Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 326

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 82 of the 82 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Application of the Hard and Soft, Acids and Bases (HSAB) Theory to Toxicant–Target Interactions

Open access
LoPachin, Richard M., Gavin, Terrence, DeCaprio, Anthony, Barber, David S.·2012·Chemical Research in Toxicology
DOI 10.1021/tx2003257
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Many chemical toxicants and/or their active metabolites are electrophiles that cause cell injury by forming covalent bonds with nucleophilic targets on biological macromolecules. Covalent reactions between nucleophilic and electrophilic reagents are, however, discriminatory since there is a significant degree of selectivity associated with these interactions. Over the course of the past few decades, the theory of Hard and Soft, Acids and Bases (HSAB) has proven to be a useful tool in predicting the outcome of such reactions. This concept utilizes the inherent electronic characteristic of polarizability to define, for example, reacting electrophiles and nucleophiles as either hard or soft. These HSAB definitions have been successfully applied to chemical-induced toxicity in biological systems. Thus, according to this principle, a toxic electrophile reacts preferentially with biological targets of similar hardness or softness. The soft/hard classification of a xenobiotic electrophile has obvious utility in discerning plausible biological targets and molecular mechanisms of toxicity. The purpose of this perspective is to discuss the HSAB theory of electrophiles and nucleophiles within a toxicological framework. In principle, covalent bond formation can be described by using the properties of their outermost or frontier orbitals. Because these orbital energies for most chemicals can be calculated using quantum mechanical models, it is possible to quantify the relative softness (σ) or hardness (η) of electrophiles or nucleophiles and to subsequently convert this information into useful indices of reactivity. This atomic level information can provide insight into the design of corroborative laboratory research and thereby help investigators discern corresponding molecular sites and mechanisms of toxicant action. The use of HSAB parameters has also been instrumental in the development and identification of potential nucleophilic cytoprotectants that can scavenge toxic electrophiles. Clearly, the difficult task of delineating molecular sites and mechanisms of toxicant action can be facilitated by the application of this quantitative approach.

Overview

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 · 10.1021/tx2003257

Cites

82 of 82 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 326

Metadata

Authors
LoPachin, R. M., Gavin, T., DeCaprio, A., & Barber, D. S.
Venue
Chemical Research in Toxicology
Publisher
American Chemical Society (ACS)
Published
2011-11-16
Volume
25
Issue
2
Pages
239-251
ISSN
  • 0893-228X (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5010
DOI
10.1021/tx2003257
OpenAlex
W2059726151
Cited by
326
References
82
FWCI
5.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.