4.7 Article

New Diarylamine KV10.1 Inhibitors and Their Anticancer Potential

期刊

PHARMACEUTICS
卷 14, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics14091963

关键词

K(V)10; 1; ion channels; hERG; SAR; antiproliferative activity

资金

  1. Slovenian Research Agency (ARRS) [J1-9192, N1-0098, P1-0208]
  2. Max-Planck Society
  3. European Union [813834-PHIONIC-H2020-MSCA-ITN-2018]
  4. F.W.O. Vlaanderen [GOE7120N, GOC2319N, GOA4919N]
  5. KU Leuven [PDM/19/164]
  6. F.W.O. Vlaanderen grant [12W7822N]
  7. CELSA project

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Expression of K(V)10.1 has been detected in human cancers, making it a potential target for anticancer drugs. New inhibitors with improved potency and selectivity were developed through structural optimisation.
Expression of the voltage-gated potassium channel K(V)10.1 (Eag1) has been detected in over 70% of human cancers, making the channel a promising new target for new anticancer drug discovery. A new structural class of K(V)10.1 inhibitors was prepared by structural optimisation and exploration of the structure-activity relationship of the previously published hit compound ZVS-08 (1) and its optimised analogue 2. The potency and selectivity of the new inhibitors between K(V)10.1 and hERG were investigated using whole-cell patch-clamp experiments. We obtained two new optimised K(V)10.1 inhibitors, 17a and 18b, with improved nanomolar IC50 values of 568 nM and 214 nM, respectively. Compound 17a exhibited better ratio between IC50 values for hEAG1 and hERG than previously published diarylamine inhibitors. Compounds 17a and 18b moderately inhibited the growth of the K(V)10.1-expressing cell line MCF-7 in two independent assays. In addition, 17a and 18b also inhibited the growth of hERG-expressing Panc-1 cells with higher potency compared with MCF-7 cells. The main obstacle for newly developed diarylamine K(V)10.1 inhibitors remains the selectivity toward the hERG channel, which needs to be addressed with targeted drug design strategies in the future.

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