Cited by 20Toxic Organic Pollutants ImpactCarcinogens and Genotoxicity AssessmentPharmacogenetics and Drug Metabolism

In vitro toxicity and in silico docking analysis of two novel selective AH-receptor modulators

Open access
Mahiout, Selma, Tagliabue, Sara Giani, Nasri, Atefeh, Omoruyi, Iyekhoetin Matthew, Pettersson, Lars, Bonati, Laura, Pohjanvirta, Raimo·2018·Toxicology in Vitro

Abstract

The mediator of dioxin toxicity, aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AHR), has also important physiological functions. Selective AHR modulators (SAHRMs) share some effects of dioxins, except for their marked toxicity. We recently characterised toxicologically two novel SAHRMs, prodrugs IMA-08401 and IMA-07101 in rats, demonstrating that they are far less deleterious than the most toxic AHR-agonist, TCDD. Here, we analysed the in vitro toxicity and in silico AHR binding of the respective active, deacetylated metabolites, IMA-06201 (N-ethyl-N-phenyl-5-chloro-1,2-dihydro-4-hydroxy-1-methyl-2-oxo-quinoline-3-carboxamide) and IMA-06504 (N-(4-trifluoromethylphenyl)-1,2-dihydro-4-hydroxy-5-methoxy-1-methyl-2-oxo-quinoline-3-carboxamide). In H4IIE rat hepatoma cells, IMA-06201 and IMA-06504 induced CYP1A1 with comparable potencies and efficacies to those of TCDD. They had little effect on cell viability as assessed by LDH leakage and MTT reduction assays, and were not mutagenic in the Ames test, but IMA-06504 elicited a maximally 2.7-fold increase in micronuclei. Molecular docking simulations showed that similar to TCDD, they occupy the central region of AHR ligand binding cavity. Hence, while showing low to negligible in vitro toxicity, these novel SAHRMs bind to the AHR qualitatively in a similar fashion to TCDD, and appear comparably powerful AHR agonists. Combined with our earlier results demonstrating that they seem considerably less toxic in vivo than TCDD, these compounds are thus highly interesting new SAHRMs.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.tiv.2018.06.010

Cites

79 of 79 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Recent docking studies allowed prediction of the binding modes of several AhR ligands and led to the discovery of novel AhR agonists and SAhRMs.

    “On the basis of these novel approaches, recent docking studies not only allowed prediction of the binding modes of several AhR ligands but also led to the discovery of novel AhR agonists and SAhRMs25,27–30.”

    From Modeling the binding of diverse ligands within the Ah receptor ligand binding domain (2019) · cites this paper as [30]

    The Discussion (section 4; page unavailable) says docking predicted the binding geometries and protein–ligand interactions of two novel SAHRM metabolites. The Abstract says the compounds had been characterized previously, while this study analyzed their binding; it does not show that docking led to their discovery. The paper therefore supports the binding-mode part, but not the claimed discovery by docking. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 83 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mahiout, S., Tagliabue, S. G., Nasri, A., Omoruyi, I. M., Pettersson, L., Bonati, L., & Pohjanvirta, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Helsinki (FI)
  • University of Milano-Bicocca (IT)
Corresponding author
Pohjanvirta, Raimo
Venue
Toxicology in Vitro
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-10
Volume
52
Pages
178-188
ISSN
0887-2333 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2808466150
Cited by
19
References
83
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5
FWCI
1.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Toxicology in Vitro (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BOA (University of Milano-Bicocca) (submittedVersion)
  • Työväentutkimus Vuosikirja (submittedVersion)
  • Greater South Information System
Funders
  • Academy of Finland (Grant no. 261232)
  • University of Helsinki Doctoral Programme in Food Chain and Health
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Toxic Organic Pollutants Impact
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Carcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacogenetics and Drug Metabolism
Keywords
aryl hydrocarbon receptor, TCDD, dioxin toxicity, CYP1A1 induction, hepatotoxicity, genotoxicity, micronuclei, molecular docking, quinoline derivatives, prodrugs
MeSH terms
Animals, Cell Survival, Mutagenicity Tests, Quinolines, Receptors, Aryl Hydrocarbon, Cytochrome P-450 CYP1A1, Cell Line, Tumor, Rats, Molecular Docking Simulation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review