VEGAHUB (www.vegahub.eu) is a repository of freely available, downloadable tools based on computational toxicology methodologies. The main software tool available in VEGAHUB is VEGA QSAR software encoding more than 90 quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) models for tens of endpoints for human toxicology, ecotoxicology, environmental, physico-chemical and toxicokinetic properties. However, beyond VEGA QSAR, VEGAHUB offers several other tools. Here, we present these resources, the possibilities to fully exploit them and the ways in which to integrate results provided by different VEGAHUB tools. Read-across and weight-of-evidence represent a major advantage of VEGAHUB. Integration between hazard and exposure is provided within innovative tools, which are specific for well-defined scenarios, such as those for cosmetic products. Prioritisation can be achieved by integrating results from 48 models. Finally, we highlight how some tools may not only fit predefined endpoints but also could be applied to general problems and research applications in the QSAR field. A couple of examples are provided, in which a critical assessment of the predictions and the documentation associated with the prediction are considered, in order to properly assess the quality of the results. These results may be associated with different levels of uncertainty or even be conflicting.
DeardenJC. The history and development of quantitative structure–activity relationships (QSARs). IJQSPR2016; 1: 1–44.
2.
OECD. Guidance document on the validation of (quantitative) structure–activity relationships (Q(SAR)) models. OECD Series on Testing and Assessment No. 69. ENV/JM/MONO(2007)2.Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2007, 154 pp.
3.
MarchantCABriggsKALongA. In silico tools for sharing data and knowledge on toxicity and metabolism: Derek for Windows, Meteor, and Vitic. Toxicol Mech Methods2008; 18: 177–187.
4.
KlopmanG. Predicting toxicity through a computer automated structure evaluation program. Environ Health Perspect1985; 61: 269–274.
5.
MekenyanODimitrovSDimitrovaN, et al.Metabolic activation of chemicals: In-silico simulation. SAR QSAR Environ Res2006; 17: 107–120.
6.
RobertsGMyattGJJohnsonWP, et al.LeadScope: Software for exploring large sets of screening data. J Chem Inf Comp Sci2000; 40: 1302–1314.
PatlewiczGJeliazkovaNSaffordRJ, et al.An evaluation of the implementation of the Cramer classification scheme in the Toxtree software. SAR QSAR Environ Res2008; 19: 495–524.
10.
MaunzAGütleinMRautenbergM, et al.lazar: A modular predictive toxicology framework. Front Pharmacol2013; 4: 38.
SushkoINovotarskyiSKörnerR, et al.Online chemical modeling environment (OCHEM): Web platform for data storage, model development and publishing of chemical information. J Comput Aided Mol Des2011; 25: 533–554.
13.
MaddenJCEnochSJPainiA, et al.A review of in silico tools as alternatives to animal testing: Principles, resources and applications. Altern Lab Anim2020; 48: 146–172.
14.
BenfenatiEManganaroAGiniG. VEGA-QSAR: AI inside a platform for predictive toxicology. Proceedings of the workshop ‘Popularize Artificial Intelligence, 5 December 2013, Turin, Italy. Published in CEUR Workshop Proceedings Vol 1107, http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1107/ (2013, accessed 13 December 2021).
15.
FlorisMManganaroANicolottiO, et al.A generalizable definition of chemical similarity for read-across. J Cheminform2014; 6: 39.
16.
BakhtyariNGRaitanoGBenfenatiE, et al.Comparison of in silico models for prediction of mutagenicity. J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev2013; 31: 45–66.
17.
GiniGFranchiAMManganaroA, et al.ToxRead: A tool to assist in read across and its use to assess mutagenicity of chemicals. SAR QSAR Environ Res2014; 25: 999–1011.
18.
BenfenatiERoncaglioniAPetoumenouMI, et al.Integrating QSAR and read-across for environmental assessment. SAR QSAR Environ Res2015; 26: 605–618.
19.
FlorisMRaitanoGMeddaR, et al.Fragment prioritization on a large mutagenicity dataset. Mol Inf2017; 36: 1600133.
20.
FerrariTGiniGGolbamaki BakhtyariN, et al.Mining structural alerts from SMILES: A new way to derive structure–activity relationships. In: Proc. IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI) 2011 — CIDM, Paris, 2011, pp. 120–127.
21.
GiniGFerrariTCattaneoD, et al.Automatic knowledge extraction from chemical structures: The case of mutagenicity prediction. SAR QSAR Environ Res2013; 24: 365–383.
22.
SelvestrelGRobinoFBadernaD, et al.SpheraCosmolife: A new tool for the risk assessment of cosmetic products. ALTEX2021; 38: 565–579.
23.
Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety. SCCS Notes of Guidance for the Testing of Cosmetic Ingredients and Their Safety Evaluation 10th Revision, SCCS/1602/18. Luxembourg: European Commission, 2018, 147 pp.
24.
European Commission. Regulation (EC) No. 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products. Off J Euro Union2009; L342: 59–209.
25.
Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety. SCCS Notes of Guidance for the Testing of Cosmetic Ingredients and their Safety Evaluation 11th Revision, SCCS/1628/21. Luxembourg: European Commission, 2021, 188 pp.
26.
PizzoFLombardoAManganaroA, et al.Integrated in silico strategy for PBT assessment and prioritization under REACH. Environ Res2016; 151: 478–492.
27.
TanHWangXHongH, et al.Structures of endocrine-disrupting chemicals determine binding to and activation of the estrogen receptor α and androgen receptor. Environ Sci Technol2020; 54: 11,424–11,433.
28.
GolbamakiAFranchiAMManganelliS, et al.ToxDelta: A new program to assess how dissimilarity affects the effect of chemical substances. Drug Des2017; 6: 153.
29.
BenfenatiEManganelliSGiordanoS, et al.Hierarchical rules for read-across and in silico models of mutagenicity. J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev2015; 33: 385–403.
30.
CaoYJiangTGirkeT. A maximum common substructure-based algorithm for searching and predicting drug-like compounds. Bioinformatics2008; 24: i366–i374.
31.
ChayawanCTomaCBenfenatiE, et al.Towards an understanding of the mode of action of human aromatase activity for azoles through quantum chemical descriptors-based regression and structure activity relationship modeling analysis. Molecules2020; 25: 739.
32.
VukovicKGadaletaDBenfenatiE. Methodology of aiQSAR: a group-specific approach to QSAR modelling. J Cheminform2019; 11: 27.
33.
GuhaR. Chemical informatics functionality in R. J Stat Softw2007; 18: 1–16.
34.
KuhnM. Building predictive models in R using the caret package. J Stat Softw2008; 28: 5.
35.
ToropovaAPToropovAA. Evolution of optimal descriptors. IJQSPR2016; 1: 52–71.
36.
ToropovaAPToropovAA. QSPR and nano-QSPR: What is the difference?J Mol Struct2019; 1182: 141–149.
37.
LavadoGJBadernaDCarnesecchiE, et al.QSAR models for soil ecotoxicity: Development and validation of models to predict reproductive toxicity of organic chemicals in the collembola Folsomia candida. J Hazard Mater2022; 423B: 127236.
EFSA Scientific Committee, HardyABenfordDHalldorssonT, et al.Scientific opinion on the guidance on the use of the weight of evidence approach in scientific assessments. EFSA Journal2017; 15(8): e04971.
40.
BenfenatiEChaudhryQGiniG, et al.Integrating in silico models and read-across methods for predicting toxicity of chemicals: A step-wise strategy. Environ Int2019; 131: 105060.
41.
CassanoARaitanoGMombelliE, et al.Evaluation of QSAR models for the prediction of Ames genotoxicity: A retrospective exercise on the chemical substances registered under the EU REACH regulation. J Environ Sci Health Part C2014; 32: 273–298.
