4.5 Article

Xanthenylacetic Acid Derivatives Effectively Target Lysophosphatidic Acid Receptor 6 to Inhibit Hepatocellular Carcinoma Cell Growth

Journal

CHEMMEDCHEM
Volume 16, Issue 13, Pages 2121-2129

Publisher

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/cmdc.202100032

Keywords

drug design; enantioselectivity; hepatocellular carcinoma; lysophosphatidic acid receptor 6 antagonists; therapeutic tools

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Novel XAA derivatives were synthesized and characterized, showing improved inhibitory effects on HCC growth by increasing alkyl group length. Experimental results indicated that compound MC11 exhibited the strongest anti-HCC activity among the derivatives.
Despite the increasing incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) worldwide, current pharmacological treatments are still unsatisfactory. We have previously shown that lysophosphatidic acid receptor 6 (LPAR6) supports HCC growth and that 9-xanthenylacetic acid (XAA) acts as an LPAR6 antagonist inhibiting HCC growth without toxicity. Here, we synthesized four novel XAA derivatives, (+/-)-2-(9H-xanthen-9-yl)propanoic acid (compound 4 - MC9), (+/-)-2-(9H-xanthen-9-yl)butanoic acid (compound 5 - MC6), (+/-)-2-(9H-xanthen-9-yl)hexanoic acid (compound 7 - MC11), and (+/-)-2-(9H-xanthen-9-yl)octanoic acid (compound 8 - MC12, sodium salt) by introducing alkyl groups of increasing length at the acetic alpha-carbon atom. Two of these compounds were characterized by X-ray powder diffraction and quantum mechanical calculations, while molecular docking simulations suggested their enantioselectivity for LPAR6. Biological data showed anti-HCC activity for all XAA derivatives, with the maximum effect observed for MC11. Our findings support the view that increasing the length of the alkyl group improves the inhibitory action of XAA and that enantioselectivity can be exploited for designing novel and more effective XAA-based LPAR6 antagonists.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available