4.2 Article Proceedings Paper

New imidazolidinic bioisosters: potential candidates for antischistosomal drugs

期刊

MEMORIAS DO INSTITUTO OSWALDO CRUZ
卷 101, 期 -, 页码 313-316

出版社

FUNDACO OSWALDO CRUZ
DOI: 10.1590/S0074-02762006000900049

关键词

Schistosoma mansoni; imidazolidines; in vitro susceptibility

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The emergence of strains of Schistosoma resistant to praziquantel has drawn attention to the search for new schistosomacide drugs. Imidazolidinic derivatives have performed outstandingly against adult S. mansoni worms when evaluated in vitro. The molecular modification of imidazolidine by way of bioisosteric replacement gives rise to variations in its biological response. This study verifies the potential of substituent groups in the derivatives (Z)3-benzyl-5-(2-fluoro-benzylidene)-imidazolidine-2,4-dione NE4, 3-benzyl-5-(4-chloro-arylazo)-4-thioxo-imidazolidin-2-ona PT5, 3-benzyl-5-(3-fluoro-benzylidene)-1-methyl-2-thioxo-imidazolidin-4-one JT53; 3-benzyl-1-methyl-5-(4methyl-benzylidene)-2-thioxo-imidazolidin-4-one JT63; 3-benzyl-]-methyl-5-(4-methoxi-benzylidene)-2-thioxoimidazolidin-4-one JT68; 3-(4-chloro-benzyl)-1-methyl-5-(4-methoxi-benzylidene)-2-thioxo-imidazolidin-4-one JT69; 3-(4-phenyl-benzyl)-1-methyl-5-(4-methoxi-benzylidene)-2-thioxo-imidazolidin-4-one JT72 by determining the viability in vitro of adult S. mansoni worms in the presence of these derivatives. The susceptibility of the worms obtained from mice and kept in culture in the presence of different concentrations was determined by way of schistosomacide kinetic, observed every 24 h over a period of eight days. The results show that the worms were more sensitive to the PT5 derivative at a concentration of 58 mu M which killed 100% of the worms after 24 h of contact, also giving rise to alterations in the tegument surface of the worms with the formation of bubbles and peeling. These observations suggest a strong electronic contribution of the arylazo grouping in the biological response.

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

4.2
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