Literature DB >> 24397518

Electrophilic reactivity and skin sensitization potency of SNAr electrophiles.

D W Roberts1, A O Aptula.   

Abstract

We published in 2011 a quantitative mechanistic model (QMM) for skin sensitization potency of SNAr electrophiles in the mouse local lymph node assay (LLNA). In this model, potency was correlated with a combination of σ* for the leaving group and the total σ(-) values of the other substituents in the aromatic ring. Shortly afterward Natsch et al. published a kinetic study in which rate constants were determined for reactions of SNAr electrophiles with the cysteine-based peptide Ac-RFAACAA (Cys-peptide) that is used in the direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA), and correlations were sought between these rate constants and sensitization potency in the LLNA. These two publications together have enabled the present study, aiming to develop a linear free energy relationship (LFER) correlating Cys-peptide reactivity with a reactivity parameter (RP) based on a combination of σ* and σ(-) substituent constants and, by analyzing differences between the QMM based on RP and the QMM based on Cys-peptide rate constants, to gain further insights into the underlying chemistry of skin sensitization. For the 2,4-dinitro-X-subsituted benzenes (DNXB), the rate constants of Natsch et al. are well correlated with the reactivity parameter used in our earlier work, with two outliers. These are the compounds with X = F and X = SCN, which are both substantially more reactive toward Cys-peptide than predicted from comparison of their RP values with those of the other DNXB compounds. These two compounds are both negative outliers from a correlation of sensitization potency with experimental rate constants, but fit well to the correlation of sensitization potency with RP values. With these two compounds excluded, sensitization potency is well correlated with the experimental rate constants for the DNXB compounds (X = SO3(-), I, Br, Cl) together with 2,4-dichloro-1-nitrobenzene and 1,3,4,5-tetrachloro-2,6-dicyanobenzene. The regression equation is pEC3 = 0.88 log k + 4.03, R(2) = 0.966. The implication of DNFB being an outlier is that the model Cys-peptide nucleophile is substantially more sterically hindered than the cutaneous nucleophile(s) involved in the sensitization process. The pattern seen with 2,4-dinitrothiocyanatobenzene suggests that this compound reacts as an SNAr electrophile in the sensitization process, but by a different pathway, acting as a CN transfer agent, with the model Cys-peptide. For two further compounds, 2,4,6-trinitrochlorobenzene and 2,4,6-trinitrobenzenesulfonate, the Cys-peptide rate constants are well predicted by the reactivity parameter based on displacement of the Cl or SO3(-) substituent, but their sensitization potency is underestimated by both the Cys-peptide rate constant and this reactivity parameter. However, potency of these two compounds is well predicted by a reactivity parameter calculated on the basis of displacement of the 2-nitro group. This is interpreted as a case of sensitization being driven by the thermodynamically favored rather than the kinetically favored reaction product.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24397518     DOI: 10.1021/tx400355n

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Chem Res Toxicol        ISSN: 0893-228X            Impact factor:   3.739


  6 in total

1.  An evaluation of selected (Q)SARs/expert systems for predicting skin sensitisation potential.

Authors:  J M Fitzpatrick; D W Roberts; G Patlewicz
Journal:  SAR QSAR Environ Res       Date:  2018-04-20       Impact factor: 3.000

2.  Skin sensitization in silico protocol.

Authors:  Candice Johnson; Ernst Ahlberg; Lennart T Anger; Lisa Beilke; Romualdo Benigni; Joel Bercu; Sol Bobst; David Bower; Alessandro Brigo; Sarah Campbell; Mark T D Cronin; Ian Crooks; Kevin P Cross; Tatyana Doktorova; Thomas Exner; David Faulkner; Ian M Fearon; Markus Fehr; Shayne C Gad; Véronique Gervais; Amanda Giddings; Susanne Glowienke; Barry Hardy; Catrin Hasselgren; Jedd Hillegass; Robert Jolly; Eckart Krupp; Liat Lomnitski; Jason Magby; Jordi Mestres; Lawrence Milchak; Scott Miller; Wolfgang Muster; Louise Neilson; Rahul Parakhia; Alexis Parenty; Patricia Parris; Alexandre Paulino; Ana Theresa Paulino; David W Roberts; Harald Schlecker; Reinhard Stidl; Diana Suarez-Rodrigez; David T Szabo; Raymond R Tice; Daniel Urbisch; Anna Vuorinen; Brian Wall; Thibaud Weiler; Angela T White; Jessica Whritenour; Joerg Wichard; David Woolley; Craig Zwickl; Glenn J Myatt
Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol       Date:  2020-07-01       Impact factor: 3.271

3.  Correlating the structure and reactivity of a contact allergen, DNCB, and its analogs to sensitization potential.

Authors:  Flora Kimani; Seong-Min Kim; Rachel Steinhardt; Aaron P Esser-Kahn
Journal:  Bioorg Med Chem       Date:  2019-05-11       Impact factor: 3.641

4.  Evaluation of a High-Throughput Peptide Reactivity Format Assay for Assessment of the Skin Sensitization Potential of Chemicals.

Authors:  Chin Lin Wong; Ai-Leen Lam; Maree T Smith; Sussan Ghassabian
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2016-03-14       Impact factor: 5.810

5.  Systems Toxicology: Real World Applications and Opportunities.

Authors:  Thomas Hartung; Rex E FitzGerald; Paul Jennings; Gary R Mirams; Manuel C Peitsch; Amin Rostami-Hodjegan; Imran Shah; Martin F Wilks; Shana J Sturla
Journal:  Chem Res Toxicol       Date:  2017-03-31       Impact factor: 3.739

6.  Interpretation of murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) data for skin sensitization: Overload effects, danger signals and chemistry-based read-across.

Authors:  David W Roberts
Journal:  Curr Res Toxicol       Date:  2021-01-21
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.