Related Experiment Video

Updated: Aug 8, 2026

A General Method for Detecting Nitrosamide Formation in the In Vitro Metabolism of Nitrosamines by Cytochrome P450s
07:38

A General Method for Detecting Nitrosamide Formation in the In Vitro Metabolism of Nitrosamines by Cytochrome P450s

Published on: September 25, 2017

Extended quantitative structure-activity relationships for 80 aromatic and heterocyclic amines: structural,

F T Hatch1, M G Knize, M E Colvin

  • 1Biology and Biotechnology Research program, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA. fhatch@cyberportal.net

Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis
|January 5, 2002
PubMed

Insights

This study developed quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSARs) for mutagenic amines, identifying the aromatic pi-electron system as a key factor in their carcinogenic potential. Further research into cytochrome P450 1A mechanisms is recommended.

Area of Science:

  • Toxicology
  • Medicinal Chemistry
  • Computational Chemistry

Background:

  • Mutagenic/carcinogenic heterocyclic amines are formed during protein food cooking and are probable/possible human carcinogens.
  • These amines require metabolic activation to electrophilic derivatives, potentially nitrenium ions, to exert genotoxic effects.
  • Cytochrome P450 enzymes play a crucial role in the bioactivation of these compounds.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To elucidate the mechanisms of mutagenesis/carcinogenesis by developing quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSARs) for aromatic and heterocyclic amines.
  • To identify key structural factors influencing the mutagenic potency of a diverse range of amines.

Main Methods:

  • Development of QSAR models for 80 structurally diverse amines with a 10-order of magnitude range in mutagenic potency.
  • Inclusion of novel structural factors and quantum chemical calculations (ab initio and Hückel).
  • Application of multiple linear regression analysis to correlate structural features with mutagenic potency.

Main Results:

  • The extent of the aromatic pi-electron system was identified as the primary determinant of mutagenic potency.
  • Dipole moment and calculated nitrenium ion stability contributed smaller effects to mutagenic potency.
  • Multiple linear regression models explained approximately two-thirds of the variance in mutagenic potency.

Conclusions:

  • The aromatic pi-electron system is a critical factor in amine mutagenicity.
  • Cytochrome P450 1A's role in amine toxification is supported by these findings.
  • Further theoretical and experimental research on cytochrome P450 reaction mechanisms and active site modeling is warranted.

More Related Videos

In Silico Modeling Method for Computational Aquatic Toxicology of Endocrine Disruptors: A Software-Based Approach Using QSAR Toolbox05:47

In Silico Modeling Method for Computational Aquatic Toxicology of Endocrine Disruptors: A Software-Based Approach Using QSAR Toolbox

Published on: August 28, 2019

Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship, Activity Prediction, and Molecular Dynamics of Non-nucleotide Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors10:29

Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship, Activity Prediction, and Molecular Dynamics of Non-nucleotide Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors

Published on: May 9, 2025

Related Concept Videos

Structure of Amines01:19

Structure of Amines

The hybridized nitrogen atom in amines possesses a lone pair of electrons and is bound to three substituents with a bond angle of around 108°, which is less than the tetrahedral angle of 109.5°. However, the C–N–H bond angle is slightly larger at 112°, with a carbon–nitrogen bond length of 147 pm. This carbon–nitrogen bond length of of amines is longer than the carbon–oxygen bond of alcohols (143 pm) but shorter than alkanes’ carbon–carbon bond (154 pm). These aspects are illustrated in Figure...
Basicity of Heterocyclic Aromatic Amines01:25

Basicity of Heterocyclic Aromatic Amines

Heterocyclic amines, where the N atom is a part of an alicyclic system, are similar in basicity to alkylamines. Interestingly, the heterocyclic amine having a nitrogen atom as part of an aromatic ring has much less basicity than its corresponding alicyclic counterpart. For this reason, as presented in Figure 1, piperidine (pKb = 2.8) is significantly more basic than pyridine (pKb = 8.8).
Nomenclature of Aryl and Heterocyclic Amines01:10

Nomenclature of Aryl and Heterocyclic Amines

The simplest aromatic amine is phenylamine, which contains an –NH2 functionality directly attached to an aromatic ring. The name aniline is designated for this skeleton. As shown in Figure 1, the common names of the functionalized anilines involve prefixes ortho-, meta-, and para- to indicate the substitution position. Different functionalized aniline derivatives also have notable trivial names.
Physical Properties of Amines01:26

Physical Properties of Amines

Amines with low molecular weight are usually gaseous at room temperature, while those with high molecular weight are liquid or solids in nature. Usually, low molecular weight amines have a rotten fish-like smell. Diamines typically have a pungent smell. For instance, cadaverine and putrescine, depicted in Figure 1, are two molecules responsible for decaying tissue.
Basicity of Aromatic Amines01:18

Basicity of Aromatic Amines

The basicity of aromatic amines is much weaker than that of aliphatic amines due to the involvement of the lone pair of electrons over the N atom in resonance with the aryl rings. Generally, the electron-donating ability of any substituents on the aryl ring of aromatic amines increases the basicity of the amine by increasing electron density, and hence the availability of lone pair on the nitrogen. On the other hand, electron-withdrawing functional groups on the aryl ring of amines decrease the...
Mutagenicity and Carcinogenicity01:25

Mutagenicity and Carcinogenicity

Mutagenicity and carcinogenicity refer to the ability of drugs to cause genetic defects and induce cancer, respectively. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies agents into four groups based on their carcinogenic potential. Group 1 agents are known human carcinogens; group 2A agents are probably carcinogenic to humans; group 3 agents lack data to support their role in carcinogenesis; and group 4 includes agents for which data support that they are not likely to be...