4.7 Article

Syntheses and structure-activity relationships in cytotoxicities of 13-substituted quaternary coptisine derivatives

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY
卷 86, 期 -, 页码 542-549

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmech.2014.09.006

关键词

Quaternary 13-substituted coptisines; Alkyl group; Arylmethyl group; Synthesis; Cytotoxicity; Structure-activity relationship

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81373269, 81202546, 8136118020]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Twenty five 13-substituted quaternary coptisine derivatives were synthesized to test their cytotoxicities against several cancer cell-lines and on intestinal epithelial cell-6 (IEC-6) in vitro to evaluate structure-activity relationship (SAR). Introduction of the alkyl groups into the C-13 position of quaternary coptisine (1) led to significant increase of the cytotoxic activity, while the substitution of arylmethyl groups and others at the same position showed no effect on improving cytotoxicities against the same cancer cell-lines. The cytotoxicities of quaternary 13-alkylcoptisines was significantly reinforced as the length of the aliphatic chain increased, with quaternary 13-n-undecylcoptisine (4l) showing 7, 23, 12, and 9 times, respectively, more active than quaternary coptisine (1) against HCT, A549, Be17402, and C33A, and being 4, 11, 2, and 3 times, respectively, more active than the positive control, fluorouracil (5-FU), against the same cell-lines, by IC50 values. In comparison to quaternary 13-n-undecylcoptisine (4l) and the above references, quaternary 13-n-dodecylcoptisine (4m) almost showed the same cytotoxicities. In contrast with the n-alkyl chains, the arylmethyl substituents at C-13 displayed low cytotoxicity, except for naphthyl rings or phenyl rings with CF3 or methyl substituents. However, their low cytotoxicity could make them useful as drug candidates for other diseases (bowel, etc). (C) 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. 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