4.7 Article

Systematic study of 1,2,3-triazolyl sterols for the development of new drugs against parasitic Neglected Tropical Diseases

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmech.2023.115378

关键词

Antiparasitic; Azasterols; Click chemistry; Kinetoplastid diseases; NTDs

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A series of 1,2,3-triazolylsterols were synthesized and evaluated for their activities against the parasites causing neglected tropical diseases. Most of the compounds showed high selectivity and activity against Leishmania donovani, Trypanosoma cruzi, and Trypanosoma brucei. In silico analysis of physicochemical properties was performed to explain the observed activities. The analogs with selective or broad-spectrum antiparasitic activities may be potential candidates for the development of new drugs.
A series of thirty 1,2,3-triazolylsterols, inspired by azasterols with proven antiparasitic activity, were prepared by a stereocontrolled synthesis. Ten of these compounds constitute chimeras/hybrids of 22,26-azasterol (AZA) and 1,2,3-triazolyl azasterols. The entire library was assayed against the kinetoplastid parasites Leishmania donovani, Trypanosoma cruzi, and Trypanosoma brucei, the causatives agents for visceral leishmaniasis, Chagas disease, and sleeping sickness, respectively. Most of the compounds were active at submicromolar/nanomolar concentrations with high selectivity index, when compared to their cytotoxicity against mammalian cells. Analysis of in silico physicochemical properties were conducted to rationalize the activities against the neglected tropical disease pathogens. The analogs with selective activity against L. donovani (E4, IC50 0.78 & mu;M), T brucei (E1, IC50 0.12 & mu;M) and T. cruzi (B1- IC50 0.33 & mu;M), and the analogs with broad-spectrum antiparasitic activities against the three kinetoplastid parasites (B1 and B3), may be promising leads for further development as selective or broad-spectrum antiparasitic drugs.

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