4.3 Article

Reactivity-based toxicity modelling of five-membered heterocyclic compounds: Application to Tetrahymena pyriformis

期刊

SAR AND QSAR IN ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
卷 21, 期 7-8, 页码 681-691

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/1062936X.2010.528933

关键词

heterocyclic compounds; thiol reactivity; Tetrahymena pyriformis toxicity; QSAR

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A diverse set of 57 heterocyclic organic chemicals, consisting of a five-membered unsaturated ring of four carbon atoms and one oxygen (furans), or sulfur (thiophenes), or nitrogen (pyrroles) were evaluated for reactivity with thiol and acute aquatic toxicity assays using glutathione (GSH) as a model nucleophile and the ciliate Tetrahymena pyriformis, respectively. Reactivity was quantified by the RC50 value, the concentration of test compound that produced 50% reaction of the GSH thiol groups in 2 hours. Under standard conditions, RC50 values are mathematically proportional to reciprocal rate constants. Toxicity was quantified by the IGC50, the concentration of the test compound that produces 50% inhibition of population growth in 40 hours. Pyrroles with polarized ,-unsaturated substructures were found to be non-reactive with GSH and did not exhibit excess toxicity in the Tetrahymena assay. In contrast, those furans and thiophenes with polarized ,-unsaturated substructures were reactive with GSH via the Michael addition mechanism and did exhibit excess acute aquatic toxicity in Tetrahymena. For furans and thiophenes, reactivity and toxicity varied with the number, type, and location on the ring of the -bond-containing polarized moieties. Comparisons of reactivity and toxicity potency between furan and thiophene derivatives revealed furans to be twice as potent as thiophenes. QSAR analysis revealed that aquatic toxicity IGC50 to Tetrahymena is correlated with RC50 values: log ([image omitted]) = 1.13 log ([image omitted]) + 1.43; n = 23, r2 = 0.815, r2(adj) = 0.806, s = 0.41, F = 92.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据