4.7 Article

Lipophilic Studies and In Silico ADME Profiling of Biologically Active 2-Aminothiazol-4(5H)-one Derivatives

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms241512230

关键词

pseudothiohydantoin derivatives; lipophilicity; ADME analysis; liquid chromatography; TLC chromatography

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The lipophilicity of 28 pseudothiohydantoin derivatives was evaluated using chromatographic methods, and most of the compounds showed favorable ADME parameters, indicating their potential as drug candidates.
Pseudothiohydantoin derivatives have a wide range of biological activities and are widely used in the development of new pharmaceuticals. Lipophilicity is a basic, but very important parameter in the design of potential drugs, as it determines solubility in lipids, nonpolar solvents, and makes it possible to predict the ADME profile. The aim of this study was to evaluate the lipophilicity of 28 pseudothiohydantoin derivatives showing the inhibition of 11 & beta;-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 1 (11 & beta;-HSD1) using chromatographic methods. Experimentally, lipophilicity was determined by reverse phase thin layer chromatography (RP-TLC) and reverse phase high-performance liquid chromatography (RP-HPLC). In both methods, methanol was used as the organic modifier of the mobile phase. For each 2-aminothiazol-4(5H)-one derivative, a relationship was observed between the structure of the compound and the values of the lipophilicity parameters (log k(w), R-M0). Experimental lipophilicity values were compared with computer calculated partition coefficient (logP) values. A total of 27 of the 28 tested compounds had a lipophilicity value < 5, which therefore met the condition of Lipinski's rule. In addition, the in silico ADME assay showed favorable absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion parameters for most of the pseudothiohydantoin derivatives tested. The study of lipophilicity and the ADME analysis indicate that the tested compounds are good potential 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

4.7
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