4.7 Article

Polypharmacology of N6-(3-lodobenzyl)adenosine-5′-N-methyluronamide (IB-MECA) and Related A3 Adenosine Receptor Ligands: Peroxisome Proliferator Activated Receptor (PPAR) γ Partial Agonist and PPARδ Antagonist Activity Suggests Their Antidiabetic Potential

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY
卷 60, 期 17, 页码 7459-7475

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.7b00805

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Science, ICT, and Future Planning [2014M3C9A-2064603, 2015R1A2A2A01008408, 370C-20160046]
  2. NIDDK [ZIA DK031117]
  3. Seoul National University (SNU)
  4. National Research Foundation of Korea [2015R1A2A2A01008408] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A(3) adenosine receptor (AR) ligands including A(3) AR agonist, N-6-(3-iodobenzyl)adenosine-5'-N-methyluronamide (1a, IB-MEGA) were examined for adiponectin production in human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (hBM-MSCs). In this model, 1a significantly increased adiponectin production, which is associated with improved insulin sensitivity. However, A(3) AR antagonists also promoted adiponectin production in hBM-MSCs, indicating that the A(3) AR pathway may not be directly involved in the adiponectin promoting activity. In a target deconvolution study, their adiponectin-promoting activity was significantly correlated to their binding activity to both peroxisome proliferator activated receptor (PPAR) gamma and PPAR delta. They functioned as both PPAR gamma partial agonists and PPAR delta antagonists. In the diabetic mouse model, la and its structural analogues A(3) AR antagonists significantly decreased the serum levels of glucose and triglyceride, supporting their antidiabetic potential. These findings indicate that the polypharmacophore of these compounds may provide therapeutic insight into their multipotent efficacy against various human diseases.

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