4.7 Article

Hederagenin amide derivatives as potential antiproliferative agents

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY
卷 168, 期 -, 页码 436-446

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmech.2019.02.057

关键词

Sapindus saponaria; Hederagenin derivatives; Pentacyclic triterpenes; SRB assay

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico
  2. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG) [APQ1557-15, APQ797-15]
  3. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior
  4. Science Campus Halle [W13004216]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a series of C-28 amides derivatives of hederagenin with or without the presence of an acetyl group at positions 3 and 23 in ring A, were synthetized aiming to develop potent cytotoxic agents. Their structures were confirmed by MS, IR, H-1 NMR and C-13 NMR spectroscopic analyses and their cytotoxic activities were screened in SRB assays using a panel of six human cancer cell lines. The majority of the amide derivatives were cytotoxic for a variety of human tumor cell lines. In general, the hydroxylated derivatives (1a-1d; EC50 in the range 1.2-22.5 mu M) were less active than the acetylated derivatives (2a-2n; EC50 in the range 0.4-9.0 mu M). Hydroxylated derivative bearing pyrrolidinyl substituent 1c, was the most active for HT29 human line cells (EC50 = 1.2 mu M), however their acetylated derivative 2c was the most potent and selective against A2780, FaDu, SW1736 cells, showing EC50 values between 0.4 and 1.7 mu M and SI between 5.6 and 24. Staining experiments combined with fluorescence microscopy indicate that the cell membrane became permeable, and finally a process of secondary necrosis was observed. In addition, the docking results showed that acetylated compounds display more affinity to HER2 than to USP7, indicating that HER2 is a most probable receptor, both proteins found in tumor cell line A2780. (C) 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. 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