Integrating computational methods to predict mutagenicity of aromatic azo compounds

References

• Raffi F, Hall JD, Cerniglia CE. Mutagenicity of azo dyes used in foods, drugs and cosmetics before and after reduction by Clostridium species from the human intestinal tract. Food Chem. Toxicol. 1997;35:897–901.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsuboy MS, Angeli JPF, Mantovani MS, Knasmüllerc S, Umbuzeirod GA, Ribeiroe LR. Genotoxic, mutagenic and cytotoxic effects of the commercial dye CI disperse blue 291 in the human hepatic cell line HepG2. Toxicology In Vitro 2007;21:1650–1655.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chung KT. Azo dyes and human health: A review. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part C. 2016;34:233–261.
   Google Scholar
• Saratale RG, Saratale GD, Kalyani DC, Chang JS, Govindwar SP. Enhanced decolorization and biodegradation of textile azo dye Scarlet R by using developed microbial consortium-GR. Bioresource Technology. 2009;100:2493–2500.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliveira GAR, Ferraz ERA, Chequer FMD, Grando MD, Angeli JPF, Tsuboy MS, Marcarini JC, Mantovani MS, Osugi ME, Lizier TM, Zanoni MVB, Oliveira DP. (2010). Chlorination treatment of aqueous samples reduces, but does not eliminate, the mutagenic effect of the azo dyes Disperse Red 1, Disperse Red 13 and Disperse Orange 1. Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis. 2010;703(2):200–208.
   Google Scholar
• Umbuzeiro G, Freeman HS, Warren SH, De Oliveira DP, Terao Y, Watanabe T, Claxton LD. The contribution of azo dyes to the mutagenic activity of the Cristais River. Chemosphere. 2005;60(1):55–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peng H, Saunders DMV, Sun J, Jones PD, Wong CKC, Liu H, Giesy JP. Mutagenic azo dyes, rather than flame retardants, are the predominant brominated compounds in house dust. Environmental Science and Technology. 2016;50:12669–12677.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golka K, Kopps S, Myslak ZW. Carcinogenicity of azo colorants: influence of solubility and bioavailability. Toxicology Letters. 2004;151:203–210.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakayama T, Kimura T, Kodama M, Nagata C. Generation of hydrogen peroxide and superoxide anion from active metabolites of naphthylamines and amino azo dyes: its possible role in carcinogenesis. Carcinogenesis. 1983;4:765–769.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown MA, De Vito SC. Predicting azo dye toxicity. Crit. Rev. Env. Sci. Technol. 1993;23:249–324.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Møller P, Wallin H. Genotoxic hazards of azo pigments and other colorants related to 1-phenylazo-2-hydroxynaphthalene. Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research. 2000;462:13–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalgutkar AS, Gardner I, Obach RS, Shaffer CL, Callegari E, Henne KR, Mutlib AE, Dalvie DK, Lee JS, Nakai Y, O'Donnell JP, Boer J, Harriman SP. A comprehensive listing of bioactivation pathways of organic functional groups. Current Drug Metabolism. 2005;6:161–225.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maran U, Sild S. QSAR modeling of genotoxicity on noncongeneric sets of organic compounds. Artificial Intelligence Review. 2003;20:13–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown JP, Roehm GW, Brown RJ. Mutagenicity testing of certified food colours and related azo, xanthene and triphenylmethane dyes with the Salmonella/microsome system. Mutation Research. 1978;56:249–271.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nestmann ER, Kowbel DJ, Wheat JA. Mutagenicity in Salmonella of dyes used by defence personnel for detection of liquid chemical warfare agents. Carcinogenesis. 1981;2:879–883.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu ZJ, Chen H, Shaw N, Hopper SL, Chen L, Chen S, Wang BC. Crystal structure of an aerobic FMN-dependent azoreductase (AzoA) from Enterococcus faecalis. Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics. 2007;463:68–77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ames BN, McCann J, Yamasaki E. Methods for detecting carcinogens and mutagens with the Salmonella/mammalian-microsome mutagenicity test. Mutation Research/Environmental Mutagenesis and Related Subjects 1975;31:347–363.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ferrari T, Gini G. An open source multistep model to predict mutagenicity from statistical analysis and relevant structural alerts. Chemistry Central Journal. 2010;4 (Suppl 1):S2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Benigni R, Bossa C. Structure alerts for carcinogenicity, and the Salmonella assay system: a novel insight through the chemical relational databases technology. Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research. 2008;659:248–261.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu R, Wallqvist A. Merging applicability domains for in silico assessment of chemical mutagenicity. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling. 2014;54:793–800.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gadaleta D, Manganelli S, Manganaro A, Porta N, Benfenati E. A knowledge-based expert rule system for predicting mutagenicity (Ames test) of aromatic amines and azo compounds. Toxicology. 2016;370:20–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kulkarni SA, Barton-Maclaren TS. Performance of (Q)SAR models for predicting Ames mutagenicity of aryl azo and benzidine based compounds. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part C. 2014;32:46–82.
   Google Scholar
• Chen H. Recent advances in azo dye degrading enzyme research. Current Protein & Peptide Science. 2006;7:101–111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan-Ju W, Nicola L, Areej A. Role of tyrosine 131 in the active site of paAzoR1, an azoreductase with specificity for the inflammatory bowel disease prodrug balsalazide. Acta Crystallographica. 2010;66(Pt 1):2–7.
   Google Scholar
• Manganelli S, Benfenati E, Manganaro E, Kulkarni S, Barton-Maclaren TS, and Honma M. New quantitative structure–activity relationship models improve predictability of Ames mutagenicity for aromatic azo compounds. Toxicological Sciences. 2016;153(2): 316–326.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Floris M, Manganaro A, Nicolotti O, Medda R, Mangiatordi GF, Benfenati E. A generalizable definition of chemical similarity for read-across. Journal of Cheminformatics. 2014;6(1):1–7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ferrari T, Cattaneo D, Gini G, Golbamaki Bakhtyari N, Manganaro A, Benfenati E. Automatic knowledge extraction from chemical structures: the case of mutagenicity prediction. SAR & QSAR in Environmental Research. 2013;24:365–383.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lombardo A, Pizzo F, Benfenati E, Ferrari T, Gini G. A new in silico classification model for ready biodegradability, based on molecular fragments. Chemosphere. 2014;108:10–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kode srl. Dragon version 7.0.4, 2016, https://chm.kode-solutions.net
   Google Scholar
• Benigni R, Bossa C. Mechanisms of chemical carcinogenicity and mutagenicity: a review with implications for predictive toxicology. Chemical Reviews. 2011;111:2507–2536.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benigni R, Bossa C, Tcheremenskaia O. In vitro cell transformation assays for an integrated, alternative assessment of carcinogenicity: a databased analysis. Mutagenesis 2013;28:107–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LigPrep, version 3.4. New York, NY: Schrödinger, LLC; 2015
   Google Scholar
• MacroModel, version 10.8. New York, NY: Schrödinger; LLC; 2015
   Google Scholar
• Kaminski GA, Friesner RA, Tirado-Rives J, Jorgensen WL. Evaluation and reparametrization of the OPLS-AA force field for proteins via comparison with accurate quantum chemical calculations on peptides. Journal of Physical Chemistry B. 2001;105;6474–6487.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu J, Ogata D, Gai Z, Taguchi S, Tanaka I, Ooi T, Yao M. Structures of AzrA and of AzrC complexed with substrate or inhibitor: insight into substrate specificity and catalytic mechanism. Acta Crystallographica Section D Biological Crystallography. 2014;70(Pt 2):553–564.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Protein Preparation Wizard 2015-2; Epik version 2.4. New York, NY: Schrödinger, LLC; 2015
   Google Scholar
  Impact version 5.9. New York, NY: Schrödinger, LLC; 2015
   Google Scholar
  Prime version 3.2, New York, NY: Schrödinger, LLC; 2015
   Google Scholar
• Shelley JC, Cholleti A, Frye LL, Greenwood JR, Timlin MR, Uchimaya M. Epik: a software program for pK(a) prediction and protonation state generation for drug-like molecules. Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design. 2007;21:681–691.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glide, version 6.7, New York, NY: Schrödinger, LLC; 2015
   Google Scholar
• Cooper JA, Saracci R, Cole P. Describing the validity of carcinogen screening tests. British Journal of Cancer. 1979;39:87–89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matthews BW. Comparison of the predicted and observed secondary structure of T4 phage lysozyme. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta. 1975;405:442–451.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Benigni R, Bossa C, Netzeva T, Rodomonte A, Tsakovska I. Mechanistic QSAR of aromatic amines: new models for discriminating between homocyclic mutagens and nonmutagens, and validation of models for carcinogens. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis. 2007;48:754–771.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, GF, 2011. Designing drugs to avoid toxicity. Prog. Med. Chem. 50, 1–47.
   Google Scholar
• Hooberman BH, Brezzell MD, Das SK, You Z, Sinsheimer JE. Substituent effects on the genotoxicity of 4-nitrostilbene derivatives. Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology. 1994;341:57–69.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lai DY, Woo YT, Argus MF, Arcos JC. Cancer risk reduction through mechanism-based molecular design of chemicals. Designing Safer Chemicals. 1996;640:62–73.
   Google Scholar
• Lipinski CA, Lombardo F, Dominy BW, Feeney PJ. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews. 1997;23:3–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Congreve M, Carr R, Murray C, Jhoti H. A ‘rule of three'for fragment-based lead discovery?. Drug Discovery Today. 2003;8(19):876–877.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kater SB, Nicholson C. Intracellular staining in neurobiology. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media press; 2012
   Google Scholar
• Freeman HS, Hinks D, Esancy J. Genotoxicity of azo dyes: bases and implications. In AT Peters & HS Freeman, eds. Physico-Chemical Principles of Color Chemistry. Advances in Color Chemistry Series, vol. 4. (Advances in Color Chemistry Series). Glasgow, UK: Blackie Academic & Professional; 1996:254–292.
   Google Scholar
• Øllgaard H, Frost L, Galster J, Hansen OC. Survey of azo-colorants in Denmark: Consumption, use, health and environmental aspects. Copenhagen, DK: Ministry of Environment and Energy, Danish Environmental Protection Agency; 1998
   Google Scholar
• Kontoyianni M, McClellan LM, Sokol GS. Evaluation of docking performance: comparative data on docking algorithms. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 2004;47:558–565.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dudek AZ, Arodz T, Galvez J. Computational methods in developing quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR): a review. Combinatorial Chemistry & High Throughput Screening 2006;9(3):213–228.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amaury N, Benfenati E, Bumbaru S, Chana A, Craciun M, Chretien J R, Gini G, Guo G, Lemke F, Minzu V, Mueller J A, Neagu C D, Pintore M, Stroia S A, Trundle P. Hybrid systems. In: E. Benfenati, ed. Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships (QSAR) for Pesticide Regulatory Purposes. Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier Science Ltd.; 2007:149–183.
   Google Scholar
• Cassano A, Raitano G, Mombelli E, Fernández A, Cester J, Roncaglioni A, Benfenati E. Evaluation of QSAR Models for the Prediction of Ames Genotoxicity: A Retrospective Exercise on the Chemical Substances Registered Under the EU REACH Regulation. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part C: Environmental Carcinogenesis and Ecotoxicology Reviews 2014;32:273–298.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kulkarni SA, Benfenati E, Barton-Maclaren T. Improving confidence in (Q)SAR predictions under Canada's Chemicals Management Plan – a chemical space approach. SAR and QSAR in Environmental Research 2016;27:851–863.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cherkasov A., Muratov EN, Fourches D, Varnek A, Baskin II, Cronin M, Dearden J, Gramatica P, Martin YC, Todeschini R, Consonni V, Kuz'min VE, Cramer R, Benigni R, Yang C, Rathman J, Terfloth L, Gasteiger J Richard A, Tropsha A. QSAR modeling: where have you been? Where are you going to?. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 2014;57(12):4977–5010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernández A, Lombardo A, Rallo R, Roncaglioni A, Giralt F Benfenati E. Quantitative consensus of bioaccumulation models for integrated testing strategies. Environment International 2012;45:51–58.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazzatorta P, Tran L, Schilter B, Grigorov M. Integration of Structure-Activity Relationship and Artificial Intelligence Systems To Improve in Silico Prediction of Ames Test Mutagenicity. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 2007;47:34–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar