4.5 Article

Analysis of Pfizer Compounds in EPA's ToxCast Chemicals-Assay Space

期刊

CHEMICAL RESEARCH IN TOXICOLOGY
卷 27, 期 1, 页码 86-98

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/tx400343t

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) launched the ToxCast program in 2007 with the goal of evaluating high-throughput in vitro assays to prioritize chemicals that need toxicity testing. Their goal was to develop predictive bioactivity signatures for toxic compounds using a set of in vitro assays and/or in silico properties. In 2009, Pfizer joined the ToxCast initiative by contributing 52 compounds with preclinical and clinical data for profiling across the multiple assay platforms available. Here, we describe the initial analysis of the Pfizer subset of compounds Within the ToxCast chemical (n = 1814) and in vitro assay (n = 486) space. An analysis of the hit rate of Pfizer compounds in the ToxCast assay panel allowed Us to focus our mining of assays potentially most relevant to the attrition of our compounds. We compared the bioactivity profile of Pfizer compounds to other compounds in the ToxCast chemical space to gain insights into common toxicity pathways. Additionally, we explored the similarity in the chemical and biological spaces between drug-like compounds and environmental chemicals in ToxCast and compared the in vivo profiles of a subset of failed pharmaceuticals having high similarity in both spaces. We found differences in the chemical and biological spaces of pharmaceuticals compared to environmental chemicals, which may question the applicability of bioactivity signatures developed exclusively based on the latter to drug-like compounds if used without prior validation with the ToxCast Phase-II chemicals. Finally; our analysis has allowed us to identify novel interactions for our compounds in particular with multiple nuclear receptors that were previously not known. This insight may help us to identify potential liabilities with future novel compounds.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据