Toxicity & Safety Profiling

Home ServicesADMET & Drug-Likeness PredictionToxicity & Safety Profiling

Overview

Computational safety profiling exists to remove the compounds most likely to fail late, and to do it while substitution is still cheap. We assess cardiac liability through hERG and related channels, genotoxicity through Ames and structural alerts, hepatotoxicity risk, sensitisation potential and assay-interfering behaviour such as aggregation and PAINS substructures. Every alert is delivered with the matching substructure and the mechanistic reasoning, because an unexplained red flag is not actionable.

Schematic: properties are predicted across the series and each liability is attributed to the substructure responsible, so the result points to a modification.

Key Advantages

Alerts With Mechanism Attached

Each flag identifies the substructure and the mechanistic basis, which allows the team to judge whether the alert is relevant to their chemistry or a known false positive.

Cardiac Safety Prioritised

hERG liability receives detailed treatment, including the structural features driving it, because cardiac toxicity remains one of the most common causes of late-stage attrition.

Assay Interference Screened

PAINS, aggregators, redox cyclers and fluorescence interferers are identified so that screening effort is not spent chasing artefacts.

Mitigation Suggested

Where a liability is structurally localised, we propose modifications known to reduce it, rather than leaving the team with a flag and no route forward.

Where This Service Is Used

Triaging screening hits to remove compounds with obvious safety liabilities

Assessing a lead series for cardiac, genotoxic or hepatic risk before candidate selection

Explaining an unexpected toxicity signal observed in an in vitro or in vivo study

Supporting an internal go/no-go decision with a documented computational safety assessment

Screening a library before purchase to avoid acquiring problematic chemotypes

Methods and Techniques Applied

hERG and cardiac ion channel liability prediction with structural feature attribution

Ames mutagenicity and genotoxicity prediction combined with expert structural alert systems

Drug-induced liver injury risk assessment and hepatotoxicity alert screening

Skin and respiratory sensitisation prediction where the route of exposure makes it relevant

PAINS, aggregation, redox cycling and assay interference substructure screening

Consolidated risk profile per compound with alerts ranked by severity and confidence

What We Need From You

Compounds as SMILES or SDF with stereochemistry and salt form specified

Intended indication, patient population and route of administration, which affect what risk is acceptable

Any measured toxicology or safety pharmacology data for calibration and context

Known liabilities in the chemical series, so the analysis can focus where it is most useful

What You Receive

Consolidated safety profile table with predicted endpoints and confidence per compound

Structural alerts with the matching substructure highlighted and the mechanism explained

Cardiac liability assessment with the features responsible identified

Assay interference flags separating genuine liabilities from screening artefacts

Risk-ranked compound list with mitigation suggestions where the liability is structurally addressable

What We Compute and Report

Cardiac ion channel liability estimate with the structural features driving it

Mutagenicity and genotoxicity predictions combined with expert structural alerts

Hepatotoxicity risk indication and sensitisation potential where the route makes it relevant

Assay interference flags: promiscuous substructures, aggregation and redox-cycling risk

Consolidated per-compound risk profile with alerts ranked by severity and confidence

Interpretation and Limitations

Computational predictions prioritise hypotheses; they do not independently establish binding, biological activity, therapeutic efficacy, safety or clinical validity. Performance depends on input quality, target class, the structural evidence available and the applicability domain of the selected methods. Scores used for ranking are comparative devices and should not be read as measured quantities. All deliverables are for research use only and are not intended for diagnostic or therapeutic use.

Specifications

Item	Specification	Notes
Compounds per run	1–50,000	Batch screening supported
Typical turnaround	3–8 working days	Including alert interpretation
Endpoints	hERG, Ames, DILI, sensitisation, PAINS	Endpoint set agreed during scoping
Output	Tables + annotated structures	Alerts shown on the structure itself

Service Workflow

Step 01

Scientific Consultation

We discuss the objective, the decision it supports and the data you hold. Nothing is quoted before we understand what the result has to answer.

Step 02

Feasibility Review

We check that the data, target class and available structural evidence can support the proposed approach, and say plainly where they cannot.

Step 03

Technical Proposal

Scope, methods, deliverables, timeline and price are confirmed in writing, together with the limitations we expect to report.

Step 04

Computation and QC

The analysis runs on pinned tool versions in a containerised environment, with quality checkpoints and method comparison where that is informative.

Step 05

Report and Follow-Up

You receive the ranked results, the documented methods, the limitations and a proposed validation plan, plus support in interpreting them.

Is This the Right Service for You?

Choose this service when

Screening hits need triaging before obvious liabilities consume assay capacity

A lead series is approaching candidate selection and needs a documented safety assessment

An unexpected toxicity signal has appeared and a structural explanation is needed

Consider another service when

The compound fails on exposure rather than on safety

Physicochemical Property Prediction

Reactive metabolite formation is the specific concern

Metabolic Stability & CYP Prediction

What Goes Wrong, and How We Handle It

The failure modes that produce confident-looking results which do not survive the next experiment. Each one is designed against rather than discovered afterwards.

Every alert is delivered with the matching substructure and its mechanism, so your team can judge relevance instead of deleting compounds automatically.

Case Studies

The situation

One compound in a series showed hERG activity and the team needed to know whether the whole scaffold was affected.

What the work involved

Cardiac liability was predicted across every analogue with structural feature attribution, and the results were mapped onto the structural differences within the series.

What came back

The liability tracked a basic centre and a lipophilic tail rather than the core. Three modifications were proposed that retained potency vectors while lowering predicted risk, and the series was not abandoned.

Illustrative of the shape this work takes. Details are generalised, no client or target is identified, and scope and outcome vary with the system in question.

Questions We Are Asked Before Scoping

Note: ICDMO delivers computational (in silico) services. Results prioritise hypotheses for testing; they do not by themselves establish binding, biological activity, efficacy or safety. All deliverables are for research use only and are not intended for diagnostic or therapeutic use. Downstream experimental work is scoped separately and executed through qualified partners.

Get in Touch
about Toxicity & Safety Profiling

Tell us about the target, the data you hold and the decision the result needs to support. A scientist reviews every enquiry and replies within one business day.

Feasibility reviewed before any scope or price is fixed

Methods, parameters, confidence and limitations in every report

Confidentiality agreement available before data is shared