4.7 Article

Inhibition of human equilibrative nucleoside transporters by 4((4-(2-fluorophenyl)piperazin-1-yl)methyl)-6-imino-N-(naphthalen-2-y1)-1,3,5-triazin-2-amine

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY
卷 791, 期 -, 页码 544-551

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2016.07.002

关键词

Cancer; Cardiovascular disease; Equilibrative nucleoside transporters; Inhibitor

资金

  1. Small Project Fund of the University of Hong Kong [201411159094]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Equilibrative nucleoside transporters (ENTs) play a crucial role in the transport of nucleoside and nucleoside analogues, which are important for nucleotide synthesis and chemotherapy. In addition, ENTs regulate extracellular adenosine levels in the vicinity of its receptors and hence influence adenosine related functions. The clinical applications of ENT inhibitors in the treatment of cardiovascular diseases and cancer therapy have been explored in numerous studies. However, all ENT inhibitors to date are selective for ENT1 but not ENT2. In the present study, we investigated the novel compound 4((4-(2-fluorophenyl)piperazin-1-yl)methyl)-6-imino-N-(naphthalen-2-yl)-1,3,5-triazin-2-amine (FPMINT) as an inhibitor of ENT1 and ENT2. Nucleoside transporter-deficient PK15NTD cells stably expressing ENT1 and ENT2 showed that FPMINT inhibited [H-3]uridine and [H-3]adenosine transport through both ENT1 and ENT2 in a concentration-dependent manner. The IC50 value of FPMINT for ENT2 was 5-10-fold less than for ENT1, and FPMINT could not be displaced with excess washing. Kinetic studies revealed that FPMINT reduced V-max of [H-3]uridine transport in ENT1 and ENT2 without affecting K-M. Therefore, we conclude that FPMINT inhibits ENTs in an irreversible and non-competitive manner. Although already selective for ENT2 over ENT1, further modification of the chemical structure of FPMINT may lead to even better ENT2-selective inhibitors of potential clinical, physiological and pharmacological importance. (C) 2016 Published by Elsevier B.V.

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