Elucidating the aryl hydrocarbon receptor antagonism from a chemical-structural perspective

References

• D.W. Nebert, Aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AHR): “Pioneer member” of the basic-helix/loop/helix per-Arnt-sim (bHLH/PAS) family of “sensors” of foreign and endogenous signals, Prog. Lipid Res. 67 (2017), pp. 38–57. doi:10.1016/j.plipres.2017.06.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K. Kawajiri and Y. Fuji-Kuriyama, The aryl hydrocarbon receptor: A multifunctional chemical sensor for host defense and homeostatic maintenance, Exp. Anim. 66 (2016), pp. 75–89. doi:10.1538/expanim.16-0092.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K.W. Bock, From TCDD-mediated toxicity to searches of physiologic AHR functions, Biochem. Pharmacol. 155 (2018), pp. 419–424. doi:10.1016/j.bcp.2018.07.032.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R. Pohjanvirta, The AH Receptor in Biology and Toxicology, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2011.
   Google Scholar
• L. Bonati, D. Corrada, S. Giani Tagliabue, and S. Motta, Molecular modeling of the AhR structure and interactions can shed light on ligand-dependent activation and transformation mechanisms, Curr. Opin. Toxicol. 2 (2017), pp. 42–49. doi:10.1016/j.cotox.2017.01.011.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• T. Hamers, J.H. Kamstra, P.H. Cenijn, K. Pencikova, L. Palkova, P. Simeckova, J. Vondracek, P.L. Andersson, M. Stenberg, and M. Machala, In vitro toxicity profiling of ultrapure non-dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyl congeners and their relative toxic contribution to PCB mixtures in humans, Toxicol. Sci. 121 (2011), pp. 88–100. doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfr043.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• P. Brenerová, T. Hamers, J.H. Kamstra, J. Vondráček, S. Strapáčová, P.L. Andersson, and M. Machala, Pure non-dioxin-like PCB congeners suppress induction of AhR-dependent endpoints in rat liver cells, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 23 (2016), pp. 2099–2107. doi:10.1007/s11356-015-4819-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• L. Stejskalova, Z. Dvorak, and P. Pavek, Endogenous and exogenous ligands of aryl hydrocarbon receptor: Current state of art, Curr. Drug Metab. 12 (2011), pp. 198–212. doi:10.2174/138920011795016818.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• G.A. Reed, K.S. Peterson, H.J. Smith, J.C. Gray, D.K. Sullivan, M.S. Mayo, J.A. Crowell, and A. Hurwitz, A phase I study of indole-3-carbinol in women: Tolerability and effects, Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 14 (2005), pp. 1953–1960. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0121.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O. Hankinson, The role of AHR-inducible cytochrome P450s in metabolism of polyunsaturated fatty acids, Drug Metab. Rev. 48 (2016), pp. 342–350. doi:10.1080/03602532.2016.1197240.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. Puga, Y. Xia, and C. Elferink, Role of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor in cell cycle regulation, Chem. Biol. Interact. 141 (2002), pp. 117–130. doi:10.1016/S0009-2797(02)00069-8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• C. Esser, A. Rannug, and B. Stockinger, The aryl hydrocarbon receptor in immunity, Trends Immunol. 30 (2009), pp. 447–454. doi:10.1016/j.it.2009.06.005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• C. Duval, E. Blanc, and X. Coumoul, Aryl hydrocarbon receptor and liver fibrosis, Curr. Opin. Toxicol. 8 (2018), pp. 8–13. doi:10.1016/j.cotox.2017.11.010.
   Google Scholar
• K. Pěnčíková, L. Svržková, S. Strapáčová, J. Neča, I. Bartoňková, Z. Dvořák, M. Hýžďalová, J. Pivnička, L. Pálková, H.J. Lehmler, X. Li, J. Vondráček, and M. Machala, In vitro profiling of toxic effects of prominent environmental lower-chlorinated PCB congeners linked with endocrine disruption and tumor promotion, Environ. Pollut. 237 (2018), pp. 473–486. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2018.02.067.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S. Safe, S.O. Lee, and U.H. Jin, Role of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor in carcinogenesis and potential as a drug target, Toxicol. Sci. 135 (2013), pp. 1–16. doi:10.1093/toxsci/kft128.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Z. Xue, D. Li, W. Yu, Q. Zhang, X. Hou, Y. He, and X. Kou, Mechanisms and therapeutic prospects of polyphenols as modulators of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor, Food Funct. 8 (2017), pp. 1414–1437. doi:10.1039/C6FO01810F.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R. Nakai, S. Fukuda, M. Kawase, Y. Yamashita, and H. Ashida, Curcumin and its derivatives inhibit 2,3,7,8,-tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin-induced expression of drug metabolizing enzymes through aryl hydrocarbon receptor-mediated pathway, Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 82 (2017), pp. 616–628. doi:10.1080/09168451.2017.1386086.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• H. Kandárová and S. Letaáiová, Alternative methods in toxicology: Pre-validated and validated methods, Interdiscip. Toxicol. 4 (2011), pp. 107–113. doi:10.2478/v10102-011-0018-6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• A. Cherkasov, E.N. Muratov, D. Fourches, A. Varnek, I.I. Baskin, M. Cronin, J. Dearden, P. Gramatica, Y.C. Martin, R. Todeschini, V. Consonni, V.E. Kuz’min, R. Cramer, R. Benigni, C. Yang, J. Rathman, L. Terfloth, J. Gasteiger, A. Richard, and A. Tropsha, QSAR modeling: Where have you been? Where are you going to? J. Med. Chem. 57 (2014), pp. 4977–5010. doi:10.1021/jm4004285.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• L.G. Valerio, C. Yang, K.B. Arvidson, and N.L. Kruhlak, A structural feature-based computational approach for toxicology predictions, Expert Opin. Drug Metab. Toxicol. 6 (2010), pp. 505–518. doi:10.1517/17425250903499286.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D. Szöllösi, Á. Erdei, G. Gyimesi, C. Magyar, and T. Hegedüs, Access path to the ligand binding pocket may play a role in xenobiotics selection by AhR, PLoS ONE 11 (2016), pp. 1–22. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146066.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A.D. Şahin and M.T. Saçan, Understanding the toxic potencies of xenobiotics inducing TCDD/TCDF-like effects, SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 29 (2018), pp. 117–131. doi:10.1080/1062936X.2017.1414075.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M.K. Gadhwal, S. Patil, P. D’mello, and A. Joshi, Homology modeling of aryl hydrocarbon receptor and docking of agonists and antagonists, Int. J. Pharm. Pharm. Sci. 5 (2013), pp. 76–81.
   Google Scholar
• D. Dolciami, M. Gargaro, B. Cerra, G. Scalisi, L. Bagnoli, G. Servillo, M.A.D. Fazia, P. Puccetti, F.J. Quintana, F. Fallarino, and A. Macchiarulo, Binding mode and structure–activity relationships of ITE as an aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) agonist, ChemMedChem 13 (2018), pp. 270–279. doi:10.1002/cmdc.201700669.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S.-H. Seok, W. Lee, L. Jiang, K. Molugu, A. Zheng, Y. Li, S. Park, C.A. Bradfield, and Y. Xing, Structural hierarchy controlling dimerization and target DNA recognition in the AHR transcriptional complex, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114 (2017), pp. 5431–5436. doi:10.1073/pnas.1617035114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• G. Suzuki, M. Nakamura, C. Michinaka, N.M. Tue, H. Handa, and H. Takigami, Dioxin-like activity of brominated dioxins as individual compounds or mixtures in in vitro reporter gene assays with rat and mouse hepatoma cell lines, Toxicol. Vitro 44 (2017), pp. 134–141. doi:10.1016/j.tiv.2017.06.025.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S. Sciuto, M. Prearo, R. Desiato, C. Bulfon, E.A.V. Burioli, G. Esposito, C. Guglielmetti, L. Dell’atti, G. Ru, D. Volpatti, P.L. Acutis, and F. Martucci, Dioxin-like compounds in lake fish species: Evaluation by DR-CALUX bioassay, J. Food Prot. 81 (2018), pp. 842–847. doi:10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-17-476.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A.L.J. Nuerla, X.L. Qiao, J. Li, D.M. Zhao, X.H. Yang, Q. Xie, and J.W. Chen, Effects of substituent position on the interactions between PBDEs/PCBs and DOM, Chin. Sci. Bull. 58 (2013), pp. 884–889. doi:10.1007/s11434-012-5464-9.
   Google Scholar
• R. Panda, A.S.S. Cleave, and P. Suresh, In silico predictive studies of mAHR congener binding using homology modelling and molecular docking, Toxicol. Ind. Health 30 (2014), pp. 765–776. doi:10.1177/0748233712463774.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• H.F. Berntsen, V. Berg, C. Thomsen, E. Ropstad, and K.E. Zimmer, The design of an environmentally relevant mixture of persistent organic pollutants for use in in vivo and in vitro studies, J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Part A 24 (2017), pp. 1002–1016. doi:10.1080/15287394.2017.1354439.
   Google Scholar
• A.J. Murk, J. Legler, M.S. Denison, J.P. Giesy, C. Van de Guchte, and A. Brouwer, Chemical-activated luciferase gene expression (CALUX): A novel in vitro bioassay for Ah receptor active compounds in sediments and pore water, Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 33 (1996), pp. 149–160. doi:10.1006/faat.1996.0152.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• OECD, Test No. 455: Performance-Based Test Guideline for Stably Transfected Transactivation in Vitro Assays to Detect Estrogen Receptor Agonists and Antagonists, OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2016.
   Google Scholar
• R. Todeschini and V. Consonni, Molecular Descriptors for Chemoinformatics, WILEY-VCH, Weinheim, Germany, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• C.W. Yap, PaDEL-descriptor: An open source software to calculate molecular descriptors and fingerprints, J. Comput. Chem. 32 (2011), pp. 1466–1474. doi:10.1002/jcc.v32.7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R.W.P. Urias, S.J. Barigye, Y. Marrero-Ponce, C.R. García-Jacas, J.R. Valdes-Martiní, and F. Perez-Gimenez, IMMAN: Free software for information theory-based chemometric analysis, Mol. Divers. 19 (2015), pp. 305–319. doi:10.1007/s11030-014-9565-z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MATLAB MathWorks Inc R2017b 9.3.0.713579, MathWorks Inc, USA, 2017. software. Available at https://www.mathworks.com/.
   Google Scholar
• STATISTICA StatSoft Inc v8.0. StatSoft Inc, USA, 2007. software. Available at http://www.statsoft.com.
   Google Scholar
• J. Jaworska and N. Nikolova-Jeliazkova, How can structural similarity analysis help in category formation? SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 18 (2007), pp. 195–207. doi:10.1080/10629360701306050.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S. Kim, P.A. Thiessen, E.E. Bolton, J. Chen, G. Fu, A. Gindulyte, L. Han, J. He, S. He, B.A. Shoemaker, J. Wang, B. Yu, J. Zhang, and S.H. Bryant, PubChem substance and compound databases, Nucleic Acids Res. 44 (2016), pp. D1202–D1213. doi:10.1093/nar/gkv951.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S.L. Dixon, A.M. Smondyrev, and S.N. Rao, PHASE: A novel approach to pharmacophore modeling and 3D database searching, Chem. Biol. Drug Des. 67 (2006), pp. 370–372. doi:10.1111/j.1747-0285.2006.00384.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J.F. Truchon and C.I. Bayly, Evaluating virtual screening methods: Good and bad metrics for the “early recognition” problem, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 47 (2007), pp. 488–508. doi:10.1021/ci600426e.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M.M. Mysinger, M. Carchia, J.J. Irwin, and B.K. Shoichet, Directory of useful decoys, enhanced (DUD-E): Better ligands and decoys for better benchmarking, J. Med. Chem. 55 (2012), pp. 6582–6594. doi:10.1021/jm300687e.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• T. Hamers, J.H. Kamstra, E. Sonneveld, A.J. Murk, M.H.A. Kester, P.L. Andersson, J. Legler, and A. Brouwer, In vitro profiling of the endocrine-disrupting potency of brominated flame retardants, Toxicol. Sci. 92 (2006), pp. 157–173. doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfj187.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• C. Sammut and G. Webb (eds.), Encyclopedia of Machine Learning and Data Mining, 2nd ed., Vol. 32, Springer, New York, NY, 2018.
   Google Scholar
• M. Ghorbanzadeh, K.I. Van Ede, M. Larsson, M.B.M. Van Duursen, L. Poellinger, S. Lücke-Johansson, M. Machala, K. Pěnčíková, J. Vondráček, M. van den Berg, M.S. Denison, T. Ringsted, and P.L. Andersson, In vitro and in silico derived relative effect potencies of ah-receptor-mediated effects by PCDD/Fs and PCBs in rat, mouse, and guinea pig CALUX cell lines, Chem. Res. Toxicol. 27 (2014), pp. 1120–1132. doi:10.1021/tx5001255.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD, Guidance Document on the Validation of (Quantitative) Structure-Activity Relationship [(Q)SAR] Models, 2014. OECD Series on Testing and Assessment OECD, No. 69, OECD Publishing, Paris.
   Google Scholar
• O.F. Güner and J.P. Bowen, Setting the record straight: The origin of the pharmacophore concept, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 54 (2014), pp. 1269–1283. doi:10.1021/ci5000533.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D.P. Williams, Toxicophores: Investigations in drug safety, Toxicology 226 (2006), pp. 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.tox.2006.05.101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• P.K. Singh, A. Negi, P.K. Gupta, M. Chauhan, and R. Kumar, Toxicophore exploration as a screening technology for drug design and discovery: Techniques, scope and limitations, Arch. Toxicol. 90 (2016), pp. 1785–1802. doi:10.1007/s00204-015-1587-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• L. Chen, D. Wu, H.P. Bian, G.L. Kuang, J. Jiang, W.H. Li, G.X. Liu, S. Zou, J. Huang, and Y. Tang, Selective ligands of estrogen receptor β discovered using pharmacophore mapping and structure-based virtual screening, Acta Pharmacol. Sin. 35 (2014), pp. 1333–1341. doi:10.1038/aps.2014.69.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S.S. Ashtekar, N.M. Bhatia, and M.S. Bhatia, Development of leads targeting ER-α in breast cancer: An in silico exploration from natural domain, Steroids 131 (2018), pp. 14–22. doi:10.1016/j.steroids.2017.12.016.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• N. Lagarde, S. Delahaye, A. Jérémie, N. Ben Nasr, H. Guillemain, C. Empereur-Mot, V. Laville, T. Labib, M. Réau, F. Langenfeld, J.F. Zagury, and M. Montes, Discriminating agonist from antagonist ligands of the nuclear receptors using different chemoinformatics approaches, Mol. Inf. 36 (2017), pp. 1–16. doi:10.1002/minf.201700020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R.T. Engeli, S.R. Rohrer, A. Vuorinen, S. Herdlinger, T. Kaserer, S. Leugger, D. Schuster, and A. Odermatt, Interference of paraben compounds with estrogen metabolism by inhibition of 17β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenases, Int. J. Mol. Sci. 18 (2017). doi:10.3390/ijms18092007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• I.T. Jolliffe, Principal Component Analysis, 2nd ed., Vol. 98, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 2002.
   Google Scholar
• K. Schomburg, H. Ehrlich, K. Stierand, and M. Rarey, From structure diagrams to visual chemical patterns, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 50 (2010), pp. 1529–1535. doi:10.1021/ci100209a.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• L. Poellinger and D. Gullberg, Characterization of the hydrophobic properties of the receptor for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, Mol. Pharmacol. 27 (1985), pp. 271–276.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• T. Tripathi and A.K. Saxena, 2D- QSAR studies on new stilbene derivatives of resveratrol as a new selective aryl hydrocarbon receptor, Med. Chem. Res. 17 (2008), pp. 212–218. doi:10.1007/s00044-007-9055-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Y. Xing, M. Nukaya, K.A. Satyshur, L. Jiang, V. Stanevich, E.N. Korkmaz, L. Burdette, G.D. Kennedy, Q. Cui, and C.A. Bradfield, Identification of the Ah-receptor structural determinants for ligand preferences, Toxicol. Sci. 129 (2012), pp. 86–97. doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfs194.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K. Bekki, H. Takigami, G. Suzuki, N. Tang, and K. Hayakawa, Evaluation of toxic activities of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon derivatives using in vitro bioassays, J. Health Sci. 55 (2009), pp. 601–610. doi:10.1248/jhs.55.601.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• C. Gu, X. Ju, X. Jiang, K. Yu, S. Yang, and C. Sun, Improved 3D-QSAR analyzes for the predictive toxicology of polybrominated diphenyl ethers with CoMFA/CoMSIA and DFT, Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 73 (2010), pp. 1470–1479. doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2009.11.003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• C.R. Martinez and B.L. Iverson, Rethinking the term “pi-stacking,” Chem. Sci. 3 (2012), pp. 2191–2201.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R.C. Kolanczyk, J.S. Denny, B.R. Sheedy, P.K. Schmieder, and M.A. Tapper, Estrogenic activity of multicyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in vitro assays, Aquat. Toxicol. (2019), pp. 43–51. doi:10.1016/j.aquatox.2018.11.023.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• C. Yun, J.A. Weiner, D.S. Chun, J. Yun, R.W. Cook, M.S. Schallmo, A.S. Kannan, S.M. Mitchell, R.D. Freshman, C. Park, W.K. Hsu, and E.L. Hsu, Mechanistic insight into the effects of Aryl hydrocarbon receptor activation on osteogenic differentiation, Bone Rep. 6 (2017), pp. 51–59. doi:10.1016/j.bonr.2017.02.003.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• C.A. McQueen (ed.), Comprehensive Toxicology, 3rd ed., Vol. 35, Elsevier, Oxford, UK, 2018.
   Google Scholar