4.7 Article

Synthesis, evaluation and molecular modelling studies of 2-(carbazol-3-yl)-2-oxoacetamide analogues as a new class of potential pancreatic lipase inhibitors

期刊

BIOORGANIC & MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY
卷 25, 期 2, 页码 609-620

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.bmc.2016.11.031

关键词

Carbazolyl oxoacetamides; Inhibition kinetics; Molecular dynamics; Orlistat; Pancreatic lipase

资金

  1. Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani (BITS Pilani), Pilani Campus, Pilani, Rajasthan, India
  2. Department of Biotechnology (DBT) New Delhi, India [BCIL/NER-BPMC/2012/1549]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A series of twenty four 2-(carbazol-3-yl)-2-oxoacetamide analogues were synthesized, characterized and evaluated for their pancreatic lipase (PL) inhibitory activity. Porcine PL was used against 4-nitrophenyl butyrate (method A) and tributyrin (methods B and C) as substrates during the PL inhibition assay. Compounds 7e, 7f and 7p exhibited potential PL inhibitory activity (IC50 values of 6.31, 8.72 and 9.58 mu M, respectively in method A; and X-i50 of 21.85, 21.94 and 26.2, respectively in method B). Further, inhibition kinetics of 7e, 7f and 7p against PL, using method A, revealed their competitive nature of inhibition. A comparison of the inhibition profiles of the top three compounds in methods B and C, provided a preliminary idea of covalent bonding of the compounds with Ser 152 of PL. Molecular docking studies of the compounds 7a-x into the active site of human PL (PDB ID: 1LPB) was in agreement with the in vitro results, and highlighted probable covalent bond formation with Ser 152 apart from hydrophobic interactions with the lid domain. Molecular dynamics simulation of 7e complexed with PL, further confirmed the role of aromatic groups in stabilising the ligand (RMSD <= 4 angstrom). The present study led to the identification of 2-(carbazol-3-yl)-2-oxoacetamide analogues 7a-x as a new class of potential PL inhibitors. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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