4.7 Article

5-Aryl-1H-pyrazole-3-carboxylic acids as selective inhibitors of human carbonic anhydrases IX and XII

期刊

BIOORGANIC & MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY
卷 23, 期 15, 页码 4649-4659

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.bmc.2015.05.052

关键词

Carbonic anhydrase; Phenyl-pyrazole-carboxylic acids; Docking; Molecular interaction fields; Active sites comparison

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Science, and Technological Development of Serbia [172035]
  2. EU

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Inhibitory activity of a congeneric set of 23 phenyl-substituted 5-phenyl-pyrazole-3-carboxylic acids toward human carbonic anhydrase (hCA, EC 4.2.1.1) isoforms I, II, IX and XII was evaluated by a stopped-flow CO2 hydrase assay. These compounds exerted a clear, selective inhibition of hCA IX and XII over hCAI and II, with Ki in two to one digit micromolar concentrations (4-50 mu M). Derivatives bearing bulkier substituents in para-position of the phenyl ring inhibited hCA XII at one-digit micromolar concentrations, while derivatives having alkyl substituents in both ortho-and meta-positions inhibited hCA IX with Kis ranging between 5 and 25 mu M. Results of docking experiments offered a rational explanation on the selectivity of these compounds toward CA IX and XII, as well as on the substitution patterns leading to best CA IX or CA XII inhibitors. By examining the active sites of these four isoforms with GRID generated molecular-interaction fields, striking differences between hCA XII and the other three isoforms were observed. The field of hydrophobic probe (DRY) appeared significantly different in CA XII active site, comparing to other three isoforms studied. To the best of our knowledge such an observation was not reported in literature so far. Considering the selectivity of these carboxylates towards membrane-associated over cytosolic CA isoforms, the title compounds could be useful for the development of isoform-specific non-sulfonamide CA inhibitors. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. 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