Literature DB >> 2631297

6-substituted-1,3,8-trichlorodibenzofurans as 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin antagonists in the rat: structure activity relationships.

B Astroff1, S Safe.   

Abstract

The activities of several 6-substituted-1,3,8-trichlorodibenzofurans (CDFs) as partial antagonists of the induction of hepatic microsomal aryl hydrocarbon hydroxylase (AHH) and ethoxyresorufin O-deethylase (EROD) activities in the rat by 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) were structure-dependent. Treatment of the rats with TCDD (16 nmol/kg), the 6-substituted-1,3,8-triCDFs (50 mumol/kg) and TCDD plus the 6-substituted-1,3,8-triCDFs showed that most of the substituted congeners were either inactive (6-methyl, ethyl, propyl, i-propyl, t-butyl) or weak (6-cyclohexyl, nitro) inducers of AHH and EROD activities, whereas TCDD caused an 8.1- and 58-fold induction of these enzyme activities respectively. In the co-administration studies, the 6-methyl, propyl, ethyl, isopropyl and t-butyl analogs partially antagonized the induction of the monooxygenase enzyme activities by TCDD, whereas, the 6-cyclohexyl and 6-nitro-1,3,8-triCDFs exhibited minimal activity as TCDD antagonists. The Ah receptor binding affinities of the 6-substituted compounds were determined in a series of in vitro competitive binding studies using [3H]TCDD as the radioligand. Analysis of the data by Scatchard and Dixon plots showed that the avidities for the Ah receptor by the 6-substituted-1,3,8-triCDFs followed the order 6-methyl greater than 6-t-butyl greater than 6-i-propyl greater than 6-propyl approximately 6-ethyl greater than 6-cyclohexyl greater than 6-nitro-1,3,8-triCDF. In addition there was a good correlation between the in vitro binding avidities and Ki values for these compounds and their in vivo activity as partial antagonists of the induction of AHH and EROD activities by TCDD. The results suggested that the 6-substituted-1,3,8-triCDFs competitively displayed TCDD from the Ah receptor and this interaction may play a role in the mechanism of action of this class of TCDD antagonists.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2631297     DOI: 10.1016/0300-483x(89)90198-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Toxicology        ISSN: 0300-483X            Impact factor:   4.221


  5 in total

1.  Comparisons of differential gene expression elicited by TCDD, PCB126, βNF, or ICZ in mouse hepatoma Hepa1c1c7 cells and C57BL/6 mouse liver.

Authors:  Rance Nault; Agnes L Forgacs; Edward Dere; Timothy R Zacharewski
Journal:  Toxicol Lett       Date:  2013-08-29       Impact factor: 4.372

2.  Aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonists induce microRNA-335 expression and inhibit lung metastasis of estrogen receptor negative breast cancer cells.

Authors:  Shu Zhang; KyoungHyun Kim; Un Ho Jin; Catherine Pfent; Huojun Cao; Brad Amendt; Xinyi Liu; Heather Wilson-Robles; Stephen Safe
Journal:  Mol Cancer Ther       Date:  2011-10-27       Impact factor: 6.261

Review 3.  Role of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor in carcinogenesis and potential as a drug target.

Authors:  Stephen Safe; Syng-Ook Lee; Un-Ho Jin
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2013-06-14       Impact factor: 4.849

Review 4.  The Aryl Hydrocarbon Receptor in Energy Balance: The Road from Dioxin-Induced Wasting Syndrome to Combating Obesity with Ahr Ligands.

Authors:  Nathaniel G Girer; Craig R Tomlinson; Cornelis J Elferink
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2020-12-23       Impact factor: 6.208

5.  The aryl hydrocarbon receptor ligand omeprazole inhibits breast cancer cell invasion and metastasis.

Authors:  Un-Ho Jin; Syng-Ook Lee; Catherine Pfent; Stephen Safe
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2014-07-09       Impact factor: 4.430

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.