4.5 Article

Anticancer Activity of Methyl-Substituted Oxaliplatin Analogs

期刊

MOLECULAR PHARMACOLOGY
卷 81, 期 5, 页码 719-728

出版社

AMER SOC PHARMACOLOGY EXPERIMENTAL THERAPEUTICS
DOI: 10.1124/mol.111.077321

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fonds zur Forderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung [FWF L568]
  2. Forschungsforderungsgesellschaft
  3. Austrian Council for Research and Technology Development
  4. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [L 568] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [L568] Funding Source: Austrian Science Fund (FWF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Oxaliplatin is successfully used in systemic cancer therapy. However, resistance development and severe adverse effects are limiting factors for curative cancer treatment with oxaliplatin. The purpose of this study was to comparatively investigate in vitro and in vivo anticancer properties as well as the adverse effects of two methyl-substituted enantiomerically pure oxaliplatin analogs [[(1R,2R,4R)-4-methyl-1,2-cyclohexanediamine]oxalatoplatinum(II) (KP1537), and [(1R,2R,4S)-4-methyl-1,2-cyclohexanediamine]oxalatoplatinum(II) (KP1691)] and to evaluate the impact of stereoisomerism. Although the novel oxaliplatin analogs demonstrated in multiple aspects activities comparable with those of the parental compound, several key differences were discovered. The analogs were characterized by reduced vulnerability to resistance mechanisms such as p53 mutations, reduced dependence on immunogenic cell death induction, and distinctly attenuated adverse effects including weight loss and cold hyperalgesia. Stereoisomerism of the substituted methyl group had a complex and in some aspects even contradictory impact on drug accumulation and anticancer activity both in vitro and in vivo. To summarize, methyl-substituted oxaliplatin analogs harbor improved therapeutic characteristics including significantly reduced adverse effects. Hence, they might be promising metal-based anticancer drug candidates for further (pre)clinical evaluation.

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

4.5
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