KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Turkish Journal of Chemistry / 2019 / Cilt: 43 - Sayı: 1

3D-QSAR/HQSAR-based analysis of bioconcentration and molecular modification of monophenyl aromatic compounds

Qing LI
Wenwen GU
Yu LI
Sayfa
286–306
Yayın Tarihi
2022-11-04
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

By quantitative calculation using density functional theory,the flame retardancy and insulation properties of the PeCB derivatives were found to remain unchanged, except for thoseof 5-NO2 -PeCB.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA) and comparative molecular similarity indices analysis (CoMSIA) of three-dimensional quantitative structure–activity relationship (3D-QSAR) models were conducted using 36 aromatic compound congeners as the training set and eight aromatic compound congeners as the test set.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Seven PeCB derivatives with lowbioconcentrations showed no significant changes in molecular toxicity and migration, while 5-NO2 -PeCB and six otherPeCB derivatives showed increased degradation abilities.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:By quantitative calculation using density functional theory,the flame retardancy and insulation properties of the PeCB derivatives were found to remain unchanged, except for thoseof 5-NO2 -PeCB.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA) and comparative molecular similarity indices analysis (CoMSIA) of three-dimensional quantitative structure–activity relationship (3D-QSAR) models were conducted using 36 aromatic compound congeners as the training set and eight aromatic compound congeners as the test set. Logarithms ofexperimental bioconcentration data (logBCF) were used as dependent variables and the physicochemical properties ofthe aromatic compound congeners were used as independent variables. Furthermore, the molecular holographic quantitative structure–activity relationship (HQSAR) model constructed by the HQSAR module in Sybyl software was usedto establish a method to find molecular activity substitution sites of bioconcentration potential by coupling the moleculeactivity contribution map of HQSAR with the electrostatic contour map of CoMSIA. Pentachlorobenzene (PeCB) wasused as the target molecule to design PeCB derivatives with low bioconcentrations. Seven PeCB derivatives with lowbioconcentrations showed no significant changes in molecular toxicity and migration, while 5-NO2 -PeCB and six otherPeCB derivatives showed increased degradation abilities. By quantitative calculation using density functional theory,the flame retardancy and insulation properties of the PeCB derivatives were found to remain unchanged, except for thoseof 5-NO2 -PeCB.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

LI, Q., GU, W., LI, Y. (2022). 3D-QSAR/HQSAR-based analysis of bioconcentration and molecular modification of monophenyl aromatic compounds. Turkish Journal of Chemistry, Cilt: 43 - Sayı: 1, 286–306. https://ajindex.com/articles/599481

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (26)

  1. Sari, A. A.; Yasin, H.; Tachibana, S.; Hadibarata, T. Water Air Soil Poll. 2016, 9, 227-317
  2. Yang, Y.; Yu, G.; Deng, S.; Wang, S.; Xu, Z.; Huang, J.; Wang, B. Chem. Eng. J. 2012, 192, 284-291
  3. Roscales, J. L.; Mu noz-Arnanz, J.; Morales, L.; Abad, E.; Jimenez, B. In Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants 2013, Proceedings of the 33th International Symposium; Daegu, South Korea, August 2013, pp. 137-140
  4. Liu, G.; Zheng, M.; Cai, Z. Environ. Sci. Pollut. R. 2014, 21, 13656-13663
  5. Karich, A.; Ullrich, R.; Scheibner, K.; Hofrichter, M. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 1463
  6. Wang, P. MSc, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China, 2015
  7. Li, F.; Zhao, G. Food. Ferment. Ind. 2014, 40, 128-134
  8. Zhao, Y.; Wang, W.; Liu, H.; Huang, L.; Lu, B.; Yang, G.; Fang, L. China Measurement & Testing Technology 2016, 42, 35-38
  9. Jones, K. C.; De, V. P. Environ. Pollut. 1999, 100, 209-221
  10. Liu, J. In Encyclopedia of Toxicology (Third Edition); Elsevier: Amsterdam, the Neterlands, 2014, pp. 773-774
  11. Treves, K.; Shragina, L.; Rudich, Y. Atmos. Environ. 2001, 35, 5843-5854
  12. Arnot, J. A.; Gobas, F. A. Environ. Rev. 2006, 14, 257-297
  13. Weisglas-Kuperus, N.; Vreugdenhil, H. J.; Mulder, P. G. Toxicol. Lett. 2004, 149, 281-285
  14. Loomis, D. Food. Chem. Toxicol. 1997, 35, 1230
  15. Fernández, P.; Bayona, J. M. J. Sep. Sci. 2015, 12, 802-806
  16. Togunde, O. P. PhD, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada, 2012
  17. Torreiro-Melo, A. G.; Silva, J. S.; Bianchini, A.; Zanardilamardo, E.; Carvalho, P. S. Chemosphere 2015, 132, 17-23
  18. Cherkasov, A.; Muratov, E. N.; Fourches, D.; Varnek, A.; Baskin, L. L.; Cronin, M.; Dearden, J.; Gramatica, P.; Martin, Y. C.; Todeschini, R. et al. J. Med. Chem. 2014, 57, 4977-5010
  19. Cichero, E.; Fossa, P. J. Mol. Model. 2012, 18, 1573-1582
  20. Sharma, M. C.; Sharma, S.; Sahu, N. K.; Kohli, D. V. J. Saudi. Chem. Soc. 2013, 17, 167-176
  21. Golbraikh, A.; Tropsha, A. Mol. Graph. Mod. 2002, 20, 269-276
  22. Clark, M.; Iii, R. D. C.; Jones, D. M.; Patterson, D. E.; Simeroth, P. E. Tetrahedron Comput. Methodol. 1990, 3, 47-59
  23. Koleva, Y.; Georgieva, M.; Zlatkov, A.; Georgieva, S.; Mitkov, J. Oxid. Commun. 2013, 36, 1135-1142
  24. Zhou, G. MSc, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China, 2009
  25. Mitchell, K. H.; Rogge, C. E.; Gierahn, T.; Gierahn, T.; Fox, B. G. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100, 3784-3789
  26. Holt, P. A.; Chairs, J. B.; Trent, J. O. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 39, 1602-1615