Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (34)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Franke, R.
Right arrow Articles by Benigni, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Franke, R.
Right arrow Articles by Benigni, R.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Carcinogenesis, Vol. 22, No. 9, 1561-1571, September 2001
© 2001 Oxford University Press


SHORT COMMUNICATION

Prediction of rodent carcinogenicity of aromatic amines: a quantitative structure–activity relationships model

Rainer Franke, Andreas Gruska, Alessandro Giuliani1 and Romualdo Benigni1,2

Consulting in Drug Design GbR, Gartenstraße 14, D-16352 Basdorf, Germany and
1 Istituto Superiore di Sanita', Laboratory of Comparative Toxicology and Ecotoxicology, Viale Regina Elena 299, I-00161 Rome, Italy

The aromatic amines are widely used industrial chemicals and can be found in tobacco smoke as well as in products generated during cooking. In a previous study, we established quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) models linking the carcinogenic potency of non-heterocyclic carcinogenic aromatic amines to a series of molecular determinants. We also found that QSAR models for carcinogenic potency were inadequate in describing the difference between carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic amines [Benigni,R., Giuliani,A., Franke,R. and Gruska,A. (2000) Chem. Rev., 100, 3697–3714]. In this paper, we derived specific QSAR models for separating active from inactive amines. It appeared that hydrophobicity (as measured by the octanol/water partition coefficient, logP) played a major role in modulating the potency of the carcinogens, whereas mainly electronic (reactivity) and steric characteristics separated the carcinogens from the non-carcinogens. Interestingly, a similar pattern was previously demonstrated by us regarding their mutagenic activity [Benigni,R., Passerini,L., Gallo,G., Giorgi,F. and Cotta-Ramusino,M. (1998) Environ. Mol. Mutagen., 32, 75–83]. Based on the QSAR models found, the molecular determinants of the mechanisms of action of aromatic amines are discussed in detail. The QSAR models obtained can be used directly for estimating the carcinogenicity of other non-heterocyclic aromatic amines for which experimental data are not available. With the QSARs in Benigni et al. (2000) and the present results, a two-step prediction of carcinogenicity of aromatic amines is possible: (i) step 1, yes/no activity from the discriminant functions; and (ii) step 2, if the answer from step 1 is yes then prediction of the degree of potency from the equations in Benigni et al. (2000). Thus, QSAR models can contribute to the following: the direct synthesis of safer chemicals; the estimation of the risk posed by amines present in the environment; setting priorities for further experimentation, thus also reducing the use of experimental animals. Whereas the quality of in vivo experimental data is often questioned, the robustness and intepretability of the present results strongly support the reliability of the rodent carcinogenicity assay.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Toxicol SciHome page
C. J. Smith, T. A. Perfetti, M. J. Morton, A. Rodgman, R. Garg, C. D. Selassie, and C. Hansch
The Relative Toxicity of Substituted Phenols Reported in Cigarette Mainstream Smoke
Toxicol. Sci., September 1, 2002; 69(1): 265 - 278.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.