Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39543775›Full record

ArticleGenes and environment : the official journal of the Japanese Environmental Mutagen Society2024

Structure-mutagenicity relationships on quinoline and indole analogues in the Ames test.

Masaki Kurakami, Atsushi Hakura, Rika Sato, Akihiro Kawade, Takeshi Yamagata, Naoki Koyama, Dai Kakiuchi, Shoji Asakura

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genes and environment : the official journal of the Japanese Environmental Mutagen Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Masaki KurakamiGlobal Drug Safety, Eisai Co., Ltd., 5-1-3 Tokodai, Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki, 300-2635, Japan. m-kurakami@hhc.eisai.co.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-0783-6115
Atsushi HakuraGlobal Drug Safety, Eisai Co., Ltd., 5-1-3 Tokodai, Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki, 300-2635, Japan.
Rika SatoTsukuba Division, Sunplanet Co., Ltd., 5-1-3 Tokodai, Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki, 300-2635, Japan.
Akihiro KawadeTsukuba Division, Sunplanet Co., Ltd., 5-1-3 Tokodai, Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki, 300-2635, Japan.
Takeshi YamagataQuality Assurance Department, Sunplanet Co., Ltd., 5-1-3 Tokodai, Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki, 300-2635, Japan.
Naoki KoyamaGlobal Drug Safety, Eisai Co., Ltd., 5-1-3 Tokodai, Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki, 300-2635, Japan.
Dai KakiuchiGlobal Drug Safety, Eisai Co., Ltd., 5-1-3 Tokodai, Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki, 300-2635, Japan.
Shoji AsakuraGlobal Drug Safety, Eisai Co., Ltd., 5-1-3 Tokodai, Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki, 300-2635, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough the in silico predictive ability of the Ames test results has recently made remarkable progress, there are still some chemical classes for which the predictive ability is not yet sufficient due to a lack of Ames test data. These classes include simple heterocyclic compounds. This study aimed to investigate the mutagenicity and structure-mutagenicity relationships for some heterocycles in the Ames test. In the present study, we selected 12 quinoline analogues containing one or two nitrogen atoms in the naphthalene ring and 12 indole analogues containing one to three nitrogen atoms in the indole ring, without any side moiety.

resultsThe Ames test was performed with five standard bacterial strains (TA100, TA1535, TA98, TA1537, and WP2uvrA) using the pre-incubation method with and without rat liver S9. Five quinoline and two indole analogues were mutagenic. Among the five quinoline analogues, four were mutagenic in the presence of S9 mix with TA100, whereas cinnoline was mutagenic in the absence of S9 mix with TA1537. Among the two indole analogues, indazole was mutagenic in the presence and absence of S9 mix with WP2uvrA and 4-azaindole was mutagenic in the absence of S9 mix with TA1537. The mechanisms underlying the induction of mutagenesis appear to differ between quinoline and indole analogues. In addition, we performed in silico analysis of the mutagenicity of all these analogues using DEREK Nexus 6.1.1 (Lhasa Limited) and GT_EXPERT from CASE Ultra 1.8.0.5 (MultiCASE Inc.) as knowledge-based models and GT1_BMUT from CASE Ultra 1.8.0.5 (MultiCASE Inc.) as a statistical-based model. The knowledge-based model showed low sensitivity for both the quinoline and indole analogues (DEREK Nexus and GT_EXPERT: 20% for quinolines and 0% for indoles). Conversely, the statistical model showed high sensitivity (100% for both quinolines and indoles) and low specificity (43% for quinolines and 10% for indoles).

conclusionBased on the Ames test results, we proposed structural alerts noting that quinoline analogues were mutagenic when they had nitrogens in any of the positions 2, 5, 7, or 8 in addition to 1, and indole analogues were mutagenic when they had nitrogens at positions 2 or 4 in addition to 1.

Indexed as

Ames testHeterocyclic compoundsIndoleIn silicoMutagenicityQuinolineStructure-mutagenicity relationship

Identifiers

PMID39543775
PMCPMC11566429

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.