Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25642734›Full record

ArticleChemical research in toxicology2015

Carcinogenesis of urethane: simulation versus experiment.

Andrej Lajovic, Leslie D Nagy, F Peter Guengerich, Urban Bren

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Chemical research in toxicology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The Toxicological Assessment ofNanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Carcinogenesis of β-Propiolactone: A Computational Study.Chemical research in toxicology · 2020
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Polyacetylenes from the Roots ofMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Andrej Lajovic†Laboratory for Molecular Modeling, National Institute of Chemistry, Hajdrihova 19, SI-1001 Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Leslie D Nagy‡Department of Biochemistry and Center in Molecular Toxicology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee 37232-0146, United States.
F Peter Guengerich‡Department of Biochemistry and Center in Molecular Toxicology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee 37232-0146, United States.
Urban Bren†Laboratory for Molecular Modeling, National Institute of Chemistry, Hajdrihova 19, SI-1001 Ljubljana, Slovenia.

Funding

BIOACTIVATION OF HALOGENATED HYDROCARBONSR01ES010546 · NIEHS · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI GUENGERICH, F PETER · 2001 to 2020
$8.1M
NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES010546
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The carcinogenesis of urethane (ethyl carbamate), a byproduct of fermentation that is consistently found in various food products, was investigated with a combination of kinetic experiments and quantum chemical calculations. The main objective of the study was to find ΔG(⧧), the activation free energy for the rate-limiting step of the SN2 reaction among the ultimate carcinogen of urethane, vinyl carbamate epoxide (VCE), and different nucleobases of the DNA. In the experimental part, the second-order reaction rate constants for the formation of the main 7-(2-oxoethyl)guanine adduct in aqueous solutions of deoxyguanosine and in DNA were determined. A series of ab initio, density functional theory (DFT), and semiempirical molecular orbital (MO) calculations was then performed to determine the activation barriers for the reaction between VCE and nucleobases methylguanine, methyladenine, and methylcytosine. Effects of hydration were incorporated with the use of the solvent reaction field method of Tomasi and co-workers and the Langevine dipoles model of Florian and Warshel. The computational results for the main adduct were found to be in good agreement with the experiment, thus presenting strong evidence for the validity of the proposed SN2 mechanism. This allowed us to predict the activation barriers of reactions leading to side products for which kinetic experiments have not yet been performed. Our calculations have shown that the main 7-(2-oxoethyl)deoxyguanosine adduct indeed forms preferentially because the emergence of other adducts either proceeds across a significantly higher activation barrier or the geometry of the reaction requires the Watson-Crick pairs of the DNA to be broken. The computational study also considered the questions of stereoselectivity, the ease of the elimination of the leaving group, and the relative contributions of the two possible reaction paths for the formation of the 1,N(2)-ethenodeoxyguanosine adduct.

Indexed as

CarcinogenesisCarcinogensDNAHydrolysisQuantum TheoryThermodynamicsUrethaneCarcinogensDNAUrethane

Identifiers

PMID25642734
PMCPMC4731881

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.