4.7 Article

Novel oxazolxanthone derivatives as a new type of α-glucosidase inhibitor: synthesis, activities, inhibitory modes and synergetic effect

期刊

BIOORGANIC & MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY
卷 26, 期 12, 页码 3370-3378

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.bmc.2018.05.008

关键词

Oxazolxanthones; alpha-Glucosidase inhibitors; Docking; Synergetic effect; Non-competitive and competitive

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21272290, J1103305]
  2. Fund for Undergraduate Innovation Program from Sun Yat-sen University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Xanthone derivatives have shown good alpha-glucosidase inhibitory activity and have drawn increased attention as potential anti-diabetic compounds. In this study, a series of novel oxazolxanthones were designed, synthesized, and investigated as alpha-glucosidase inhibitors. Inhibition assays indicated that compounds 4-21 bearing oxazole rings exhibited up to 30-fold greater inhibitory activity compared to their corresponding parent compound 1b. Among them, compounds 5-21 (IC50 = 6.3 +/- 0.4-38.5 +/- 4.6 mu M) were more active than 1-deoxynojirimycin (IC50 = 60.2 +/- 6.2 mu M), a well-known a-glucosidase inhibitor. In addition, the kinetics of enzyme inhibition measured by using Lineweaver-Burk analysis shows that compound 4 is a competitive inhibitor, while compounds 15, 16 and 20 are non-competitive inhibitors. Molecular docking studies showed that compound 4 bound to the active site pocket of the enzyme while compounds 15, 16, and 20 did not. More interestingly, docking simulations reveal that some of the oxazolxanthone derivatives bind to different sites in the enzyme. This prediction was further confirmed by the synergetic inhibition experiment, and the combination of representative compounds 16 and 20 at the optimal ratio of 4: 6 led to an IC50 value of 1.9 +/- 0.7 mu M, better than the IC50 value of 7.1 +/- 0.9 mu M for compound 16 and 8.6 +/- 0.9 mu M for compound 20. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. 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