4.7 Article

Application of hydrazino and hydrazido linkers to connect benzenesulfonamides with hydrophilic/phobic tails for targeting the middle region of human carbonic anhydrases active site: Selective inhibitors of hCA IX

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY
卷 179, 期 -, 页码 547-556

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmech.2019.06.081

关键词

Benzenesulfonamides; Selective hCA IX inhibitors; Molecular modeling; Synthesis; Anticancer activity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Herein we report the design and synthesis of three different sets of novel benzenesulfonamides (5a-e, 7a-e and 10a-d) incorporating hydrophilic/hydrophobic tails by hydrazido or hydrazino linkers. The newly synthesized benzenesulfonamides were examined in vitro for their inhibitory activity towards four human (h) carbonic anhydrase (hCA, EC 4.2.1.1) isoforms, hCA I, II, IX and XII using a stopped-flow CO2 hydrase assay. All these isoforms were inhibited by the sulfonamides (5a-e, 7a-e and 10a-d) with variable degrees in the following K-1 ranges: 76.8-357.4 nM for hCA 1, 8.2-94.6 nM for hCA II, 2.0-46.3 nM for hCA XI, and 8.3-88.3 nM for hCA XII. The sulfonamide 7d exhibited potent anti-proliferative activity against breast MCF-7 cancer cell line under both normoxic and hypoxic conditions with IC50 values equal 332 +/- 0.06 and 8.53 +/- 0.32 mu M, respectively, which are comparable to the reference drug doxorubicin (IC50 = 236 +/- 0.04 and 8.39 +/- 0.25 mu M, respectively). Furthermore, 7d was screened for cell cycle disturbance and apoptosis induction in MCF-7 cells. It was found to persuade cell cycle arrest at G2-M stage as well as to alter the Sub-G1 phase, also, 7d resulted in a significant increase in the percent of annexinV-FITC positive apoptotic cells from 1.03 to 18.54%. Molecular docking study was carried out for 7d within the hCA IX and hCA XII active sites to rationalize the obtained inhibition results. (C) 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据