Lhasa Limited shared knowledge shared progress

Modelling Simple Toxicity Endpoints: Alerts, (Q)SARs and Beyond

Williams RV; Chilton ML; Macmillan DS; Cayley A; Fisk L; Patel ML;

The correlation of chemical structure with physicochemical and biological data to assess a desired or undesired biological outcome now utilises both qualitative and quantitative structure–activity relationships ((Q)SARs) and advanced computational methods. The adoption of in silico methodologies for predicting toxicity, as decision support tools, is now a common practice in both developmental and regulatory contexts for certain toxicity endpoints. The relative success of these tools has unveiled further challenges relating to interpreting and applying the results of models. These include the concept of what makes a negative prediction and exploring the use of test data to make quantitative predictions. Due to several factors, including the lack of understanding of mechanistic pathways in biological systems, modelling complex endpoints such as organ toxicity brings new challenges. The use of the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) framework as a construct to arrange models and data, to tackle such challenges, is reviewed.



Additional Documents

    Related Publications

    © 2023 Lhasa Limited | Registered office: Granary Wharf House, 2 Canal Wharf, Leeds, LS11 5PS, UK Tel: +44 (0)113 394 6020
    VAT number 396 8737 77 | Lhasa Limited is registered as a charity (290866)| Company Registration Number 01765239 (England and Wales).