4.6 Article

Reprofiling of pyrimidine-based DAPK1/CSF1R dual inhibitors: identification of 2,5-diamino-4-pyrimidinol derivatives as novel potential anticancer lead compounds

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14756366.2019.1699554

关键词

Reprofiling; anticancer; kinase inhibitors; DAPK1; CSF1R; PAMPA assay

资金

  1. KIST Institutional programmes [2E29260]
  2. Korea Institute of Science and Technology
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2E30090] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hybridization of reported weakly active antiproliferative hit 5-amino-4-pyrimidinol derivative with 2-anilino-4-phenoxypyrimidines suggests a series of 2,5-diamino-4-pyrimidinol derivatives as potential antiproliferative agents. Few compounds belonging to the proposed series were reported as CSF1R/DAPK1 inhibitors as anti-tauopathies. However, the correlation between CSF1R/DAPK1 signalling pathways and cancer progression provides motives to reprofile them against cancer therapy. The compounds were synthesised, characterized, and evaluated against M-NFS-60 cells and a kinase panel which bolstered predictions of their antiproliferative activity and suggested the involvement of diverse molecular targets. Compound 6e, the most potent in the series, showed prominent broad-spectrum antiproliferative activity inhibiting the growth of hematological, NSCLC, colon, CNS, melanoma, ovarian, renal, prostate and breast cancers by 84.1, 52.79, 72.15, 66.34, 66.48, 51.55, 55.95, 61.85, and 60.87%, respectively. Additionally, it elicited an IC50 value of 1.97 mu M against M-NFS-60 cells and good GIT absorption with P-e value of 19.0 +/- 1.1 x 10(-6 )cm/s (PAMPA-GIT). Molecular docking study for 6e with CSF1R and DAPK1 was done to help to understand the binding mode with both kinases. Collectively, compound 6e could be a potential lead compound for further development of anticancer therapies.

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