4.7 Article

Development of a Mitochondriotropic Antioxidant Based on Caffeic Acid: Proof of Concept on Cellular and Mitochondrial Oxidative Stress Models

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY
卷 60, 期 16, 页码 7084-7098

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.7b00741

关键词

-

资金

  1. FEDER funds through the Operational Programme Competitiveness Factors COMPETE
  2. FCT-Foundation for Science and Technology [QUI/U10081/2013, NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000028, FTO/2433/2014, POCI-01-0145-FEDER-016659, POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007440, PTDC/DTP-PTDC/DTP-FTO/2433/2014]
  3. FCT [SFRH/BD/79658/2011, PTDC/DTP-FTO/2433/2014, SFRH/BPD/74491/2010, SFRH/BD/99189/2013, SFRH/BPD/105395/2014]
  4. POPH
  5. QREN
  6. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/79658/2011, SFRH/BD/99189/2013] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Targeting mitochondrial oxidative stress is an effective therapeutic strategy. In this context, a rational design of mitochondriotropic antioxidants (compounds 22-27) based on a dietary antioxidant (caffeic acid) was performed. Jointly named as AntiOxCINs, these molecules take advantage of the known ability of the triphenylphosphonium cation to target active molecules to mitochondria. The study was guided by structure-activity-toxicity-property relationships, and we demonstrate in this work that the novel AntiOxCINs act as mitochondriotropic antioxidants. In general, AntiOxCINs derivatives prevented lipid peroxidation and acted as inhibitors of the mitochondrial permeability transition pore. AntiOxCINs toxicity profile was found to be dependent on the structural modifications performed on the dietary antioxidant. On the basis of mitochondrial and cytotoxicity/antioxidant cellular data, compound 25 emerged as a potential candidate for the development of a drug candidate with therapeutic application in mitochondrial oxidative stress-related diseases. Compound 25 increased GSH intracellular levels and showed no toxicity on mitochondrial morphology and function.

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