Table 2 Comparison of the directional reactivity (DR) model with other predictive models and experimental potential toxicity data.

From: Influence of ligand’s directional configuration, chrysenes as model compounds, on the binding activity with aryl hydrocarbon receptor

Chemical

In vitro bioassay

QSARa

Docking modelb

Directional reactivity factor (DRF)

H4IIE-luc EC50

Daphnia magna EC50

Free energy (kcal mol−1)

Binding distance to LBD (Ǻ)

(μM)

(μM)

Total

H285c

F318d

2-methylchrysene

6.6 × 10−1

7.4 × 10−1

− 7.1

6.3

3.0

3.3

28.0

3-methylchrysene

11 × 10−1

7.4 × 10−1

− 10.5

6.3

3.0

3.4

13.7

Benzo[c]chrysene

13 × 10−1

5.4 × 10−1

− 8.0

7.4

3.6

3.8

9.8

1-methylchrysene

19 × 10−1

7.4 × 10−1

− 9.8

6.6

3.1

3.4

6.8

Benzo[b]chrysene

28 × 10−1

5.4 × 10−1

− 6.6

22.8

9.1

13.8

1.6

Chrysene

72 × 10−1

9.1 × 10−1

− 9.7

6.6

3.2

3.4

− 0.02

Dibenzo[b,def]chrysene

140 × 10−1

4.2 × 10−1

− 6.1

23.2

9.2

14.0

− 0.02

Benzo[a]chrysene

200 × 10−1

5.4 × 10−1

− 5.6

25.1

10.6

14.5

− 3.0

Dibenzo[def,p]chrysene

760 × 10−1

4.2 × 10−1

− 7.8

33.0

18.4

14.6

− 3.6

2-hydroxychrysene

590 × 10−1

32 × 10−1

− 8.0

31.9

17.7

14.2

− 51.4

1-hydroxychrysene

870 × 10−1

32 × 10−1

− 8.9

32.3

17.7

14.6

− 33.2

3-hydroxychrysene

1400 × 10−1

32 × 10−1

− 8.1

6.7

2.9

3.8

− 58.8

  1. aPredicted data from VEGA-QSAR.
  2. bGalaxydock.
  3. cHistidine 285.
  4. dPhenylalanine 318 in the AhR homology.