» Articles » PMID: 7492734

Three-dimensional Quantitative Structure-activity Relationships of Dioxins and Dioxin-like Compounds: Model Validation and Ah Receptor Characterization

Overview
Specialty Toxicology
Date 1995 Sep 1
PMID 7492734
Citations 19
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

In the present study we have utilized comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA), a three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationship paradigm, to explore the physico-chemical requirements for binding to the Ah (dioxin) receptor. Recent developments by Gillner et al. [(1993) Mol. Pharmacol. 44, 336-345] prompted us to review and revise our previous CoMFA/QSAR model [Waller, C. L., and McKinney, J. D. (1992) J. Med. Chem. 36, 3660-3666] to include a structurally-diverse training set of Ah receptor ligands ranging in size from naphthalene to indolo[3,2-b]carbazole nuclei. An exhaustive validation process utilizing external test sets and hierarchical cluster analysis routines was employed during model construction and is discussed herein. The limitations of the approach presented herein are discussed with respect to predictive ability of the CoMFA/QSAR models, which is demonstrated to be dependent on a balance between structural diversity and redundancy in the molecules comprising the training set. The results of our modified CoMFA/QSAR model are consistent with and unify all previously established structure-activity relationships established for less structurally-diverse training sets of Ah receptor ligands. As a result of the more complete nature of the series of molecules under examination in the present study, the CoMFA/QSAR steric and electrostatic field contour plots as well as the essential and excluded volume plots provide for a more detailed characterization of the molecular binding domain of the Ah receptor. The implications of the CoMFA/QSAR model presented herein are explored with respect to quantitative hazard identification of potential toxicants.

Citing Articles

Nanocarriers for natural polyphenol senotherapeutics.

Joma N, Bielawski P, Saini A, Kakkar A, Maysinger D Aging Cell. 2024; 23(5):e14178.

PMID: 38685568 PMC: 11113259. DOI: 10.1111/acel.14178.


Aryl Hydrocarbon Receptor as an Anticancer Target: An Overview of Ten Years Odyssey.

Hanieh H, Bani Ismail M, Alfwuaires M, Ibrahim H, Farhan M Molecules. 2023; 28(10).

PMID: 37241719 PMC: 10221042. DOI: 10.3390/molecules28103978.


The aryl hydrocarbon receptor as a model PAS sensor.

Vazquez-Rivera E, Rojas B, Parrott J, Shen A, Xing Y, Carney P Toxicol Rep. 2021; 9:1-11.

PMID: 34950569 PMC: 8671103. DOI: 10.1016/j.toxrep.2021.11.017.


Gene expression profiling reveals aryl hydrocarbon receptor as a possible target for photobiomodulation when using blue light.

Becker A, Klapczynski A, Kuch N, Arpino F, Simon-Keller K, de la Torre C Sci Rep. 2016; 6:33847.

PMID: 27669902 PMC: 5037386. DOI: 10.1038/srep33847.


Zebrafish cardiotoxicity: the effects of CYP1A inhibition and AHR2 knockdown following exposure to weak aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonists.

Brown D, Clark B, Garner L, Di Giulio R Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2014; 22(11):8329-38.

PMID: 25532870 PMC: 4442063. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-014-3969-2.