4.5 Article

Scouting Different Phosphodiesterase 4 Inhibitor Chemotypes in Silico To Guide the Design of Anti-inflammatory/Antioxidant Agents

期刊

CHEMMEDCHEM
卷 18, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/cmdc.202300046

关键词

antioxidant compounds; pharmacophore; ROS production inhibition; anti-inflammatory compounds; molecular docking simulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the past few years, we have developed a large library of new selective phosphodiesterase 4D (PDE4D) inhibitors. These inhibitors retain the catechol portion of the well-known PDE4 inhibitor Rolipram, with different substitutions in place of the lactam group. Through molecular docking studies, we designed and synthesized new compounds that showed potential PDE4 inhibitory activity, especially with the enzyme's flat aromatic residues. In vitro assays confirmed their antioxidant/anti-inflammatory activity, similar to other known PDE4 inhibitors.
During the last years, we developed a large library of new selective phosphodiesterase 4D inhibitors, maintaining the catechol portion of the well-known PDE4 inhibitor Rolipram, featuring different substitutions in place of the lactam group of this reference compound. Based on the X-ray analysis of PDE4 inhibitors (PDE4Is) previously synthesized by us and of naphthyridine- and naphthyridinone-containing derivatives exhibiting PDE4 inhibitory ability described in the literature, we designed and synthesized new compounds 1-3. All of them were screened in silico as putative PDE4Is, via molecular docking studies to exploit structural variation at the catechol group to gain further contacts especially with the flat aromatic residues (Phe506 and Phe538) of enzyme. Subsequent in silico prediction of ADMET properties and in vitro biological assays on platelets and endothelial cells are in good agreement with our previous data concerning the antioxidant/anti-inflammatory activity exhibited by our previous PDE4Is and similarly to other well-known PDE4Is.

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

4.5
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