An integrated "4-phase" approach for setting endocrine disruption screening priorities--phase I and II predictions of estrogen receptor binding affinity

• Published in: SAR and QSAR in environmental research Vol. 13; no. 1; pp. 69 - 88
• Main Authors: Shi‡, L., Tong, W., Fang, H., Xie, Q., Hong, H., Perkins, R., Wu, J., Tu§, M., Blair, R.M, Branham, W.S, Waller, C., Walker, J., Sheehan, D.M.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Taylor & Francis Group 01.03.2002
• Subjects: Biological Assay; Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals; Endocrine System - drug effects; Endocrine System - physiology; Estrogen Receptor Binding; Estrogens; Estrogens, Non-Steroidal - adverse effects; Estrogens, Non-Steroidal - pharmacology; Forecasting; Humans; Models, Chemical; Priority Setting; Qsar; Receptors, Estrogen - drug effects; Receptors, Estrogen - physiology; Structure-Activity Relationship; Xenobiotics - adverse effects; Xenobiotics - pharmacology
• ISSN: 1062-936X; 1029-046X
• DOI: 10.1080/10629360290002235

Recent legislation mandates the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop a screening and testing program for potential endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), of which xenoestrogens figure prominently. Under the legislation, a large number of chemicals will undergo various in vitro and in vivo assays for their potential estrogenicity, as well as other hormonal activities. There is a crucial need for priority setting before this strategy can be effectively implemented. Here we report an integrated computational approach to priority setting using estrogen receptor (ER) binding as an example. This approach rationally integrates different predictive computational models into a "Four-Phase" scheme so that it can effectively identify potential estrogenic EDCs based on their predicted ER relative binding affinity (RBA). The system has been validated using an in-house ER binding assay dataset for 232 chemicals that was designed to have both broad structural diversity and a wide range of binding affinities. When applied to 58,000 chemicals identified by Walker et al. as candidates for endocrine disruption screening, some 9100 chemicals were predicted to bind to ER. Of these, only 3600 were expected to bind to ER at RBA values up to 100,000-fold less than that of 17 g -estradiol. The method ruled out 83% of the chemicals as non-binders with a very low rate of false negatives. We believe that the same integrated scheme will be equally applicable to endpoints of other endocrine disrupting mechanisms, e.g. androgen receptor binding.