Methylated PACs are more potent than their parent compounds: A study of aryl hydrocarbon receptor–mediated activity, degradability, and mixture interactions in the H4IIE-<i>luc</i> assay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twenty-six polycyclic aromatic compounds (PACs; including native polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs], hydroxylated PAHs, alkylated and oxygenated PAHs, and [alkylated] heterocyclic compounds) were investigated for their aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR)-mediated potencies in the H4IIE-luc bioassay. Potential degradabilities of PACs were investigated by use of various durations of exposure (24, 48, or 72 h), and various mixtures of PACs including PAHs, alkylated and oxygenated PAHs, and heterocyclic compounds were tested for their joint AhR-mediated potency. Additive behaviors of PACs in mixtures were studied by comparing observed mixture potencies with mixture potencies predicted by use of the concentration addition model. Methylated derivatives were more potent than their parent compounds in the H4IIE-luc assay. A time-dependent decrease in relative potency was observed for all AhR-active compounds, which may be indicative of in vitro biotransformation. Monomethylated compounds seemed to be more rapidly transformed than analogous unsubstituted compounds. In addition, the results showed that the predictive power of the concentration addition model increased with the number of compounds, suggesting additivity in multicomponent mixtures. Due to the greater potency of methylated derivatives and their ubiquitous occurrence, there is a need for further research on the toxicity and mixture behavior of these environmentally and toxicologically relevant compounds. Environ Toxicol Chem 2018;37:1409-1419. © 2018 SETAC.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".