4.6 Article

Biological Evaluation and Molecular Dynamics Simulation of Chalcone Derivatives as Epidermal Growth Factor-Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 24, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules24061092

关键词

chalcone derivatives; cytotoxicity assay; EGFR tyrosine kinase; molecular dynamics simulation; ADMET

资金

  1. Thailand Research Fund [RSA5980069]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Targeted cancer therapy has become a high potential cancer treatment. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), which plays an important role in cell signaling, enhanced cell survival and proliferation, has been suggested as molecular target for the development of novel cancer therapeutics. In this study, a series of chalcone derivatives was screened by in vitro cytotoxicity against the wild type (A431 and A549) and mutant EGFR (H1975 and H1650) cancer cell lines, and, subsequently, tested for EGFR-tyrosine kinase (TK) inhibition. From the experimental screening, all chalcones seemed to be more active against the A431 than the A549 cell line, with chalcones 1c, 2a, 3e, 4e, and 4t showing a more than 50% inhibitory activity against the EGFR-TK activity and a high cytotoxicity with IC50 values of < 10 mu M against A431 cells. Moreover, these five chalcones showed more potent on H1975 (T790M/L858R mutation) than H1650 (exon 19 deletion E746-A750) cell lines. Only three chalcones (1c, 2a and 3e) had an inhibitory activity against EGFR-TK with a relative inhibition percentage that was close to the approved drug, erlotinib. Molecular dynamics studies on their complexes with EGFR-TK domain in aqueous solution affirmed that they were well-occupied within the ATP binding site and strongly interacted with seven hydrophobic residues, including the important hinge region residue M793. From the above information, as well as ADMET (absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity) properties, all three chalcones could serve as lead compounds for the development of EGFR-TK inhibitors.

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

4.6
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