties assembled from various sources and properties predicted by a series of algorithms, including (1) ACD/Labs predicted data sourced from Open PHACTS [124]; (2) EPI Suite data sourced from [53]; (3) NICEATM predictions for a small number of properties [37]; and (4) OPERA predicted data, discussed in more detail below.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3

Summary view of experimental and predicted physicochemical properties

The experimental and predicted chemical properties data tables show the average, median, and range of properties associated with a particular chemical (Fig. 4).
Fig. 4
Fig. 4

Melting Point (MP) experimental and predicted values from different sources

Both National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM) and OPERA QMRF reports are available as PDF files via a hyperlink. In addition to the QMRFs [7082], additional information about OPERA predictions is provided in a detailed calculation report (Fig. 5), which adds another level of transparency by showing the global performance of the models, the AD, and the reliability assessment. It also provides up to five nearest neighbors from the training set (where available), with their experimental and predicted values as an additional reliability assessment for the user.
Fig. 5
Fig. 5

OPERA prediction calculation report for the melting point of bisphenol A

A batch search allows users to input search lists, including chemical names, CASRNs, and InChI Keys, and to retrieve formulae, masses, DTXSIDs, and other data related to chemical bioactivity and exposure, including the download of data associated with OPERA predictions as either tab-separated values or Excel or SDF files. An example downloaded Excel table with predicted OPERA values is provided as Additional file 3: S3.

A detailed help file regarding how to use the Dashboard is available online (https://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard/help). Various subsets of data associated with the Dashboard are available as open data and can be obtained from the downloads page (https://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard/downloads). The download page also provides access to a zip file containing training and test data sets associated with the OPERA models and the KNIME workflows used for the original curation of the PHYSPROP data.

Discussion

OPERA logP modeling

The QSAR community has extensively modeled multiple physicochemical properties, such as logP, using different approaches [38, 41, 125128]. Most of these published models are reported with R2 for fitting and R2/Q2 validation within a range of 0.8–0.9. However, the possibility of objective comparisons is undermined by the absence of standardized metrics and evaluation equations as well as the lack of transparency in training and test sets of chemicals and data, AD, descriptors, and code or executables. This study attempts to deliver transparency in terms of access to data and model performance statistics. The classical approach of comparing models by global R2/Q2 fitting performance may or may not reflect higher predictive ability, especially when dealing with different sizes of datasets, for example. Therefore, comparisons of model fit should be local and specific, not based on overall statistics. Also, every model, even though it may be built correctly and validated, has its own strengths and limitations [129]. A model should include tools that can help assess the reliability of its predictions. A model can be evaluated locally only within its AD, which is the interpolation space of the training set [63, 64]. Any extrapolation outside of that specific area of structure space is most likely unreliable.

The logP model presented in this study showed good overall performance and, more importantly, also demonstrated stable statistics across the different steps of modeling and validation (Table 3). This indicates that the model is both robust and reliable. Figure 6 presents the experimental and predicted values for the training and test sets for logP.
Fig. 6
Fig. 6

Experimental and predicted values for training and test set of OPERA logP model

In addition, the OPERA logP model is developed to compromise between model complexity and predictive ability, which are OECD recommendations for QSAR models developed for regulatory applications. This model is built using an unambiguous weighted kNN algorithm and uses only nine descriptors (variables). Figures similar to Figs. 1 and 6 were generated for the full set of models and are provided in the Additional file 1: S1 as well as the calculation reports on the CompTox Chemistry Dashboard [83, 84].

The OPERA logP model performance was evaluated in relation to a reference model, EPI Suite’s KOWWIN logP model. This model was chosen because the OPERA training set uses curated data derived from the PHYSPROP database, which in its original form was used to develop the KOWWIN logP model. The exact training subset used to develop the EPI Suite KOWWIN model and the AD for the KOWWIN model are not fully known. Thus, the comparison was not based on overall training, CV and test set but was performed locally for a specific subset of the data.

To show localized improvement of the OPERA logP model compared to the KOWWIN logP model, a small subset of data (280 chemicals) was selected for which the KOWWIN logP model overestimates the values (represented by the red stars in Fig. 7).
Fig. 7
Fig. 7

LogP predictions for KOWWIN model. The overestimated cluster selected for comparison is highlighted in a red ellipse

Figure 8 shows that the OPERA model provides estimations of logP closer to observed values than the EPI Suite KOWWIN model.
Fig. 8
Fig. 8

LogP predictions for KOWWIN model in purple stars compared to OPERA model in green circles

An investigation of the chemical space represented by the cluster in red was a specific family of chemicals. However, the 280 chemicals tested turned out to be heterogeneous, with no obvious common structural features. It is possible that these chemicals are outside of the AD of KOWWIN’s training set but inside the AD of the OPERA logP model, which is built on a newer version of the PHYSPROP database and possibly associated with a larger AD. The comparison shows that different models can show similar global statistics but provide very different predictions for certain local regions of chemical space and local ADs. Here, for this specific subset, R2 and RMSE for KOWWIN were − 0.35 and 2.79, respectively compared to an R2 equal to 0.75 and an RMSE of 1.19 for OPERA logP (Table 5). Such a difference in prediction performance, even though it is significant for this specific group of chemicals, does not make a difference in the global statistics of a large dataset (280 vs ~ 10,000 chemicals).
Table 5

Local comparison of OPERA logP and KOWWIN

Model

R2

RMSE

OPERA logP

0.75

1.19

KOWWIN

− 0.35

2.79

Another example of improved OPERA model predictions for a local area of the chemical space is the logP data for nine polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) [130]. PBDEs (209 congeners) were commonly used as flame retardants but now are recognized for their toxicity, persistence, and potential for bioaccumulation and long-range atmospheric transport [131]. PBDEs are considered persistent organic pollutants and are prioritized in regulations [132134]. As Table 6 shows, the predicted logP values for a number of PBDEs were underestimated in older versions of the OPERA model. After retraining of the models using experimental data, the new predictions are more accurate for these nine PBDEs and therefore are hypothesized to be more accurate for the remaining 200 congeners. Other congeners, such as BDE-104 (DTXSID60879916) are predicted within the global and local AD (0.64) with a high confidence level (0.78) [135]. Even congeners considered outside the global AD, such as BDE-150 (DTXSID80879953), are associated with an acceptable local AD index (0.62) and high confidence level (0.78) [136]. This last example shows the advantage of using two approaches for the AD (instead of a global one only) in addition to the confidence level in prediction that allows the user to make rational judgement about prediction reliability.
Table 6

Newly added data for PBDEs and resulting OPERA model predicted logP values

DTXSID

Name

CASRN

OPERA logP (old)

Newly added data

OPERA logP (new)

DTXSID40872703

BDE-17

147217-75-2

5.13

5.74 ± 0.22

5.80

DTXSID4052710

BDE-28

41318-75-6

4.17

5.94 ± 0.15

5.97

DTXSID3030056

BDE-47

5436-43-1

5.65

6.81 ± 0.08

6.56

DTXSID4052685

BDE-85

182346-21-0

6.00

7.37 ± 0.12

7.38

DTXSID9030048

BDE 99

60348-60-9

6.03

7.32 ± 0.14

7.38

DTXSID4052689

BDE-100

189084-64-8

6.04

7.24 ± 0.16

7.26

DTXSID4030047

BDE-153

68631-49-2

6.00

7.90 ± 0.14

7.72

DTXSID3052692

BDE-154

207122-15-4

5.94

7.82 ± 0.16

7.72

DTXSID8052693

BDE-183

207122-16-5

6.09

8.27 ± 0.26

8.19

Through the calculation reports associated with OPERA model predictions, the CompTox Chemistry Dashboard provides decision-makers specific quantitative and qualitative information on how much to trust a particular prediction [84]. The Dashboard enhances the transparency for the OPERA model predictions because it shows both the model strengths and limitations. Visual inspection of the data represented in the prediction reports reveals a number of compounds outside the AD (both global and local) and associated with a low confidence level, making the prediction for those compounds unreliable. One example compound is Irganox 1010 (DTXSID1027633), which in the OPERA logP model has a local AD index of only 0.11 and a confidence level of 0.2. This low confidence level indicates that the prediction should not be considered accurate [137]. The predicted logP value of 7.25 from the OPERA model seems to underestimate the value for this structure. Irganox 1010 had a measured logP value of 1.3 in the PHYSPROP logP training set but was considered an outlier and removed during the latest update of the Dashboard (released on August 11, 2017). Such chemicals with few to no neighbors in the calculation report (https://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard/dsstoxdb/calculation_details?model_id=22&search=27633) do not have enough representatives in the training sets of the models and indicate the limits of model reliability. This example also shows that the AD approaches and confidence levels are useful ways to expose the boundaries of the covered interpolation space of a model and therefore its reliability.

OPERA was recently compared with 7 other software applications in estimating logP, melting point, vapor pressure and water solubility for a dataset of polychlorinated biphenyls, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, polychlorinated dibenzodioxins, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and demonstrated the best performance for the prediction of logP and good performance across the other parameters [122].

OPERA MP modeling with and without salts

Another benefit of the OPERA prediction reports on the Dashboard is consideration of the presence of salts in addition to the desalted QSAR-ready structures for MP estimation. The influence of salt counterions on melting points is an important consideration for this particular endpoint. (All of the other endpoints model the behavior of the salts in solution, where they are assumed to be largely ionized, so that the properties of the organic moiety will be independent of the counterion.) The OPERA model’s ability to consider the presence of salts shows that the selection of fit-for-purpose standardization workflows (such as the one used in this work [94, 95]) to generate QSAR-ready structures for specific endpoints is important. Adding information regarding the salt form increases the prediction accuracy of the models by considering the correct nearest neighbors. Two examples demonstrate the increased prediction accuracy, guanidine (DTXSID0023117) and guanidine monohydrochloride (DTXSID7058757). For guanidine, both the PHYSPROP database and another source (Jean-Claude Bradley dataset [138]) agree that the measured MP is 50 °C, while the MP of the salt form is 182 °C according to the PHYSPROP database [139, 140]. The OPERA model predicts the guanidine MP at 62.9 °C and displays unsalted neighbors on the prediction report [141]. However, for the salted form, guanidine monohydrochloride, the OPERA model predicts an MP of 182 °C, with only salted neighbors in the prediction report [142]. The NICEATM model [37] predicts both salted and unsalted forms to have a MP of 88.4 °C, which clearly significantly underestimates the MP of guanidine monohydrochloride.

The OPERA MP model can operate with and without salt information by considering the salt form as the 16th descriptor. To evaluate the impact of including and excluding this last descriptor on the statistics of the model, a comparison of the two modes was performed (Table 7).
Table 7

OPERA model prediction performance for MP with and without salt information

Mode

Variables

Fivefold CV (75%)

Training (75%)

Test (25%)

Q2

RMSE (°C)

R2

RMSE (°C)

R2

RMSEP (°C)

No salts

15

0.72

51.8

0.74

50.27

0.73

52.72

With salts

16

0.74

50.2

0.75

49.12

0.74

52.27

Table 7 shows a slight improvement of the statistics for the mode with salts information. But these global statistics are for the whole training and test sets and do not reflect the influence on the salted compounds, which represent less than 2% of the two datasets.

Table 8 shows the improvement of the MP statistics for salt-form chemicals only. This table compares the RMSE values for OPERA predictions for the two modes (with and without salts information) to those of the EPI Suite model. RMSEs are 20 °C lower using salts for the training set and 10 °C lower for the test set. However, even without the salts information, the OPERA model MP prediction RMSE is still more than 50 °C lower than EPI Suite model’s RMSE.
Table 8

OPERA and EPI Suite MP prediction statistics for chemicals with salts

Dataset

Chemicals with salts

RMSE OPERA (°C)

RMSE EPI Suite (°C)

No salts

With salts

Training set

117

102.18

81.56

154.78

Test set

38

98.73

88.68

154.42

Table 7 shows that predicting the MP for chemicals with salts is not easy because RMSE values are higher than the global RMSE values for the two modes. The OPERA MP model is robust, with stable performance across training, fivefold CV, and test steps (RMSE of about 50 °C), but the model can be further improved by adding more experimental data from the literature. A recent work by Tetko et al. [143] reports an RMSE of 32 °C for a model built on a dataset of 300,000 chemicals. However, this accuracy required 700,000 descriptors and expensive computational time, a tradeoff in model complexity. This large data set can be filtered down and added to the used PHYSPROP MP data to improve OPERA MP model accuracy and AD coverage and still comply with OECD principles.

OPERA model improvements

Since the initial development of the OPERA models using only the curated PHYSPROP dataset, additional changes have been made to the datasets before rebuilding the models. The experimental data have been updated by removing outliers (with extreme values) and adding data from other sources (for properties such as logP, BCF, and RB) [18, 40, 112, 130]. The models have also been refined and refitted, and the code has been optimized for speed and consistency. A new model predicting liquid chromatography retention time (RT) at a 95% confidence window of ± 4.5 min was developed as described in McEachran et al. [144] and also added to OPERA. The EPA is engaged in research linking high resolution mass spectrometry data with high-throughput environmental monitoring [145] and is using the Dashboard to support the identification of “known unknowns” that benefits from OPERA models [146]. Additional parameters to assist in the identification of chemicals based on molecular formula search hit lists is required, and predicted RTs can be a valuable parameter for this purpose. The OPERA RT model has already been used in a non-targeted screening analysis of drinking water conducted at the EPA [147]. OPERA logP, MP, VP and WS models were used in a recent environmental fate assessment study at the EPA showing good performance and room for improvement as well [122]. Additionally, OPERA models were used in a recent study to assess alternative risk assessment methods and inform the development of fit-for-purpose in vitro assays [148].

The current version of OPERA (version 1.5) on Github was used to predict properties for the Dashboard release in August 2017. Since that period, we have continued to collect new data for RT, HL, logP, VP, and WS, and these data will be added to the existing training sets to refine the OPERA models [149]. With these additional data, further analysis including but not limited to Williams graphs for outlier detection and structure–activity landscapes for activity cliff detection will be carried out prior to modeling. The use of other fitting methods and validation techniques will be investigated and the resulting best performing models will be implemented as additional predictive options in OPERA. New environmentally relevant endpoints will also continue to be added to OPERA as data become available. Web services providing real-time prediction capabilities based on SMILES-based structural inputs are presently in development, and the ability to draw a chemical structure in an entry web page as an input to all OPERA models is planned.

Conclusions

The OPERA suite of prediction models was initially developed based on curated data from the public version of the PHYSPROP database. The ultimate goal of this project is to support regulatory decisions. Therefore, the modeling procedure used to develop OPERA is based on the five OECD principles: well-defined physicochemical and environmental fate endpoints; predictive yet unambiguous algorithms used to fit the models; predictive ability assessed using different conventional methods; a thoroughly defined AD; and mechanistic interpretation of the used descriptors researched and provided in QMRFs validated by the JRC (see Additional file 1: S1). The open-source OPERA code, data, executables, and QMRFs all are freely available under the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) open license.

OPERA models were used to predict properties for chemical structures contained within the DSSTox database, and the prediction results and reliability assessment reports are available on the EPA’s CompTox Chemistry Dashboard. OPERA data and prediction models will be continuously updated and will follow the regular releases of the Dashboard. Next versions will include more data from different sources, optimized code for speed and accuracy, and new features including, but not limited to, embedding the QSAR-ready structure generation workflow in the dashboard to allow real-time calculation of properties for new structures. Feedback from the users of the Dashboard regarding the models’ performance and assessment provides useful input and is taken into account in the development of iterative versions.

Abbreviations

AD: 

applicability domain

AOH: 

atmospheric hydroxylation rate

BA: 

balanced accuracy

BCF: 

bioconcentration factor

BioHL: 

biodegradability half-life

BP: 

boiling point

CASRN: 

Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number

CV: 

cross validation

DSSTox: 

Distributed Structure-Searchable Toxicity

DTXSID: 

DSSTox database substance identifier

EPA: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FN: 

false negative

FP: 

false positive

GA: 

genetic algorithm

HL: 

Henry’s law constant

HTS: 

high-throughput screening

InChI: 

International Chemical Identifier

IVIVE: 

in vitro to in vivo extrapolation

JRC: 

Joint Research Center

KM: 

fish biotransformation half-life

KNIME: 

Konstanz Information Miner

kNN: 

k-nearest neighbor

KOA: 

octanol–air partition coefficient

KOC: 

soil adsorption coefficient

logP: 

octanol–water partition coefficient

MDS: 

multidimensional scaling

MP: 

melting point

NCCT: 

National Center for Computational Toxicology

NHANES: 

National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

NICEATM: 

National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods

OECD: 

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

OPERA: 

OPEn structure–activity Relationship App

PBDE: 

polybrominated diphenyl ether

Q2

predictive squared correlation coefficient

QMRF: 

QSAR model reporting format

QSAR: 

quantitative structure–activity relationship

QSPR: 

quantitative structure–property relationship

R2

coefficient of determination

RB: 

readily biodegradable

RMSE: 

root mean square error

RMSEP: 

root mean square error in prediction

RT: 

retention time

SI: 

supporting information

SMILES: 

Simplified Molecular Input Line Entry Specification

Sn: 

sensitivity, the true positive rate

Sp: 

specificity, the true negative rate

TN: 

true negative

TP: 

true positive

VP: 

vapor pressure

WS: 

water solubility

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

KM developed the QSAR ready structure generation workflows used to standardize the structures, calculated the molecular descriptors, run the machine learning steps and developed the OPERA prediction models. CG is responsible for the development of the DSSTox database and the development team responsible for implementing and supporting the software underlying the Chemistry Dashboard databases and integration of the predictive models. RJ provided general guidance and ideas for the development of the models. AJW is the product owner and project lead for the CompTox Chemistry Dashboard including the efforts to integrate the predictions into the Dashboard and collecting new data for modeling. All authors participated in writing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data and materials

ftp://newftp.epa.gov/COMPTOX/Sustainable_Chemistry_Data/Chemistry_Dashboard/OPERA. The dataset supporting the conclusions of this article are available within the article and its additional file as well as OPERA’s Github repository (https://github.com/kmansouri/OPERA) and the EPA’s ftp site [150]: https://figshare.com/s/6fa1babbc9a0e9560317.

Developed software

Project name: OPERA; Project home page: https://www.researchgate.net/project/OPERA-A-QSAR-tool-for-physicochemical-properties-and-environmental-fate-predictions; Archived version: https://github.com/kmansouri/OPERA; Operating systems: Microsoft Windows, Linux; Programming language: MATLAB, C/C++; Other requirements: PaDEL version 2.21; License: MIT License (https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT); Any restrictions to use by non-academics: MIT License.

Disclaimer

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has provided administrative review and has approved this paper for publication. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Funding

This work is funded by Participation Program at the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education through an interagency agreement between the U.S. Department of Energy and EPA.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
National Center for Computational Toxicology, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA
(2)
Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, 1299 Bethel Valley Road, Oak Ridge, TN 37830, USA
(3)
Present address: ScitoVation LLC, 6 Davis Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA

References

  1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) Chemical Reviews and Tools Case Study. http://www.who.int/ifcs/documents/forums/forum5/precaution/epa_en.pdf. Accessed 18 Aug 2017
  2. EPA (2015) Chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). https://www.epa.gov/chemicals-under-tsca. Accessed 18 Aug 2017
  3. Egeghy PP, Judson R, Gangwal S et al (2012) The exposure data landscape for manufactured chemicals. Sci Total Environ 414:159–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.10.046 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Judson RS, Martin MT, Egeghy P et al (2012) Aggregating data for computational toxicology applications: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Aggregated Computational Toxicology Resource (ACToR) System. Int J Mol Sci 13:1805–1831. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms13021805 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Judson R, Richard A, Dix D et al (2008) ACToR-aggregated computational toxicology resource. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 233:7–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.taap.2007.12.037 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Mansouri K, Abdelaziz A, Rybacka A et al (2016) CERAPP: collaborative estrogen receptor activity prediction project. Environ Health Perspect 124:1023–1033. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1510267 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Dionisio KL, Frame AM, Goldsmith MR et al (2015) Exploring consumer exposure pathways and patterns of use for chemicals in the environment. Toxicol Rep. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxrep.2014.12.009 Google Scholar
  8. Cohen Hubal EA, Richard A, Aylward L et al (2010) Advancing exposure characterization for chemical evaluation and risk assessment. J Toxicol Environ Health Part B 13:299–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/10937404.2010.483947 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Knudsen TB, Houck KA, Sipes NS et al (2011) Activity profiles of 309 ToxCast™ chemicals evaluated across 292 biochemical targets. Toxicology 282:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2010.12.010 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Judson R, Richard A, Dix DJ et al (2009) The toxicity data landscape for environmental chemicals. Environ Health Perspect 117:685–695. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.0800168 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Pease W (1997) Toxic ignorance: the continuing absence of basic health testing for top-selling chemicals in the United States. Diane Pub Co., DarbyGoogle Scholar
  12. Toxicity testing: strategies to determine needs and priorities. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309034337. Accessed 21 Apr 2013
  13. Krewski D, Acosta D, Andersen M et al (2010) Toxicity testing in the 21st century: a vision and a strategy. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev 13:51–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/10937404.2010.483176 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. REACH—Environment—European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_intro.htm. Accessed 21 Apr 2013
  15. European Commission, Environment Directorate General (2007) REACH in brief. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/pdf/2007_02_reach_in_brief.pdf. Accessed 21 Apr 2013
  16. Judson RS, Houck KA, Kavlock RJ et al (2010) In vitro screening of environmental chemicals for targeted testing prioritization: the ToxCast project. Environ Health Perspect 118:485–492. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.0901392 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Judson R, Houck K, Martin M et al (2014) In vitro and modelling approaches to risk assessment from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ToxCast programme. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 115:69–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/bcpt.12239 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Mansouri K (2013) Estimating degradation and fate of organic pollutants by QSAR modeling. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing, SaarbruckenGoogle Scholar
  19. Entzeroth M, Flotow H, Condron P (2009) Overview of high-throughput screening. Curr Protoc Pharmacol. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471141755.ph0904s44 Google Scholar
  20. Judson RS, Magpantay FM, Chickarmane V et al (2015) Integrated model of chemical perturbations of a biological pathway using 18 in vitro high-throughput screening assays for the estrogen receptor. Toxicol Sci 148:137–154. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfv168 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Shukla SJ, Huang R, Austin CP, Xia M (2010) The future of toxicity testing: a focus on in vitro methods using a quantitative high-throughput screening platform. Drug Discov Today 15:997–1007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2010.07.007 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Dix DJ, Houck KA, Martin MT et al (2007) The ToxCast program for prioritizing toxicity testing of environmental chemicals. Toxicol Sci 95:5–12. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfl103 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Kavlock R, Chandler K, Houck K et al (2012) Update on EPA’s ToxCast program: providing high throughput decision support tools for chemical risk management. Chem Res Toxicol 25:1287–1302. https://doi.org/10.1021/tx3000939 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Richard AM, Judson RS, Houck KA et al (2016) ToxCast chemical landscape: paving the road to 21st century toxicology. Chem Res Toxicol 29:1225–1251. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrestox.6b00135 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. European Chemicals Agency (2012) Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment. Chapter R.7a: Endpoint specific guidance. RN: ECHA-12-G-11-EN. European Chemicals Agency, Helsinki, Finland. http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13632/information_requirements_r7b_en.pdf
  26. Muster W, Breidenbach A, Fischer H et al (2008) Computational toxicology in drug development. Drug Discov Today 13:303–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2007.12.007 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Mansouri K, Judson RS (2016) In silico study of in vitro GPCR assays by QSAR modeling. In: Benfenati E (ed) In silico methods for predicting drug toxicity. Springer, New York, pp 361–381View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Benfenati E, Diaza RG, Cassano A et al (2011) The acceptance of in silico models for REACH: requirements, barriers, and perspectives. Chem Cent J 5:58. https://doi.org/10.1186/1752-153X-5-58 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Worth AP, Bassan A, Gallegos A et al (2005) The characterisation of (quantitative) structure–activity relationships: preliminary guidance. European Commission Joint Research Centre, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection Toxicology and Chemical Substances Unit Ispra (VA) ItalyGoogle Scholar
  30. Vedani A, Smiesko M (2009) In silico toxicology in drug discovery—concepts based on three-dimensional models. Altern Lab Anim ATLA 37:477–496Google Scholar
  31. Rudén C, Hansson SO (2010) Registration, evaluation, and authorization of chemicals (REACH) is but the first step—how far will it take us? Six further steps to Improve the European Chemicals Legislation. Environ Health Perspect 118:6–10. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.0901157 Google Scholar
  32. Schoeters G (2010) The REACH perspective: toward a new concept of toxicity testing. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev 13:232–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/10937404.2010.483938 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Winder C, Azzi R, Wagner D (2005) The development of the globally harmonized system (GHS) of classification and labelling of hazardous chemicals. J Hazard Mater 125:29–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.05.035 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Nichols JW, Fitzsimmons PN, Burkhard LP (2007) In vitro-in vivo extrapolation of quantitative hepatic biotransformation data for fish. II. Modeled effects on chemical bioaccumulation. Environ Toxicol Chem 26:1304–1319. https://doi.org/10.1897/06-259R.1 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Tetko IV (2007) The prediction of physicochemical properties. In: Ekins S (ed) Computational toxicology. Wiley, New York, pp 240–275View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Benfenati E (2010) The CAESAR project for in silico models for the REACH legislation. Chem Cent J 4:I1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1752-153X-4-S1-I1 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Zang Q, Mansouri K, Williams AJ et al (2017) In silico prediction of physicochemical properties of environmental chemicals using molecular fingerprints and machine learning. J Chem Inf Model 57:36–49. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.6b00625 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Hermens JLM, de Bruijn JHM, Brooke DN (2013) The octanol–water partition coefficient: strengths and limitations. Environ Toxicol Chem 32:732–733. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.2141 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Wang J, Hou T (2011) Recent advances on aqueous solubility prediction. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 14:328–338View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Mansouri K, Consonni V, Durjava MK et al (2012) Assessing bioaccumulation of polybrominated diphenyl ethers for aquatic species by QSAR modeling. Chemosphere 89:433–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.05.081 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Tetko IV, Bruneau P (2004) Application of ALOGPS to predict 1-octanol/water distribution coefficients, logP, and logD, of AstraZeneca in-house database. J Pharm Sci 93:3103–3110. https://doi.org/10.1002/jps.20217 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Gissi A, Gadaleta D, Floris M et al (2014) An alternative QSAR-based approach for predicting the bioconcentration factor for regulatory purposes. Altex 31:23–36. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.1305221 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Hewitt M, Cronin MTD, Enoch SJ et al (2009) In silico prediction of aqueous solubility: the solubility challenge. J Chem Inf Model 49:2572–2587View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Todeschini R, Consonni V (2008) Handbook of molecular descriptors. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
  45. Hansch C (1969) A quantitative approach to biochemical structure–activity relationships. Acc Chem Res 2:232–239View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Hansch C, Fujita T (1964) p–σ–π analysis. A method for the correlation of biological activity and chemical structure. J Am Chem Soc 86:1616–1626. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja01062a035 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Free SM, Wilson JW (1964) A mathematical contribution to structure–activity studies. J Med Chem 7:395–399View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. OECD (2007) Guidance document on the validation of (quantitative) structure–activity relationship [(Q)SAR] models. Guid Doc Valid Quant Struct-Act Relatsh QSAR ModelsGoogle Scholar
  49. Dearden JC, Cronin MTD, Kaiser KLE (2009) How not to develop a quantitative structure–activity or structure–property relationship (QSAR/QSPR). SAR QSAR Environ Res 20:241–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/10629360902949567 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Golbraikh A, Tropsha A (2002) Beware of q2! J Mol Graph Model 20:269–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1093-3263(01)00123-1 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Todeschini R, Ballabio D, Grisoni F (2016) Beware of unreliable Q2! A comparative study of regression metrics for predictivity assessment of QSAR models. J Chem Inf Model 56:1905–1913. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.6b00277 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Tropsha A (2010) Best practices for QSAR model development, validation, and exploitation. Mol Inform 29:476–488View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. EPA (2014) EPI Suite Data. http://esc.syrres.com/interkow/EpiSuiteData_ISIS_SDF.htm. Accessed 26 Apr 2014
  54. Mansouri K, Grulke CM, Richard AM et al (2016) An automated curation procedure for addressing chemical errors and inconsistencies in public datasets used in QSAR modelling. SAR QSAR Environ Res 27:911–937. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062936X.2016.1253611 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. SRC (2016) Scientific databases. http://www.srcinc.com/what-we-do/environmental/scientific-databases.html. Accessed 11 Jul 2016
  56. Ballabio D, Vasighi M, Consonni V, Kompany-Zareh M (2011) Genetic algorithms for architecture optimisation of counter-propagation artificial neural networks. Chemom Intell Lab Syst 105:56–64View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Leardi R (1996) Genetic algorithms in feature selection. In: Genetic algorithms in molecular modeling. Principles of QSAR and drug design, vol 1. Academic Press, London, UK, pp 67–86Google Scholar
  58. Leardi R (2001) Genetic algorithms in chemometrics and chemistry: a review. J Chemom 15:559–569. https://doi.org/10.1002/cem.651 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  59. Todeschini R (1989) k-nearest neighbour method: the influence of data transformations and metrics. Chemom Intell Lab Syst 6:213–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-7439(89)80086-3 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  60. Todeschini R (1990) Weighted k-nearest neighbour method for the calculation of missing values. Chemom Intell Lab Syst 9:201–205View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  61. Consonni V, Ballabio D, Todeschini R (2009) Comments on the definition of the Q2 parameter for QSAR validation. J Chem Inf Model 49:1669–1678. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci900115y View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  62. Consonni V, Ballabio D, Todeschini R (2010) Evaluation of model predictive ability by external validation techniques. J Chemom 24:194–201. https://doi.org/10.1002/cem.1290 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  63. Sahigara F, Mansouri K, Ballabio D et al (2012) Comparison of different approaches to define the applicability domain of QSAR models. Molecules 17:4791–4810. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules17054791 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  64. Dragos H, Gilles M, Alexandre V (2009) Predicting the predictability: a unified approach to the applicability domain problem of qsar models. J Chem Inf Model 49:1762–1776View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  65. Nikolova-Jeliazkova N, Jaworska J (2005) An approach to determining applicability domains for QSAR group contribution models: an analysis of SRC KOWWIN. Altern Lab Anim ATLA 33:461–470Google Scholar
  66. European Commission (2013) QSAR model reporting format (QMRF). In: EU Sci. Hub. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/scientific-tool/qsar-model-reporting-format-qmrf. Accessed 18 Aug 2017
  67. (Q)SAR Model Reporting Format (QMRF) inventory. http://qsardb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/qmrf/. Accessed 18 Aug 2017
  68. Williams A (2017) OPERA: a QSAR tool for physicochemical properties and environmental fate predictionsGoogle Scholar
  69. Mansouri K (2017) OPERA: command line application providing QSAR models predictions and accuracy assessment for physicochemical properties and environmental fate endpoints. https://github.com/kmansouri/OPERA
  70. Mansouri K, Williams AJ (2017) QMRF-JRC-QSARDB: R-Biodeg model for ready biodegradability prediction from OPERA models. RN:Q17-23a-0014. https://qsardb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/qmrf/endpoint. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.19442.71369/1
  71. Mansouri K, Williams AJ (2017) QMRF-JRC-QSARDB: KOA model for the octanol/air partition coefficient prediction from OPERA models. RN: Q17-18-0018. https://qsardb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/qmrf/endpoint. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.14409.54883/1
  72. Mansouri K, Williams AJ (2017) QMRF-JRC-QSARDB: HL model for Henry’s Law constant prediction from OPERA models. RN: Q17-19-0020. https://qsardb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/qmrf/endpoint. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.17764.99201/1
  73. Mansouri K, Williams AJ (2017) QMRF-JRC-QSARDB: WS model for water solubility prediction from OPERA models. RN: Q17-13-0012. https://qsardb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/qmrf/endpoint. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.16087.27041/1
  74. Mansouri K, Williams AJ (2017) QMRF-JRC-QSARDB: LogP model for Octanol-water partition coefficient prediction from the OPERA models. RN: Q17-16-0016. https://qsardb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/qmrf/endpoint. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12731.82723/1
  75. Mansouri K, Williams AJ (2017) QMRF-JRC-QSARDB: KOC model for the soil adsorption coefficient prediction from OPERA models. RN: Q17-26-0017. https://qsardb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/qmrf/endpoint. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.27831.32163/1
  76. Mansouri K, Williams AJ (2017) QMRF-JRC-QSARDB: MP model for melting point prediction from OPERA models. RN: Q17-11-0015. https://qsardb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/qmrf/endpoint. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.26153.60003/1
  77. Mansouri K, Williams AJ (2017) QMRF-JRC-QSARDB: VP model for vapor pressure prediction from OPERA models. RN: Q17-14-0013. https://qsardb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/qmrf/endpoint. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.32864.48641/1
  78. Mansouri K, Williams AJ (2017) QMRF-JRC-QSARDB: KM model for biotransformation rate constant prediction from OPERA models. RN: Q17-66-0019. https://qsardb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/qmrf/endpoint. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.31186.76482/1
  79. Mansouri K, Williams AJ (2017) QMRF-JRC-QSARDB: BP model for boiling point prediction from OPERA models. RN: Q17-12-0021. https://qsardb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/qmrf/endpoint. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.33074.20160/1
  80. Mansouri K, Williams AJ (2017) QMRF-JRC-QSARDB: BiodegHL model for Biodegradation half-life prediction from OPERA models. RN: Q17-23b-0022. https://qsardb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/qmrf/endpoint. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.34751.92320/1
  81. Mansouri K, Williams AJ (2017) QMRF-JRC-QSARDB: BCF model for Fish Bioconcentration Factor from OPERA models. RN: Q17-24a-0023. https://qsardb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/qmrf/endpoint. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.17974.70722/1
  82. Mansouri K, Williams AJ (2017) QMRF-JRC-QSARDB: AOH model for the atmospheric hydroxylation rate (LogOH) constant from OPERA models. RN: Q17-22b-0024. https://qsardb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/qmrf/endpoint. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.24685.59368/2
  83. Chemistry Dashboard|Home. https://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard/. Accessed 19 Aug 2017
  84. Williams AJ, Grulke CM, Edwards J et al (2017) The CompTox Chemistry Dashboard: a community data resource for environmental chemistry. J Cheminform 9:61. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13321-017-0247-6 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  85. ChemSpider (2015) Royal Society of Chemistry, Thomas Graham House (290), Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge CB4 0WF. In: http://www.chemspider.com/. http://www.chemspider.com/. Accessed 29 Jan 2015
  86. National Institutes of Health (NIH) (2015) The PubChem Project. http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/. Accessed 26 Jan 2015
  87. Clark AM, Ekins S (2015) Open source Bayesian models. 2. Mining a “big dataset” to create and validate models with ChEMBL. J Chem Inf Model 55:1246–1260. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.5b00144 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  88. Clark AM, Ekins S, Williams AJ (2012) Redefining cheminformatics with intuitive collaborative mobile apps. Mol Inform 31:569–584View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  89. Berthold MR, Cebron N, Dill F et al (2007) KNIME: the Konstanz Information Miner. In: Studies in classification, data analysis, and knowledge organization (GfKL 2007). Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  90. Ekins S, Williams AJ (2010) Precompetitive preclinical ADME/Tox data: set it free on the web to facilitate computational model building and assist drug development. Lab Chip 10:13–22. https://doi.org/10.1039/B917760B View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  91. Fourches D, Muratov E, Tropsha A (2010) Trust, but verify: on the importance of chemical structure curation in cheminformatics and QSAR modeling research. J Chem Inf Model 50:1189–1204View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  92. Fourches D, Muratov E, Tropsha A (2016) Trust, but verify II: a practical guide to chemogenomics data curation. J Chem Inf Model 56:1243–1252. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.6b00129 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  93. Williams AJ, Ekins S, Tkachenko V (2012) Towards a gold standard: regarding quality in public domain chemistry databases and approaches to improving the situation. Drug Discov Today 17:685–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2012.02.013 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  94. Mansouri K (2017) Standardization workflow for QSAR-ready chemical structures pretreatment. https://github.com/kmansouri/QSAR-ready
  95. Mansouri K, Farag S, Kancherla J et al (2017) KNIME standardization workflow to generate QSAR-ready chemical structures (in preparation) Google Scholar
  96. Yap CW (2011) PaDEL-descriptor: an open source software to calculate molecular descriptors and fingerprints. J Comput Chem 32:1466–1474View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  97. Trisciuzzi D, Alberga D, Mansouri K et al (2015) Docking-based classification models for exploratory toxicology studies on high-quality estrogenic experimental data. Future Med Chem. https://doi.org/10.4155/fmc.15.103 Google Scholar
  98. Lagorce D, Pencheva T, Villoutreix BO, Miteva MA (2009) DG-AMMOS: a new tool to generate 3D conformation of small molecules using distance geometry and automated molecular mechanics optimization for in silico screening. BMC Chem Biol. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6769-9-6 Google Scholar
  99. Benkaidali L, Mansouri K, Tufféry P et al (2012) How well is conformational space covered? In: Putz MV (ed) Chemical information and computational challenges in the 21st century. Nova Science Publishers, Hauppauge, NY, pp 299–313Google Scholar
  100. PaDEL-Descriptor. In: NUS—Natl. Univ. Singap. http://padel.nus.edu.sg/software/padeldescriptor/. Accessed 2 May 2013
  101. Erikon L (2003) Partial least squares (PLS) in cheminformatics. Handbook of chemoinformatics. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH, Weinheim, pp 1134–1166Google Scholar
  102. Wold S (1995) PLS for multivariate linear modeling. Chemometric methods in molecular design. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH, Weinheim, pp 195–218Google Scholar
  103. Asikainen AH, Ruuskanen J, Tuppurainen KA (2004) Consensus kNN QSAR: a versatile method for predicting the estrogenic activity of organic compounds in silico. A comparative study with five estrogen receptors and a large, diverse set of ligands. Environ Sci Technol 38:6724–6729. https://doi.org/10.1021/es049665h View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  104. Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45:5–32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  105. Vapnik VN (1998) Statistical learning theory, 1st edn. Wiley-Interscience, BostonGoogle Scholar
  106. Anzali S (1997) Kohonen neural network: a novel approach to search for bioisosteric groups. Comput Assist Lead Find Optim. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH, Weinheim, pp 95–106Google Scholar
  107. Grisoni F, Consonni V, Villa S et al (2015) QSAR models for bioconcentration: is the increase in the complexity justified by more accurate predictions? Chemosphere 127:171–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.01.047 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  108. Hewitt M, Cronin MTD, Madden JC et al (2007) Consensus QSAR models: do the benefits outweigh the complexity? J Chem Inf Model 47:1460–1468. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci700016d View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  109. Liu T, Moore AW, Yang K, Gray AG (2005) An investigation of practical approximate nearest neighbor algorithms. In: Saul LK, Weiss Y, Bottou L (eds) Advances in neural information processing systems, vol 17. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 825–832Google Scholar
  110. Patlewicz G, Ball N, Becker RA et al (2014) Read-across approaches–misconceptions, promises and challenges ahead. Altex 31:387–396View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  111. Shah I, Liu J, Judson RS et al (2016) Systematically evaluating read-across prediction and performance using a local validity approach characterized by chemical structure and bioactivity information. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol RTP 79:12–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2016.05.008 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  112. Mansouri K, Ringsted T, Ballabio D et al (2013) Quantitative structure–activity relationship models for ready biodegradability of chemicals. J Chem Inf Model 53:867–878. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci4000213 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  113. Eriksson L, Johansson E, Kettapeh-Wold S (1999) Introduction to multi- and megavariate data analysis using projection methods (PCA & PLS). Umetrics, UmeaGoogle Scholar
  114. Jackson JE (1991) A user’s guide to principal components. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, USA. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471725331
  115. Agrafiotis DK, Cedeño W (2002) Feature selection for structure–activity correlation using binary particle swarms. J Med Chem 45:1098–1107. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm0104668 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  116. Ballabio D, Consonni V, Todeschini R (2007) Classification of multiway analytical data based on MOLMAP approach. Anal Chim Acta 605:134–146View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  117. Frank IE, Todeschini R (1994) The data analysis handbook. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  118. Todeschini R, Consonni V (2009) Molecular descriptors for chemoinformatics. Wiley-VCH, WeinheimView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  119. De Maesschalck R, Jouan-Rimbaud D, Massart DL (2000) The Mahalanobis distance. Chemom Intell Lab Syst 50:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7439(99)00047-7 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  120. Todeschini R, Ballabio D, Consonni V et al (2013) Locally centred Mahalanobis distance: a new distance measure with salient features towards outlier detection. Anal Chim Acta 787:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2013.04.034 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  121. MathWorks (2015) MATLAB version 8.2. MathWorksGoogle Scholar
  122. Tebes-Stevens C, Patel JM, Koopmans M et al (2018) Demonstration of a consensus approach for the calculation of physicochemical properties required for environmental fate assessments. Chemosphere 194:94–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.11.137 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  123. Chemistry Dashboard|Atrazine. https://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard/dsstoxdb/results?utf8=%E2%9C%93&search=Atrazine. Accessed 20 Aug 2017
  124. Open PHACTS. https://www.openphacts.org/. Accessed 20 Aug 2017
  125. Benfenati E, Gini G, Piclin N et al (2003) Predicting logP of pesticides using different software. Chemosphere 53:1155–1164. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-6535(03)00609-X View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  126. Eros D, Kovesdi I, Orfi L et al (2002) Reliability of logP predictions based on calculated molecular descriptors: a critical review. Curr Med Chem 9:1819–1829. https://doi.org/10.2174/0929867023369042 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  127. Ghose AK, Viswanadhan VN, Wendoloski JJ (1998) Prediction of hydrophobic (lipophilic) properties of small organic molecules using fragmental methods: an analysis of ALOGP and CLOGP methods. J Phys Chem A 102:3762–3772. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp980230o View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  128. Breindl A, Beck B, Clark T, Glen RC (1997) Prediction of the n-octanol/water partition coefficient, logP, using a combination of semiempirical MO-calculations and a neural network. Mol Model Annu 3:142–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s008940050027 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  129. Box GEP, Draper NR (1987) Empirical model-building and response surfaces. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  130. Braekevelt E, Tittlemier SA, Tomy GT (2003) Direct measurement of octanol–water partition coefficients of some environmentally relevant brominated diphenyl ether congeners. Chemosphere 51:563–567View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  131. Mikula P, Svobodová Z (2006) Brominated flame retardants in the environment: their sources and effects (a review). Acta Vet Brno 75:587–599View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  132. Commission OSPAR (2001) Certain brominated flame retardants-polybrominated diphenyl ethers, polybrominated biphenyls, hexabromo cyclododecane. OSPAR Commission, LondonGoogle Scholar
  133. Commission OSPAR (2005) Tetrabromobisphenol-A-update. OSPAR Commission, LondonGoogle Scholar
  134. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2009) Recommendations of the persistent organic pollutants review committee of the stockholm convention to amend annexes A, B or C of the conventionGoogle Scholar
  135. Chemistry Dashboard|BDE-104. https://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard/dsstoxdb/results?utf8=%E2%9C%93&search=BDE-104. Accessed 21 Aug 2017
  136. Chemistry Dashboard|BDE-150. https://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard/dsstoxdb/calculation_details?model_id=22&search=879953. Accessed 21 Aug 2017
  137. Chemistry Dashboard|Irganox 1010. https://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard/dsstoxdb/calculation_details?model_id=22&search=27633. Accessed 21 Aug 2017
  138. Bradley J-C, Williams A, Lang A (2014) Jean-Claude Bradley open melting point dataset. https://figshare.com/articles/Jean_Claude_Bradley_Open_Melting_Point_Datset/1031637. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1031637.v2
  139. Chemistry Dashboard|Guanidine. https://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard/dsstoxdb/results?utf8=%E2%9C%93&search=Guanidine+. Accessed 21 Aug 2017
  140. Chemistry Dashboard|Guanidine monohydrochloride. https://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard/dsstoxdb/results?search=58757. Accessed 21 Aug 2017
  141. Chemistry Dashboard|Guanidine. https://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard/dsstoxdb/calculation_details?model_id=18&search=23117. Accessed 21 Aug 2017
  142. Chemistry Dashboard|Guanidine monohydrochloride. https://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard/dsstoxdb/calculation_details?model_id=18&search=58757. Accessed 21 Aug 2017
  143. Tetko M IV, Lowe D, Williams AJ (2016) The development of models to predict melting and pyrolysis point data associated with several hundred thousand compounds mined from PATENTS. J Cheminform. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13321-016-0113-y Google Scholar
  144. McEachran AD, Mansouri K, Newton SR et al (2018) A comparison of three liquid chromatography (LC) retention time prediction models. Talanta. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2018.01.022 Google Scholar
  145. Rager JE, Strynar MJ, Liang S et al (2016) Linking high resolution mass spectrometry data with exposure and toxicity forecasts to advance high-throughput environmental monitoring. Environ Int 88:269–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2015.12.008 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  146. McEachran AD, Sobus JR, Williams AJ (2017) Identifying known unknowns using the US EPA’s CompTox Chemistry Dashboard. Anal Bioanal Chem 409:1729–1735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-016-0139-z View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  147. Newton SR, McMahen RL, Sobus JR et al (2018) Suspect screening and non-targeted analysis of drinking water using point-of-use filters. Environ Pollut 234:297–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.11.033 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  148. McMullen PD, Andersen ME, Cholewa B et al (2018) Evaluating opportunities for advancing the use of alternative methods in risk assessment through the development of fit-for-purpose in vitro assays. Toxicol Vitro Int J Publ Assoc BIBRA. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tiv.2018.01.027 Google Scholar
  149. Nicolas CI, Mansouri K, Phillips KA et al (2018) Rapid experimental estimates of physicochemical properties to inform models and testing (in review). Sci Total EnvironGoogle Scholar
  150. Mansouri K, Williams AJ (2017) OPERA models paper data. https://doi.org/10.23645/epacomptox.5588512. EPA FTP: ftp://newftp.epa.gov/COMPTOX/NCCT_Publication_Data/Williams_A/Opera_Model_Paper/

Copyright

Advertisement