4.7 Article

Synthesis and evaluation of azalamellarin N and its A-ring-modified analogues as non-covalent inhibitors of the EGFR T790M/L858R mutant

期刊

BIOORGANIC & MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY
卷 34, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.bmc.2021.116039

关键词

EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs); EGFR T790M/L858R mutant; Azalamellarin N; A-ring-modified azalamellarin analogues

资金

  1. JSPS KAKENHI [26293028, 19K05715, 16H06276]
  2. Foundation for Promotion of Cancer Research in Japan
  3. Naito Foundation
  4. MEXT Project for promoting public utilization of advanced research infrastructure (Program for supporting introduction of the new sharing system) [JPMXS0422500320]
  5. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [19K05715, 26293028] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Synthetic azalamellarin analogues showed higher inhibitory activity compared to lamellarin and demonstrated strong selectivity, with the analogue containing two 3-(dimethylamino)propoxy groups showing the best performance. The inhibitory activity was attributed to hydrogen bonding interaction between the lactam NH group of the B-ring and the carbonyl group of a methionine residue.
Azalamellarin N, a synthetic lactam congener of the marine natural product lamellarin N, and its A-ring-modified analogues were synthesized and evaluated as potent and non-covalent inhibitors of the drug-resistant epidermal growth factor receptor T790M/L858R mutant. An in vitro tyrosine kinase assay indicated that the inhibitory activities of the synthetic azalamellarin analogues were higher than those of the corresponding lamellarin. The azalamellarin analogue bearing two 3-(dimethylamino)propoxy groups at C20- and C21-positions exhibited the highest activity and selectivity against the mutant kinase [IC50 (T790M/L858R) = 1.7 nM; IC50 (WT) = 4.6 nM]. The inhibitory activity was attributed to the hydrogen bonding interaction between the lactam NH group of the B-ring and carbonyl group of a methionine residue.

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