4.4 Article

Synthesis and adenosine receptors binding affinities of a series of 3-arylcoumarins

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHARMACY AND PHARMACOLOGY
卷 65, 期 11, 页码 1590-1597

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jphp.12135

关键词

3-arylcoumarins; adenosine receptors binding activity; absorption; distribution; metabolism and excretion properties; structure-activity relationship study

资金

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia [PTDC/QUI/70359/2006, PTDC/QUI-QUI/113687/2009]
  2. Spanish researchers personal funds
  3. FCT grants [SFRH/BD/43531/2008, SFRH/BSAB/1090/2010]
  4. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [PTDC/QUI/70359/2006, PTDC/QUI-QUI/113687/2009, SFRH/BD/43531/2008, SFRH/BSAB/1090/2010] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectivesIn the present communication, we report the synthesis, pharmacological evaluation, theoretical evaluation of absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion properties and structure-activity relationship study of a selected series of 3-arylcoumarins (compounds 1-9). Adenosine receptors (ARs) binding activity and selectivity of the synthesized compounds 1-9 were evaluated in this study. Different substituents were introduced in both benzene rings of the evaluated scaffold, at positions 6 and 3 or 4 of the moiety. The lack of data on the 3-arylcoumarin scaffold encouraged us to explore the ARs' binding activity of a selected series of derivatives. MethodsA new series of coumarins (compounds 1-9) were synthesized and evaluated by radioligand binding studies towards ARs. Key findingsAnalysing the experimental data, it can be observed that neither the simple 3-arylcoumarin nor the 4-nitro derivatives presented detectable binding affinity for the evaluated receptors, although most of the other substituted derivatives have good binding affinity profiles, especially against the hA(1)/hA(3) or only hA(3) AR. ConclusionsThe most remarkable derivative is compound 2, presenting the best affinity for hA(3) AR (K-i=2680 nM) and significant selectivity for this subtype.

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

4.4
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