4.6 Article

Toxicological Screening of 4-Phenyl-3,4-dihydrobenzo[h]quinolin-2(1H)-one: A New Potential Candidate for Alzheimer's Treatment

期刊

ACS OMEGA
卷 6, 期 16, 页码 10897-10909

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.1c00654

关键词

-

资金

  1. Malaya University [IIRG003A-2019]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The toxicity studies on a new drug SF3, including acute oral, subacute, and teratogenicity studies, showed low toxicity levels and minimal impact on organ and biochemical parameters, indicating its safety as a potential drug candidate.
Toxicity studies are necessary for the development of a new drug. Naphthalene is a bicyclic molecule and is easy to derivatize. In our previous study, a derivative of naphthalene (4-phenyl,3,4-dihydrobenzoquinoline-2(H)one) was synthesized and reported its in vitro activity on different enzymes. This study was a probe to investigate the toxicity potential of that compound (SF3). Acute oral (425), subacute (407), and teratogenicity (414) studies were planned according to their respective guidelines given by organization of economic cooperation and development (OECD). Acute oral, subacute, and teratogenicity studies were carried out on 2000, 5-40, and 40 mg/kg doses. Blood samples were collected for hematological and biochemical analyses. Vital organs were excised for oxidative stress (superoxide dismutase, catalase, glutathione, and malondialdehyde) and histopathological analysis. LD50 of SF3 was higher than 2000 mg/kg. In acute and subacute studies, levels of alkaline phosphates and aspartate transaminase were increased. Teratogenicity showed no resorptions, no skeletal or soft tissue abnormalities, and no cleft pallet. Oxidative stress biomarkers were close to the normal, and no increase in the malondialdehyde level was seen. Histopathological studies revealed normal tissue architecture of the selected organs, except kidney, in acute oral and subacute toxicity studies at 40 mg/kg. The study concluded that SF3 is safer if used as a drug.

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