Next Article in Journal
Whole Cell Imprinting in Sol-Gel Thin Films for Bacterial Recognition in Liquids: Macromolecular Fingerprinting
Previous Article in Journal
Inference of Population History by Coupling Exploratory and Model-Driven Phylogeographic Analyses
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Study on QSTR of Benzoic Acid Compounds with MCI

1
School of Foundation, Shenyang Pharmaceutical University, No. 103 Wenhua Road, Shenyang, Liaoning, 110016, China
2
School of Pharmaceutical Science, China Medical University, No. 92 Bei-er Road, Shenyang, Liaoning, 110001, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2010, 11(4), 1228-1235; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms11041228
Submission received: 24 December 2009 / Revised: 1 March 2010 / Accepted: 16 March 2010 / Published: 24 March 2010
(This article belongs to the Section Physical Chemistry, Theoretical and Computational Chemistry)

Abstract

:
Quantitative structure-toxicity relationship (QSTR) plays an important role in toxicity prediction. With the modified method, the quantum chemistry parameters of 57 benzoic acid compounds were calculated with modified molecular connectivity index (MCI) using Visual Basic Program Software, and the QSTR of benzoic acid compounds in mice via oral LD50 (acute toxicity) was studied. A model was built to more accurately predict the toxicity of benzoic acid compounds in mice via oral LD50: 39 benzoic acid compounds were used as a training dataset for building the regression model and 18 others as a forecasting dataset to test the prediction ability of the model using SAS 9.0 Program Software. The model is LogLD50 = 1.2399 × 0JA +2.6911 × 1JA – 0.4445 × JB (R2 = 0.9860), where 0JA is zero order connectivity index, 1JA is the first order connectivity index and JB = 0JA × 1JA is the cross factor. The model was shown to have a good forecasting ability.

1. Introduction

Benzoic acid compounds are an important organic chemical raw material that are widely used in food, medicine, cosmetic, antiseptic, insecticide, dyestuff, etc. For example, benzoic acid is a common antiseptic, Aspirin is a famous non-steroid anti-inflammatory drug, Triflusal is a antithrombotic, and Chloramben and Dicamba are common pesticides (see Figure 1). Most benzoic acid compounds are toxic and are hardly degraded by microorganism in the natural environment, which may cause serious public health and environmental problems.
With the development of synthetic chemistry, combinatorial chemistry and pharmaceutical chemistry, millions of new compounds are being synthesized. Classical chemical substance evaluation needs a lot of time and is expensive, and the speed of analyzing the toxicity of compounds is less than the speed of discovery of new compounds. Nowadays, scientists pay more and more attention to the importance of prediction toxicity in the early stage. Quantitative structure-toxicity relationships (QSTR) have been efficiently used for the study of toxicity mechanisms of various compounds [1].
QSTR plays an important role in toxicity forecasting, which is widely used in the modern studying of compounds, since more and more compounds are being found. It is necessary to predict the toxicity of compounds accurately and quickly [24]. QSTR of benzoic acid compounds with molecular connectivity index (MCI) in mice via oral LD50 (acute toxicity, half lethal dose) are not reported. The quantitative structure characteristic parameters of 57 benzoic acid compounds were obtained with MCI. Values of LD50 for mice in benzoic acid compounds have been collected from various literature sources. In this work, the QSTR of benzoic acid compounds in mice via oral LD50 was studied and a model was developed to more accurately predict the toxicity of benzoic acid compounds in mice via oral LD50. 39 benzoic acid compounds were used as a training dataset for building the regression model, and 18 other benzoic acid compounds as a forecasting dataset to test the prediction ability of the model. The experimental result analysis showed that 0JA, 1JA and cross factor JB were important factors affecting the toxicity of benzoic acid compounds (although the toxicity mechanism of compounds is not clear yet), where 0JA is zero order connectivity index, 1JA is the first order connectivity index and JB= 0JA × 1JA is the cross factor.

2. Research Methods

In 1975, Milan Randic described a skeletal branching index that correlated with the three physical properties of alkenes [5]. The concept was further developed and applied extensively by Kier and Hall [68], which led to the molecular connectivity index (MCI). Eventually, Kier and Hall modified the connectivity indices to discriminate carbon atoms from other heteroatoms, which introduced the valance molecular connectivity index mχt [9]. The MCI is calculated with the follow formula:
m χ t = Nm j = 1 ( Π m + 1 i 1 / δ i ) 1 / 2
mχt is mth-order MCI, t is the type of sub-graph including path (p), cluster (c), path-cluster (pc), Nm is the number of the sub-graph of the same type and order. The abbreviation is δ = σ – h, where σ is the count of electrons in σ orbital and h is the count of bonding hydrogen atoms.
There was no doubt that the MCI was proved to be the one of the most successful and widely used descriptors. The MCI has been introduced and used in many studies [1013].
From the skeletal branching index of Randic to the connectivity index modified by Kier and Hall, the core is the connectivity of atoms, which is from the connectivity δi of upper atom to valence connectivity of δiv. The computing method of heteroatom i modified by Kier and Hall is as the following formula:
δ iv = ( Z i h i ) / ( Z Z i 1 )
Z and Zi are the count of extra nuclear electrons and valence electrons, respectively, hi is the count of hydrogen atoms combining with heteroatom i. Although Kier et al contributed to the computing method of heteroatom i, the method could not discriminate the same heteroatom in different oxidation states. More recently, Yu et al improved the method, and redefined the valence connectivity value δhi using the following formula [14]:
δ h i = 2 × Z  ( Z i h i ) [ ( 8 N i ) 1 / N i ] [ ( 2 n i 1 ) h i / N i 1 ] / [ ( m i + L p ) ( 2 n i 1 ) ]
mi is the count of bonding electrons, Z is the count of extra nuclear electrons, ni is maximum first quantum number, Zi is the valence electron number, Ni is the count, Lp is the hybridization style of heteroatom i, the value as following: sp3, Lp = 1; sp2, Lp = −1.8; sp, Lp = 2; if that is the atom itself, Lp = 2, mi = 0.
The program package for calculating the MCI of compounds was compiled by Visual Basic Program Software according to the modified formula. In order to predict the toxicity of benzoic acid compounds and get the prediction model, the molecular structure of 57 benzoic acid compounds was entered into the program package and their MCI were calculated. 39 of them were a training dataset for building the multi variance linear regression model (logarithm of LD50 as dependent variable and MCI as factor), and 18 of them were predicted samples to test the prediction ability of the model using SAS 9.0 Program Software. During the process of building the regression model, the cross factor was considered into the model.

3. Results and Discussion

In what follows, we will present the process of computing MCI, choosing factors of the regression model and building the model, as well as testing the model. Firstly, zero order connectivity index 0JA and first order connectivity index 1JA were calculated using the program package. The value of LD50 was converted to logarithm in order to make all the data in the same order of magnitude and easier to statistically analysze and compare. Then, the toxicity data was analyzed in the training dataset as regression analysis. Non-intercept stepwise regression was chosen as the statistical method. The influencing factors were as follows: zero order connectivity index 0JA, first order connectivity index 1JA and the cross factor JB= 0JA × 1JA. These influencing factors were inspected, and the results were as below:
  • 0JA: R-Square = 0.9542 and C(p) = 1.0000
  • 1JA: R-Square = 0.9560 and C(p) = 1.0000
  • JB: R-Square = 0.8656 and C(p) = 1.0000
  • 0JA, 1JA: R-Square = 0.9560 and C(p) = 0.2565
  • 0JA, JB: R-Square = 0.9829 and C(p) = 2.0000
  • 1JA, JB: R-Square = 0.9816 and C(p) = 2.0000
  • 0JA, 1JA: JB: R-Square = 0.9860 and C(p) = 3.0000
The results show that the groups are fine expect (3) and (4), and correlation coefficient (R2) showed that (7) is the best. It was shown that the regression linearity of (7) is better than other groups. Therefore, 0JA, 1JA and JB were chosen as the independent variables of the model (see Table 1).
Comparing the p value in the table, it was shown that 0JA, 1JA and JB had an obvious significant influence, and a regression estimated model was built:
LogLD 50 = 1.2399 × 0 J A + 2.6911 × 1 J A 0.4445 × J B ( R 2 = 0.9860 )
Obeying the principles that the value of correlation coefficient (R2) is approximate to 1 and the p value is less than 0.01, as well as the numbers of the parameters equal to the test coefficient, we found that the linearity of the model is appropriate. The result of residual analysis shows that the fitting of the model was good (see Table 2). The distribution of residual is a normal distribution, since the scatter plots are almost standing on one line (see Figure 2).
From analysis of the model, it was known that 0JA, 1JA and cross factor JB had great influence on the oral toxicity in mice. When 0JA and 1JA decrease, the value of LD50 increases. And LD50 decreases as JB increases. Since increasing LD50 resulted in lower toxicity, therefore, the model showed that 0JA and 1JA have a negative correlation to the toxicity of benzoic acid compounds, and JB has a positive correlation to the toxicity of benzoic acid compounds. The ability of regression model with 18 benzoic acid compounds was also tested, and the result indicates that the prediction ability of the model is good (Table 3). It is shown that these influencing factors indeed had an significant effect on toxicity, and the forecasting accuracy of the model becomes higher when introducing the cross factor (JB).

4. Conclusions

LD50 is a common factor for evaluating compound toxicity, which reflects receptivity of test animals, and LD50 values have high reproducibility and stability. In QSTR study, linear regression analysis is a widely useful quantization method [15]. In this work, the quantitative parameters were calculated with MCI and the toxicity prediction model of benzoic acid compounds was obtained as follow. LogLD50=1.2399 × 0JA +2.6911 × 1JA – 0.4445 × JB, R-Square = 0.9860. The model has a good forecasting ability.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Chinese National Science Foundation (No. 30571591).

References and Notes

  1. Sun, YZ; Yan, XL; Li, ZJ; Meng, FH. Application of Chemical Models in Toxicological Study. Chinese J. Environ. Health 2007, 24, 734–736. [Google Scholar]
  2. Mihai, VP; Ana-Maria, L. Introducing Spectral Structure Activity Relationship (S-SAR) Analysis. Application to Ecotoxicology. Int. J. Mol. Sci 2007, 8, 363–391. [Google Scholar]
  3. Mihai, VP; Ana-Maria, P; Marius, L; Luciana, I; Adrian, C. Quantum-SAR Extension of the Spectral-SAR Algorithm. Application to Polyphenolic Anticancer Bioactivity. Int. J. Mol. Sci 2009, 10, 1193–1214. [Google Scholar]
  4. Meng, FH; Sun, YZ; Li, ZJ; Yan, XL. The Application of QSAR in the Study of Chemicals Toxicity. Chem. Bioeng 2007, 24, 5–7. [Google Scholar]
  5. Randic, M. On characterization of molecular branching. J. Am. Chem. Soc 1975, 97, 6609–6615. [Google Scholar]
  6. Kier, LB; Murray, WJ; Randic, M; Hall, LH. Molecular connectvity I Relationship to non-specific local anesthetic activity. J. Pharm. Sci 1975, 64, 1971–1974. [Google Scholar]
  7. Hall, LH; Kier, LB; Murray, WJ. Molecular connectivity I. Relationship to water solubility and boiling point. J. Pharm. Sci 1975, 64, 1974–1977. [Google Scholar]
  8. Kier, LB; Murray, WJ; Randic, M. Molecular connectivity V connectivity series applied to density. J. Pharm. Sci 1976, 65, 1226–1230. [Google Scholar]
  9. Kier, LB; Murray, WJ; Randic, M; Hall, LH. Molecular connectivity VII Specific treatment of heteroatoms. J. Pharm. Sci 1976, 65, 1806–1809. [Google Scholar]
  10. Gayathri, P; Pande, V; Sivakumar, R; Gupta, SP. A quantitative structure-activity relationship study on some HIV-1 protease inhibitors using molecular connectivity index. Bioorgan. Med. Chem 2001, 11, 3059–3036. [Google Scholar]
  11. Roy, K; Leonard, JT. QSAR modeling of HIV-1 reverse transcriptase inhibitor 2-amino-6-arylsulfonylbenzonitriles and congeners using molecular connectivity and E-state parameters. Bioorgan. Med. Chem 2004, 12, 745–754. [Google Scholar]
  12. Agrawal, VK; Khadikar, PV. QSAR study on inhibitor of brain 3-hydroxy-anthranihc acid dioxygenase (3-HAO): A molecular connectivity approach. Bioorgan. Med. Chem 2001, 9, 3295. [Google Scholar]
  13. Gupta, S; Singh, M; Madan, AK. Applications of graph theory: Relationship of molecular connectivity index and atomic molecular connectivity index with anti-HSV activity. J. Mol. Struct 2001, 571, 147–152. [Google Scholar]
  14. Yu, XM; Yu, XS. A New Method for Calculation Valence Delta of Heteroatoms in Molecular Valence Connectivity Topological Index and Its Application. Chin. J. Organ. Chem 2001, 21, 658–667. [Google Scholar]
  15. Xu, SJ. Computer-Assisted Drug Molecular Design; Chemical industry press: Beijing, China, 2004. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Molecular structures of benzoic acid (1), aspirin (2), triflusal (3), chloramben (4) and dicamba (5).
Figure 1. Molecular structures of benzoic acid (1), aspirin (2), triflusal (3), chloramben (4) and dicamba (5).
Ijms 11 01228f1
Figure 2. Normal P-P Plot of residual.
Figure 2. Normal P-P Plot of residual.
Ijms 11 01228f2
Table 1. Variable parameter estimation analysis.
Table 1. Variable parameter estimation analysis.
Variable parametersStandard estimateErrorType II SSF valuePr > F
0JA1.23990.43746.68278.040.0075
1JA2.69110.80579.276811.160.0020
JB–0.44450.050963.332776.16<0.0001
Table 2. Building the toxicity prediction regression model of benzoic acid compounds with training dataset (39 benzoic acid compounds).
Table 2. Building the toxicity prediction regression model of benzoic acid compounds with training dataset (39 benzoic acid compounds).
No.CompoundCAS No.LogLD50Std error (predicted)Residual

Dependent variablePredicted value
1benzamide55-21-07.0567.1870.189–0.131
24-aminobenzoic acid150-13-07.9557.2640.1740.691
34-chlorobenzoic acid74-11-37.0657.2540.175–0.189
43-hydroxybenzoic acid99-06-97.6017.2360.1760.362
54-bromobenzoic acid586-76-56.9657.2830.172–0.318
62-iodobenzoic acid88-67-57.3137.3100.1700.003
7amino salicylic acid65-49-68.2947.3340.1690.960
8methyl benzoate93-58-38.1117.4900.1720.621
93-aminobenzoic acid99-05-88.7487.2640.1741.484
103-methylbenzoic acid99-04-77.3967.4960.151–0.100
114-hydroxybenzoic acid99-96-77.6967.2390.1760.457
124-methylbenzoic acid99-94-57.7587.4960.1510.262
136-methylsalicylic acid567-61-35.5227.5180.155–1.997
143,5-diiodosalicylic acid133-91-56.1097.4600.170–1.351
152-acetyloxybenzoic acid (aspirin)50-78-25.5227.4930.201–1.971
162,4,6-triiodobenzoic acid2012-31-97.1707.4900.170–0.320
173,4,5-triiodobenzoic acid2338-20-78.4347.4900.1700.944
184-tert-butylbenzoic acid98-73-76.3426.6170.481–0.274
192-formylbenzoic acid119-67-58.4077.4110.1600.997
202-hydroxybenzamide (salicylamide)65-45-25.7047.3060.181–1.603
212-hydroxybenzoic acid (salicylic acid)69-72-76.1747.2430.176–1.069
222-aminobenzoic acid methyl ester134-20-38.2697.5130.1960.756
232-(acetyl amino)benzoic acid89-52-17.0167.4810.405–0.465
242-amino-3,5-dichlorobenzoic acid2789-92-67.1857.4120.173–0.227
254-hydroxy-3,5-diiodobenzoic acid618-76-88.2947.4600.1700.834
263,5-diiodo-4-methoxybenzoic acid4253-11-66.9087.4840.280–0.576
272,3,6-trichlorobenzoic acid (2,3,6-TBA)50-31-76.4227.4080.172–0.986
282-aminobenzoic acid (anthranilic acid)118-92-37.2447.2680.174–0.024
294-aminobenzoic acid ethyl ester (benzocaine)94-09-77.8247.4370.2350.387
302-hydroxybenzoic acid methyl ester119-36-87.0127.5160.747–0.504
312,5-dihydroxybenzoic acid (gentisic acid)490-79-98.4127.3130.1711.099
325-amino-2-hydroxybenzoic acid (mesalamine)89-57-68.1237.3340.1690.789
333-amino-2,5-dichlorobenzoic acid (chloramben)133-90-48.2237.4120.1730.811
34benzoic acid N,N-diethylamide (rebemide)1696-17-96.6596.4950.5170.165
353,6-dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic acid (dicamba)1918-00-97.0827.5080.263–0.426
361,4-benzenedicarboxylic acid (terephthalic acid)100-21-08.0717.4690.1530.602
372-hydroxy-5-methylbenzoic acid (p-cresotic acid)89-56-56.9087.5160.156–0.609
384-hydroxybenzoic acid propyl ester (propylparaben)94-13-38.7537.0620.4051.692
392-hydroxy-3-methylbenzoic acid (hydroxytoluic acid)83-40-96.9087.5180.155–0.610
Table 3. Toxicity prediction of the regression model with Testing dataset (18 benzoic acid compounds).
Table 3. Toxicity prediction of the regression model with Testing dataset (18 benzoic acid compounds).
LogLD50
No.CompoundCAS No.Dependent variablePredicted value
1benzoic acid65-85-07.577.16
22-benzoylbenzoic acid85-52-96.685.69
32,3,5-triiodobenzoic acid88-82-46.557.49
42-benzoyl-5-chlorobenzoic acid1147-42-86.356.16
55-amino-2-benzoylbenzoic acid2162-57-47.446.14
62-acetoxy-5-bromobenzoic acid1503-53-36.487.43
74-methylbenzoic acid methyl ester99-75-28.247.47
82-hydroxy-3,6-dichlorobenzoic acid3401-80-76.497.40
9benzoic acid 3-hydroxyphenyl ester136-36-76.686.06
106-benzoyl-3-methylbenzoic acid1147-41-76.805.28
113,4,5-trihydroxybenzoic acid propyl ester121-79-97.446.78
122-hydroxybenzoic acid 2-methylpropyl ester87-19-48.546.33
132-(3-chloro-2-methylphenylamino) benzoic acid13710-19-55.634.52
143-acetylamino-2,4,6-triiodobenzoic acid (acetrizoate)85-36-99.907.13
15benzoic acid 2-methylpropyl ester (isobutyl benzoate)120-50-38.486.50
162-(2,3-dimethylphenyl)aminobenzoic acid (mefenafic acid)61-68-76.263.29
172-acetyloxy-4-trifluoromethylbenzoic acid (triflusal)322-79-26.086.32
181,1′-biphenyl-2′,4′-difluoro-4-hydroxy-3-carboxylic acid (diflunisal)22494-42-46.085.87

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Li, Z.; Sun, Y.; Yan, X.; Meng, F. Study on QSTR of Benzoic Acid Compounds with MCI. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2010, 11, 1228-1235. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms11041228

AMA Style

Li Z, Sun Y, Yan X, Meng F. Study on QSTR of Benzoic Acid Compounds with MCI. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2010; 11(4):1228-1235. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms11041228

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Zuojing, Yezhi Sun, Xinli Yan, and Fanhao Meng. 2010. "Study on QSTR of Benzoic Acid Compounds with MCI" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 11, no. 4: 1228-1235. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms11041228

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop