2 ms·

The paper is about DNA mutation. DNA is not a hydrophobic binding site. It doesn't interact with hydrophobic binding sites. Moreover, the chemical studied in th

by timr 2y ago

The paper is about DNA mutation. DNA is not a hydrophobic binding site. It doesn't interact with hydrophobic binding sites. Moreover, the chemical studied in this particular paper is not particularly hydrophobic. Your theory is wrong, at least in this case. Also, this paper says the opposite of what you think it says: > based on the three-dimensional potential energy surface information, it was discovered that the hydrophobic, steric, and electrostatic fields of PAEs significantly influence their endocrine disruption effects on humans. They're saying that hydrophobic effects matter, but non-hydrophobic effects also matter. So everything matters. FWIW, the paper is not particularly worth citing. Someone made an ML model that said what any competent chemist could tell you by looking at a phthalate.

whatshisface 2y ago
Who said DNA was hydrophobic? I'm sorry, but we're not disagreeing. Phtalates are very lithophilic and that's a major mechanism of their accumulation in the body. If phtalates were highly polar, they wouldn't be soluble in plastic. That means they're going to bind to fat tissue and non-polar receptors. >the chemical studied in this particular paper [...] Also, the paper didn't study "a chemical," it covered about 30.
- timr 2y ago
  I'm telling you that you're overgeneralizing based on incorrect information. The paper being discussed here directly refutes your hypothesis of action, because it's about a particular chemical that is known to be metabolized, causing downstream effects in an extremely polar molecule (DNA). Generally, "pthalates" are not a thing, but rather a whole bunch of different things (some are hydrophobic, some are not), and many of them are metabolized by the human body, so they don't actually accumulate. You have to be more specific. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17604388/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17604388/ > If phtalates were highly polar, they wouldn't be soluble in plastic. Setting aside "highly polar", which is not specific, you are wrong. Many/most pthalates are far from what chemists consider "hydrophobic", and are in fact esters, alcolhols and acids. > Also, the paper didn't study "a chemical," it covered about 30. The paper in the OP was about one molecule: BBP.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - whatshisface 2y ago
    >Generally, "pthalates" are not a thing, but rather a whole bunch of different things (some are hydrophobic, some are not), and many of them are metabolized by the human body, so they don't actually accumulate. You have to be more specific. I am being specific enough to be talking about the hydrophobic pthalates that do accumulate in the human body. If I was talking about the other ones that claim would be trivially wrong... when the popular media says cyanide is dangerous, they're talking about the dangerous molecules with R-CN, not the safe ones.
    - timr 2y ago
      > I am being specific enough to be talking about the hydrophobic pthalates that do accumulate in the human body. They're all amphiphilic, to some degree. That's how they work. It's also common to the chemical group that they break down quickly, because they tend to be esters and alcohols. Any phthalates that bioaccumulate would be the exception, not the rule. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1438463907001125#:~:text=Because%20of%20their%20chemical%20properties,does%20not%20result%20in%20bioaccumulation https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S14384....
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]

by timr 2y ago

whatshisface 2y ago

Who said DNA was hydrophobic? I'm sorry, but we're not disagreeing. Phtalates are very lithophilic and that's a major mechanism of their accumulation in the body. If phtalates were highly polar, they wouldn't be soluble in plastic. That means they're going to bind to fat tissue and non-polar receptors. >the chemical studied in this particular paper [...] Also, the paper didn't study "a chemical," it covered about 30.

timr 2y ago
I'm telling you that you're overgeneralizing based on incorrect information. The paper being discussed here directly refutes your hypothesis of action, because it's about a particular chemical that is known to be metabolized, causing downstream effects in an extremely polar molecule (DNA). Generally, "pthalates" are not a thing, but rather a whole bunch of different things (some are hydrophobic, some are not), and many of them are metabolized by the human body, so they don't actually accumulate. You have to be more specific. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17604388/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17604388/ > If phtalates were highly polar, they wouldn't be soluble in plastic. Setting aside "highly polar", which is not specific, you are wrong. Many/most pthalates are far from what chemists consider "hydrophobic", and are in fact esters, alcolhols and acids. > Also, the paper didn't study "a chemical," it covered about 30. The paper in the OP was about one molecule: BBP.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- whatshisface 2y ago
  >Generally, "pthalates" are not a thing, but rather a whole bunch of different things (some are hydrophobic, some are not), and many of them are metabolized by the human body, so they don't actually accumulate. You have to be more specific. I am being specific enough to be talking about the hydrophobic pthalates that do accumulate in the human body. If I was talking about the other ones that claim would be trivially wrong... when the popular media says cyanide is dangerous, they're talking about the dangerous molecules with R-CN, not the safe ones.
  - timr 2y ago
    > I am being specific enough to be talking about the hydrophobic pthalates that do accumulate in the human body. They're all amphiphilic, to some degree. That's how they work. It's also common to the chemical group that they break down quickly, because they tend to be esters and alcohols. Any phthalates that bioaccumulate would be the exception, not the rule. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1438463907001125#:~:text=Because%20of%20their%20chemical%20properties,does%20not%20result%20in%20bioaccumulation https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S14384....
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]