Public domain and commercial in silico tools were compared for their performance in predicting the skin sensitization potential of chemicals. The packages were either statistical based (Vega, CASE Ultra) or rule based (OECD Toolbox, Toxtree, Derek Nexus). In practice, several of these in silico tools are used in gap filling and read-across, but here their use was limited to make predictions based on presence/absence of structural features associated to sensitization. The top 400 ranking substances of the ATSDR 2011 Priority List of Hazardous Substances were selected as a starting point. Experimental information was identified for 160 chemically diverse substances (82 positive and 78 negative). The prediction for skin sensitization potential was compared with the experimental data. Rule-based tools perform slightly better, with accuracies ranging from 0.6 (OECD Toolbox) to 0.78 (Derek Nexus), compared with statistical tools that had accuracies ranging from 0.48 (Vega) to 0.73 (CASE Ultra - LLNA weak model). Combining models increased the performance, with positive and negative predictive values up to 80% and 84%, respectively. However, the number of substances that were predicted positive or negative for skin sensitization in both models was low. Adding more substances to the dataset will increase the confidence in the conclusions reached. The insights obtained in this evaluation are incorporated in a web database www.asopus.weebly.com that provides a potential end user context for the scope and performance of different in silico tools with respect to a common dataset of curated skin sensitization data.
Keywords: (Q)SAR; in silico; performance evaluation; skin sensitization; structure activity.