4.6 Article

Synthesis of cardanol-based 1,2,3-triazoles as potential green agents against neoplastic cells

期刊

SUSTAINABLE CHEMISTRY AND PHARMACY
卷 20, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scp.2021.100408

关键词

Cardanol; 1,2,3-Triazoles; Kidney carcinoma

资金

  1. CAPES [88882.458650/2019-01, 001]
  2. The Elsevier FoundationISC3 -Green & Sustainable Chemistry Challenge

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The cashew plant is a source of bioactive compounds found in the spongy shells of cashew nuts. By synthesizing 11 triazoles derived from cardanol in an environmentally friendly manner, high toxicity against kidney cancer cell lines was observed. This study suggests a potential alternative use of cardanol in the synthesis of potent anticancer drug candidates.
The cashew plant (Anacardium occidentale L.) is the source of a wide variety of bioactive compounds consisting of phenolic lipids, mainly present in the spongy shells of cashew nuts. The liquid in the cashew nut shell generated after nut roasting in the food industry, which is usually treated as waste. However, it contains high amount of cardanol that could be used as a building block and are of innumerable applications. Herein, we report the synthesis of eleven 1,4-disubstituted 1,2,3-triazoles, derived from the cardanol, in an environmentally non-egregious fashion, and a cytotoxic evaluation study using the MCF-7 (breast carcinoma), 786-0 (kidney carcinoma) and HT-29 (colon carcinoma) cancer cell lines and cytotoxic evaluations against Trypanosoma cruzi. Five of the eleven triazoles presented high toxicity against the 786-0 kidney cancer cell line. However, no relevant toxicity to the T. cruzi amastigote was observed when compared with benznidazole (standard drug). A cell viability study demonstrated that these compounds act over a broad range of concentrations, which implies that they may be applied even in low doses. These results indicate an alternative use of cardanol in greener synthesis of potent anticancer drug candidates.

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