Towards an alternative to nano-QSAR for nanoparticle toxicity ranking in case of small datasets
Source abstract
Abstract
Statistical analysis approaches have been developed to predict the biological response to nanoparticles, especially quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) models. But one major limitation remains the quantitative lack of data to build accurate models. The aim of this study was to investigate if simple alternative mathematical models could rank nanoparticles in a very binary way (i.e., toxic or not) in case of small dataset. We synthesized and characterized 25 nanoparticles from 6 metal (hydr)oxide families with particle size and shape tuning. We assessed their toxicity on RAW 264.7 cells and investigated relationships with both physicochemical and dimensional descriptors. A simple partial least square (PLS) regression analysis allowed ranking nanoparticles with respect to their toxicity, without false-negative results. But this model was not predictive due to the specific response of each family to dimensional parameters variations. A classification tree extracted the same main bulk descriptor as PLS, but interestingly showed the relevance of dimensional descriptors for the second and third node. We thus recommend the development of family-specific models and propose the combination of these two simple methods as pre-screening tools, a compromise to bridge the gap between case-by-case studies (expensive and time-consuming) and sophisticated nano-QSAR models (not suitable for small datasets).
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Computational Drug Discovery Methods · Nanoparticles: synthesis and applications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (31)
Show source-provided references
1. Chatterjee R (2009) Calculating the costs of nanohazard testing. Environ Sci Technol 43:3405–3405. https://doi.org/10.1021/es900758w10.1021/es900758w ↗
2. Coudun C, Hochepied J-F (2005) Nickel hydroxide “stacks of pancakes” obtained by the coupled effect of ammonia and template agent. J Phys Chem B 109:6069–6074. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp046644110.1021/jp0466441 ↗
3. Dekkers S, Oomen AG, Bleeker EAJ, Vandebriel RJ, Micheletti C, Cabellos J, Janer G, Fuentes N, Vázquez-Campos S, Borges T, Silva MJ, Prina-Mello A, Movia D, Nesslany F, Ribeiro AR, Leite PE, Groenewold M, Cassee FR, Sips AJAM, Dijkzeul A, van Teunenbroek T, Wijnhoven SWP (2016) Towards a nanospecific approach for risk assessment. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 80:46–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2016.05.03710.1016/j.yrtph.2016.05.037 ↗
4. Di Patrizio N, Bagnaro M, Gaunand A et al (2016) Hydrodynamics and mixing performance of Hartridge Roughton mixers: influence of the mixing chamber design. Chem Eng J 283:375–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2015.06.11610.1016/j.cej.2015.06.116 ↗
5. Fjodorova N, Novic M, Gajewicz A, Rasulev B (2017) The way to cover prediction for cytotoxicity for all existing nano-sized metal oxides by using neural network method. Nanotoxicology 11:475–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/17435390.2017.131094910.1080/17435390.2017.1310949 ↗
6. Florea I, Feral-Martin C, Majimel J, Ihiawakrim D, Hirlimann C, Ersen O (2013) Three-dimensional tomographic analyses of CeO2 nanoparticles. Cryst Growth Des 13:1110–1121. https://doi.org/10.1021/cg301445h10.1021/cg301445h ↗
7. Forest V, Leclerc L, Hochepied J-F, Trouvé A, Sarry G, Pourchez J (2017) Impact of cerium oxide nanoparticles shape on their in vitro cellular toxicity. Toxicol in Vitro 38:136–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tiv.2016.09.02210.1016/j.tiv.2016.09.022 ↗
8. Fourches D, Pu D, Tassa C, Weissleder R, Shaw SY, Mumper RJ, Tropsha A (2010) Quantitative nanostructure-activity relationship modeling. ACS Nano 4:5703–5712. https://doi.org/10.1021/nn101348410.1021/nn1013484 ↗
9. Gajewicz A (2017a) Development of valuable predictive read-across models based on “real-life” (sparse) nanotoxicity data. Environ Sci Nano 4:1389–1403. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7EN00102A10.1039/C7EN00102A ↗
10. Gajewicz A (2017b) What if the number of nanotoxicity data is too small for developing predictive Nano-QSAR models? An alternative read-across based approach for filling data gaps. Nanoscale 9:8435–8448. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7nr02211e10.1039/c7nr02211e ↗
11. Gajewicz A, Rasulev B, Dinadayalane TC, Urbaszek P, Puzyn T, Leszczynska D, Leszczynski J (2012) Advancing risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials: application of computational approaches. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 64:1663–1693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2012.05.01410.1016/j.addr.2012.05.014 ↗
12. Gajewicz A, Cronin MTD, Rasulev B, Leszczynski J, Puzyn T (2015a) Novel approach for efficient predictions properties of large pool of nanomaterials based on limited set of species: nano-read-across. Nanotechnology 26:015701. https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-4484/26/1/01570110.1088/0957-4484/26/1/015701 ↗
13. Gajewicz A, Schaeublin N, Rasulev B, Hussain S, Leszczynska D, Puzyn T, Leszczynski J (2015b) Towards understanding mechanisms governing cytotoxicity of metal oxides nanoparticles: hints from nano-QSAR studies. Nanotoxicology 9:313–325. https://doi.org/10.3109/17435390.2014.93019510.3109/17435390.2014.930195 ↗
14. Gajewicz A, Jagiello K, Cronin MTD, Leszczynski J, Puzyn T (2017) Addressing a bottle neck for regulation of nanomaterials: quantitative read-across (Nano-QRA) algorithm for cases when only limited data is available. Environ Sci Nano 4:346–358. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6EN00399K10.1039/C6EN00399K ↗
15. Gajewicz A, Puzyn T, Odziomek K, Urbaszek P, Haase A, Riebeling C, Luch A, Irfan MA, Landsiedel R, van der Zande M, Bouwmeester H (2018) Decision tree models to classify nanomaterials according to the DF4nanoGrouping scheme. Nanotoxicology 12:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/17435390.2017.141538810.1080/17435390.2017.1415388 ↗
16. Ghorbanzadeh M, Fatemi MH, Karimpour M (2012) Modeling the cellular uptake of magnetofluorescent nanoparticles in pancreatic cancer cells: a quantitative structure activity relationship study. Ind Eng Chem Res 51:10712–10718. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie300694710.1021/ie3006947 ↗
17. Gramatica P (2007) Principles of QSAR models validation: internal and external. QSAR Comb Sci 26:694–701. https://doi.org/10.1002/qsar.20061015110.1002/qsar.200610151 ↗
18. Hamadache M, Amrane A, Benkortbi O, Hanini S, Khaouane L, Si Moussa C (2017) Environmental toxicity of pesticides, and its modeling by QSAR approaches. In: Roy K (ed) Advances in QSAR modeling: applications in pharmaceutical, chemical, food. Agricultural and Environmental Sciences. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 471–50110.1007/978-3-319-56850-8_13 ↗
19. Hansch C, Maloney PP, Fujita T, Muir RM (1962) Correlation of biological activity of phenoxyacetic acids with Hammett substituent constants and partition coefficients. Nature 194:178–180. https://doi.org/10.1038/194178b010.1038/194178b0 ↗
20. ISO/TR 13014:2012 Nanotechnologies - guidance on physico-chemical characterization of engineered nanoscale materials for toxicologic assessment. In: ISO. http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=52334 . Accessed 28 Nov 2016
21. Kar S, Gajewicz A, Puzyn T, Roy K, Leszczynski J (2014) Periodic table-based descriptors to encode cytotoxicity profile of metal oxide nanoparticles: a mechanistic QSTR approach. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 107:162–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2014.05.02610.1016/j.ecoenv.2014.05.026 ↗
22. Lamon L, Asturiol D, Vilchez A, Ruperez-Illescas R, Cabellos J, Richarz A, Worth A (2018) Computational models for the assessment of manufactured nanomaterials: development of model reporting standards and mapping of the model landscape. Comput Toxicol 9:143–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comtox.2018.12.00210.1016/j.comtox.2018.12.002 ↗
23. Mas S, de Juan A, Tauler R, Olivieri AC, Escandar GM (2010) Application of chemometric methods to environmental analysis of organic pollutants: a review. Talanta 80:1052–1067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2009.09.04410.1016/j.talanta.2009.09.044 ↗
24. Musić S, Filipović-Vinceković N, Sekovanić L (2011) Precipitation of amorphous SiO2 particles and their properties. Braz J Chem Eng 28:89–94. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-6632201100010001110.1590/S0104-66322011000100011 ↗
25. Pan Y, Li T, Cheng J, Telesca D, Zink JI, Jiang J (2016) Nano-QSAR modeling for predicting the cytotoxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles using novel descriptors. RSC Adv 6:25766–25775. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RA01298A10.1039/C6RA01298A ↗
26. Puzyn T, Rasulev B, Gajewicz A, Hu X, Dasari TP, Michalkova A, Hwang HM, Toropov A, Leszczynska D, Leszczynski J (2011) Using nano-QSAR to predict the cytotoxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles. Nat Nanotechnol 6:175–178. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2011.1010.1038/nnano.2011.10 ↗
27. Trenque I, Mornet S, Duguet E, Gaudon M (2013) New insights into crystallite size and cell parameters correlation for ZnO nanoparticles obtained from polyol-mediated synthesis. Inorg Chem 52:12811–12817. https://doi.org/10.1021/ic402152f10.1021/ic402152f ↗
28. Villaverde JJ, Sevilla-Morán B, López-Goti C, Alonso-Prados JL, Sandín-España P (2017) Computational methodologies for the risk assessment of pesticides in the European Union. J Agric Food Chem 65:2017–2018. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.7b0051610.1021/acs.jafc.7b00516 ↗
29. Villaverde JJ, Sevilla-Morán B, López-Goti C, Alonso-Prados JL, Sandín-España P (2018) Considerations of nano-QSAR/QSPR models for nanopesticide risk assessment within the European legislative framework. Sci Total Environ 634:1530–1539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.03310.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.033 ↗
30. Winkler DA, Mombelli E, Pietroiusti A, Tran L, Worth A, Fadeel B, McCall MJ (2013) Applying quantitative structure-activity relationship approaches to nanotoxicology: current status and future potential. Toxicology 313:15–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2012.11.00510.1016/j.tox.2012.11.005 ↗
31. Yang Q (2011) Synthesis of γ-Al2O3 nanowires through a boehmite precursor route. Bull Mater Sci 34:239–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12034-011-0062-z10.1007/s12034-011-0062-z ↗