4.7 Article

Synthesis and biological evaluation of triterpenoid thiazoles derived from betulonic acid, dihydrobetulonic acid, and ursonic acid

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmech.2019.111806

关键词

Triterpene; Heterocycle; Thiazole; Cytotoxicity; Apoptosis; Caspase assay; Cancer; Biological activity

资金

  1. European Regional Development Fund - Project ENOCH [CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0,0/16_019/0000868]
  2. Palacky University [IGA_LF_2019_019, IGA_PrF_2019_027]
  3. Technology Agency of the Czech Republic [TE01020028]
  4. Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic [NV19-03-00107]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this work, 35 new derivatives of betulonic, dihydrobetulonic and ursonic acid were prepared including 30 aminothiazoles and all of them were tested for their in vitro cytotoxic activity in eight cancer cell lines and two non-cancer fibroblasts. Compounds with the IC50 below 5 mu M in CCRF-CEM cells and low toxicity in non-cancer fibroblasts (4m, Sc, 5m, 6c, 6m, 7b, and 7c) were further subjected to tests of pharmacological parameters yielding the final set for advanced biological evaluation (4m, 5m, 6m, and 7b). It was proved by several methods, that all of them trigger apoptosis via the intrinsic pathway and derivatives 5m and 7b are the most effective (IC50 2.4 mu M and 3.6 They are the best candidates to become potentially new anticancer drugs and will be subjected to in vivo tests in mice. In addition, compounds 6b and 6c deserve more attention because their activity is not limited only to chemosensitive CCRF-CEM cell line. Specifically, compound 6b is highly active against K562 leukemic cell line (0.7 mu M) and its IC50 activity in colon cancer HCT116 cell line is 1.0 mu M. Compound 6c is active in both normal K562 and resistant K562-TAX cell lines (IC50 3.4 mu M and 5.4 mu M) and both colon cancer cell lines (HCT116 and HCT116p53(-/-) , IC(50)3.5 mu M and 3.4 mu M). (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