4.7 Article

Synthesis and biological evaluation of new long-chain squaramides as anti-chagasic agents in the BALB/c mouse model

期刊

BIOORGANIC & MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY
卷 27, 期 5, 页码 865-879

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.bmc.2019.01.033

关键词

Chagas Disease; Chemotherapy; Murine model; Squaramides; Trypanosoma cruzi

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO) [CTQ2014-57393-C2-1P, CSD2010-00065]
  2. Spanish Ministry of Economy, Innovation and Science [P11-CTS-7651]
  3. Junta de Andalucia [P11-CTS-07187]
  4. Spanish Ministry of Education [FPU14/01537]
  5. Govern de les Illes Balears
  6. Junta de Andalucia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chagas Disease is caused by infection with the insect-transmitted protozoan Trypanosoma cruzi and affects more than 10 million people. It is a paradigmatic example of a chronic disease without an effective treatment in Latin America where the current therapies, based on Benznidazole and Nifurtimox, are characterised by limited efficacy, toxic side-effects and frequent failures in the treatment. We present a series of new long-chain squaramides, identified based on their H-1 and C-13 NMR spectra, and their trypanocidal activity and cytotoxicity were tested in vitro through the determination of IC50 values. Compounds 4 and 7 were more active and less toxic than the reference drug Benznidazole, and these results were the basis of promoting in vivo assays, where parasitaemia levels, assignment of cure, reactivation of parasitaemia and others parameters were determined in mice treated in both the acute and chronic phases. Finally, the mechanisms of action were elucidated at metabolic and mitochondrial levels and superoxide dismutase inhibition. The experiments allowed us to select compound 7 as a promising candidate for treating Chagas Disease, where the activity, stability and low cost make long-chain squaramides appropriate molecules for the development of an affordable anti-chagasic agent versus current treatments.

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