Abstract
AbstractPhysiologically based kinetic (PBK) modelling offers a mechanistic basis for predicting the pharmaco-/toxicokinetics of compounds and thereby provides critical information for integrating toxicity and exposure data to replace animal testing with in vitro or in silico methods. However, traditional PBK modelling depends on animal and human data, which limits its usefulness for non-animal methods. To address this limitation, high-throughput PBK modelling aims to rely exclusively on in vitro and in silico data for model generation. Here, we evaluate a variety of in silico tools and different strategies to parameterise PBK models with input values from various sources in a high-throughput manner. We gather 2000 + publicly available human in vivo concentration–time profiles of 200 + compounds (IV and oral administration), as well as in silico, in vitro and in vivo determined compound-specific parameters required for the PBK modelling of these compounds. Then, we systematically evaluate all possible PBK model parametrisation strategies in PK-Sim and quantify their prediction accuracy against the collected in vivo concentration–time profiles. Our results show that even simple, generic high-throughput PBK modelling can provide accurate predictions of the pharmacokinetics of most compounds (87% of Cmax and 84% of AUC within tenfold). Nevertheless, we also observe major differences in prediction accuracies between the different parameterisation strategies, as well as between different compounds. Finally, we outline a strategy for high-throughput PBK modelling that relies exclusively on freely available tools. Our findings contribute to a more robust understanding of the reliability of high-throughput PBK modelling, which is essential to establish the confidence necessary for its utilisation in Next-Generation Risk Assessment.
Funder
H2020 Societal Challenges
Universitätsklinikum RWTH Aachen
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference74 articles.
1. Bender A, Cortés-Ciriano I (2021) Artificial intelligence in drug discovery: what is realistic, what are illusions? Part 1: ways to make an impact, and why we are not there yet. Drug Discov Today 26(2):511–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2020.12.009
2. Benfenati E, Manganaro A, Gini G (2013) VEGA-QSAR: AI inside a platform for predictive toxicology. Popularize Artificial Intelligence 2013: Proceedings of the Workshop on Popularize Artificial Intelligence (PAI 2013)
3. Berezhkovskiy LM (2004) Volume of distribution at steady state for a linear pharmacokinetic system with peripheral elimination. J Pharm Sci 93(6):1628–1640. https://doi.org/10.1002/jps.20073
4. Blaauboer BJ (2010) Biokinetic modeling and in vitro-in vivo extrapolations. J Toxicol Environ Health Part B Crit Rev 13(2–4):242–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/10937404.2010.483940
5. Bouvier d’Yvoire M, Prieto P, Blaauboer BJ, Bois FY, Boobis A, Brochot C, Coecke S, Freidig A, Gundert-Remy U, Hartung T, Jacobs MN, Lavé T, Leahy DE, Lennernäs H, Loizou GD, Meek B, Pease C, Rowland M, Spendiff M, Yang J, Zeilmaker M (2007) Physiologically-based kinetic modelling (PBK modelling): meeting the 3Rs agenda. The report and recommendations of ECVAM Workshop 63. Altern Lab Anim: ATLA 35(6):661–671. https://doi.org/10.1177/026119290703500606