“…The mutagenicity of ArNH 2 is conventionally associated with a high resonance stabilization of ArNH + . − Thus, classical works of Ford et al and Borosky − showed correlations between Ames mutagenic potency of different classes of ArNH 2 and the stability of ArNH + . However, data on ArNH 2 with pyridine-like nitrogens have been difficult to reconcile with the nitrenium stabilization concept as they destabilize ArNH + and simultaneously dramatically increase the mutagenic potency of ArNH 2 . ,, Thus, when pyridine-like aromatic fragments are included, the overall correlation of mutagenic potency with stabilization of ArNH + either had to be split into separate subsets with and without these fragments − or were found to be overall less significant than the link to the electron affinity of the parent ArNH 2 . ,− Additionally, it has been shown that for various classes of ArNH 2 , including analogues of aniline, 2-aminofluorene, 4-aminobiphenyl, and aminoimidazoazaarenes (AIA), the mutagenic potency significantly increases with the addition of electron-withdrawing functions that destabilize ArNH + . ,,,, Promutagenic effects of electron-withdrawing groups are captured in many quantinative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) studies as the importance of lowering the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) of ArNH 2 for increasing mutagenic potency. ,,,,, On the other hand, when the mutagenic potency was not taken into consideration but the Ames mutagenicity of ArNH 2 was binary flagged as Ames positive (Ames+) or Ames negative (Ames−), stabilization of ArNH + again turned out to be the most important single descriptor of Ames mutagenicity . Thus, both stabilization and destabilization of ArNH + can be promutagenic, with the promutagenic effects of electron-withdrawing groups being detected only when the value of mutagenic potency is taken into consideration. ,,,,, …”