Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2015-06
Quantitative Property–Property Relationship for Screening-Level Prediction of Intrinsic Clearance: A Tool for Exposure Modeling for High-Throughput Toxicity Screening Data
A quantitative property–property relationship model was developed to predict intrinsic clearance (Clint) for 403 chemicals across a broad range of chemical properties and validated using a published set of Clint measurements. Clint measurements were predicted using octanol–water and water–air partition coefficients that are readily available or can be quickly estimated for most chemicals. These two chemical properties were determined to be statistically significant predictors of Clint, with >90% of predictions being within a factor of 10 of their measured value, and >60% being within a factor of 3. The resulting Clint estimates, with appropriate confidence bounds, can be readily incorporated into a generic physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for a wide range of chemicals, which can be used to estimate steady-state blood concentrations resulting from environmental exposures. The level of precision associated with this approach (i.e., within an order of magnitude) allows a screening-level estimation of this important metabolic parameter for a wide range of chemicals.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
PenningtonDW, MargniM, AmmannC, JollietO. Multimedia fate and human intake modeling: spatial versus nonspatial insights for chemical emissions in Western Europe. Environ Sci Technol, 2005:39; 1119–1128.
2.
JollietO, MargniM, CharlesR, et al.IMPACT 2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2003:8; 324–330.
3.
HuijbregtsMAJ, ThissenU, GuinéeJB, et al.Priority assessment of toxic substances in life cycle assessment. Part I: calculation of toxicity potentials for 181 substances with the nested multi-media fate, exposure and effects model USESLCA. Chemosphere, 2000:41; 541–573.
4.
van ZelmR, HuijbregtsMAJ, Van deMeentD. USES-LCA 2.0—a global nested multi-media fate, exposure, and effects model. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2009:14; 282–284.
5.
GoedkoopM, Müller-WenkR, HofstetterP, SpriensmaR. The eco-indicator 99 explained. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 1998:3; 352–336.
6.
HertwichE, MatalesSF, PeaseWS, McKoneTE. Human toxicity potentials for life-cycle assessment and toxics release inventory risk screening. Environ Toxicol Chem, 2001:20; 928–939.
7.
McKoneT, BennettD, MaddalenaR. CalTOX 4.0 Technical Support Document, Vol. 1. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; 2001.
8.
DreyerLC, NiemannAL, HauschildMZ. Comparison of three different LCIA methods: EDIP97, CML2001 and eco-indicator 99: does it matter which one you choose?. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2003:8; 191–200.
9.
PantR, Van HoofG, SchowanekD, et al.Comparison between three different LCIA minsights from a detergent case study within OMNIITOX. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2004:9; 295–306.
10.
RosenbaumRK, BachmannTK, GoldLS, et al.USEtox—the UNEP/SETAC-consensus model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2008:13; 532–546.
11.
HauschildMZ, HuijbregtsMAJ, JollietO, et al.Building a model based on scientific consensus for life cycle impact assessment of chemicals: the search for harmony and parsimony. Environ Sci Technol, 2008:42; 7032–7037.
12.
JollietO, RosenbaumRK, ChapmannP, et al.Establishing a framework for life cycle toxicity assessment: findings of the Lausanne review workshop. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2006:11; 209–212.
13.
McKoneTE, KyleAD, JollietO, et al.Dose–response modeling for life cycle impact assessment—findings of the Portland review workshop. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2006:11; 137–140.
14.
LigthartT, AboussouanL, Van de MeentD, et al.Declaration of Apeldoorn on LCIA of non-ferrous metals. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2004:9; 334.
15.
MolanderS, LidholmP, SchowanekD, et al.OMNIITOX—operational life-cycle impact assessment models and information tools for practitioners. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2004:9; 282–288.
16.
GuinéeJB, De KoningA, PenningtonDW, et al.Bringing science and pragmatism together: a tiered approach for modelling toxicological impacts in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2004:9; 320.
17.
HaysSM, AylwardLL, LakindJS. Introduction to the Biomonitoring Equivalents Pilot Project: development of guidelines for the derivation and communication of Biomonitoring Equivalents. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2008:51; S1–S2.
18.
LaKindJS, AylwardLL, BrunkC, et al.Biomonitoring Equivalents Expert Workshop. Guidelines for the communication of biomonitoring equivalents: report from the Biomonitoring Equivalents Expert Workshop. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2008:51; S16–S26.
19.
BrownRP, DelpMD, LindstedtSL, et al.Physiological parameter values for physiologically based pharmacokinetic models. Toxicol Ind Health, 1997:13; 407–484.
20.
ICRP. Basic anatomical and physiological data for use in radiological protection: reference values. A report of age- and gender-related differences in the anatomical and physiological characteristics of reference individuals. ICRP Publication 89. Ann ICRP, 2002:32; 5–265.
21.
PoulinP, KrishnanK. An algorithm for predicting tissue: blood partition coefficients of organic chemicals from n-octanol:water partition coefficient data. J Toxicol Environ Health, 1995:46; 117–129.
22.
PoulinP, KrishnanK. Molecular structure-based prediction of the partition coefficients of organic chemicals for physiologically based pharmacokinetic models. Toxicol Methods, 1996:6; 117–137.
23.
ArnotJA, MackayD, ParkertonTF, et al.Multimedia modeling of human exposure to chemical substances: The roles of food web biomagnification and biotransformation. Environ Toxicol Chem, 2010:29; 45–55.
24.
McLachlanMS, CzubG, MacleodM, ArnotJA. Bioaccumulation of organic contaminants in humans: A multimedia perspective and the importance of biotransformation. Environ Sci Technol, 2011:45; 197–202.
25.
GaoC, GoindR, TabakHH. Application of the group contribution method for predicting the toxicity of organic chemicals. Environ Toxicol Chem, 1992:11; 631–636.
26.
B'eliveauM, LipscombJ, TardifR, KrishnanK. Quantitative structure property relationships for interspecies extrapolation of the inhalation pharmacokinetics of organic chemicals. Chem Res Toxicol, 2005:18; 475–485.
27.
B'eliveauM, TardifR, KrishnanK. Quantitative structure-property relationships for physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling of volatile organic chemicals in rats. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol, 2003:189; 221–232.
28.
KamgangE, PeyretT, KrishnanK. An integrated QSPRPBPK modeling approach for in vitro-in vivo extrapolation of pharmacokinetics in rats. SAR QSAR Environ Res, 2008:19; 669–680.
29.
PriceK, KrishnanK. An integrated QSAR-PBPK modeling approach for predicting the inhalation toxicokinetics of mixtures of volatile organic chemicals in the rat. SAR QSAR Environ Res, 2011:22; 107–128.
30.
KirchmairJ, WilliamsonMJ, TyzackJD, et al.Computational prediction of metabolism: sites, products, SAR, P450 enzyme dynamics, and mechanisms. J Chem Inf Model, 2012:52; 617–48.
31.
CarosatiE. Modeling cytochromes P450 binding modes to predict P450 inhibition, metabolic stability and isoform selectivity. Drug Discov Today Technol, 2013:10; e167–e175.
32.
RydbergP, VasanthanathanP, OostenbrinkC, OlsenL. Fast prediction of cytochrome P450 mediated drug metabolism. Chem Med Chem, 2009:4; 2070–2079.
33.
PeyretT, KrishnanK. Quantitative property-property relationship for screening-level prediction of intrinsic clearance of volatile organic chemicals in rats and its integration within PBPK Models to predict inhalation pharmacokinetics in humans. J Toxicol, 2012:2012; 286079.
34.
RotroffDM, WetmoreBA, DixDJ, et al.Incorporating human dosimetry and exposure into high-throughput in vitro toxicity screening. Toxicol Sci, 2010:117; 348–358.
35.
WetmoreBA, WambaughJF, FergusonSS, et al.Integration of dosimetry, exposure, and high-throughput screening data in chemical toxicity assessment. Toxicol Sci, 2012:125; 157–174.
36.
Cohen HubalEA, de WetT, Du ToitL, et al.Identifying important life stages for monitoring and assessing risks from exposures to environmental contaminants: Results of a World Health Organization review. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2014:69; 113–124.
37.
AylwardLL, KirmanCR, BlountBC, HaysSM. Chemical-specific screening criteria for interpretation of biomonitoring data for volatile organic compounds (VOCs)—application of steady-state PBPK model solutions. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2010:58; 33–44.
38.
KohliJD, KhannaRN, GuptaBN, et al.Absorption and excretion of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid in man. Xenobiotica, 1974:4; 97–100.
39.
Sandborgh-EnglundG, Adolfsson-EriciM, OdhamG, EkstrandJ. Pharmacokinetics of triclosan following oral ingestion in humans. J Toxicol Environ Health A, 2006:69; 1861–1873.
40.
TimchalkC, KousbaA, PoetTS. Monte Carlo analysis of the human chlorpyrifos-oxonase (PON1) polymorphism using a physiologically based pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (PBPK/PD) model. Toxicol Lett, 2002:135; 51–59.
41.
TeeguardenJG, WaechterJMJr., Clewell HJIII, et al.Evaluation of oral and intravenous route pharmacokinetics, plasma protein binding, and uterine tissue dose metrics of bisphenol A: a physiologically based pharmacokinetic approach. Toxicol Sci, 2005:85; 823–838.
42.
MielkeH, Gundert-RemyU. Bisphenol A levels in blood depend on age and exposure. Toxicol Lett, 2009:190; 32–40.
43.
EdgintonAN, RitterL. Predicting plasma concentrations of bisphenol A in children younger than 2 years of age after typical feeding schedules, using a physiologically based toxicokinetic model. Environ Health Perspect, 2009:117; 645–653.
44.
SauerhoffMW, BraunWH, BlauGE, GehringPJ. The fate of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4D) following oral administration to man. Toxicology, 1977:8; 3–11.
45.
ThuressonK, HöglundP, HagmarL, et al.Apparent half-lives of hepta- to decabrominated diphenyl ethers in human serum as determined in occupationally exposed workers. Environ Health Perspect, 2006:114; 176–182.
TaylorJ. An Introduction to Error Analysis: The Study of Uncertainties in Physical Measurements. University Science Books; 1997, pp 166–168.
48.
OECD. Guidance document on the validation of (quantitative)structure-activity relationships (QSAR) models. ENV/JM/MONO, 2007:2.
49.
LongA, WalkerJD. Quantitative structure-activity relationships for predicting metabolism and modeling cytochrome P450 enzyme activities. Environ Toxicol Chem, 2003:22; 1894–1899.
50.
ChibaM, IshiiY, SugiyamaY. Prediction of hepatic clearance in human from in vitro data for successful drug development. AAPS J, 2009:11; 262–2676.
51.
SmithCM, NolanCK, EdwardsMA, et al.A comprehensive evaluation of metabolic activity and intrinsic clearance in suspensions and monolayer cultures of cryopreserved primary human hepatocytes. J Pharm Sci, 2012:101; 3989–4002.
52.
WetmoreBA, WambaughJF, FergusonSS, et al.Relative impact of incorporating pharmacokinetics on predicting in vivo hazard and mode of action from high-throughput in vitro toxicity assays. Toxicol Sci, 2013:132; 327–346.
53.
GinsbergG, HattisD, SonawaneB, et al.Evaluation of child/adult pharmacokinetic differences from a database derived from the therapeutic drug literature. Toxicol Sci, 2002:66; 185–200.
54.
HinesRN, SargentD, AutrupH, et al.Approaches for assessing risks to sensitive populations: lessons learned from evaluating risks in the pediatric population. Toxicol Sci, 2010:113; 4–26.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
