4.6 Article

Discovery of N,4-Di(1H-pyrazol-4-yl)pyrimidin-2-amine-Derived CDK2 Inhibitors as Potential Anticancer Agents: Design, Synthesis, and Evaluation

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 28, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules28072951

关键词

CDK2; CDK2 inhibitor; pyrazole; N,4-di(1H-pyrazol-4-yl)pyrimidin-2-amine; antiproliferative activity; bioisosteric replacement

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By bioisosteric replacement, a novel series of N,4-di(1H-pyrazol-4-yl)pyrimidin-2-amines were obtained as CDK2 inhibitors. Compound 15 exhibited the most potent CDK2 inhibitory activity with selectivity over other CDKs and showed sub-micromolar antiproliferative activity against cancer cells. This study highlights the potential of N,4-di(1H-pyrazol-4-yl)pyrimidin-2-amine scaffold as potent and selective CDK2 inhibitors for cancer treatment.
Cyclin-dependent kinase 2 (CDK2) has been garnering considerable interest as a target to develop new cancer treatments and to ameliorate resistance to CDK4/6 inhibitors. However, a selective CDK2 inhibitor has yet to be clinically approved. With the desire to discover novel, potent, and selective CDK2 inhibitors, the phenylsulfonamide moiety of our previous lead compound 1 was bioisosterically replaced with pyrazole derivatives, affording a novel series of N,4-di(1H-pyrazol-4-yl)pyrimidin-2-amines that exhibited potent CDK2 inhibitory activity. Among them, 15 was the most potent CDK2 inhibitor (K-i = 0.005 mu M) with a degree of selectivity over other CDKs tested. Meanwhile, this compound displayed sub-micromolar antiproliferative activity against a panel of 13 cancer cell lines (GI(50) = 0.127-0.560 mu M). Mechanistic studies in ovarian cancer cells revealed that 15 reduced the phosphorylation of retinoblastoma at Thr821, arrested cells at the S and G2/M phases, and induced apoptosis. These results accentuate the potential of the N,4-di(1H-pyrazol-4-yl)pyrimidin-2-amine scaffold to be developed into potent and selective CDK2 inhibitors for the treatment of cancer.

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