Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bmcl.2017.01.031
0960-894X/ 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Vanguru et al. / Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry Letters 27 (2017) 792796 793
1
structures were established by spectroscopic data (FT-IR, H
NMR, 13C NMR, HRMS).
Fig. 2. Design strategy for novel piperazine based b-amino alcohols of benzo-
suberone derivatives.
All the synthesized compounds of novel b-amino alcohols 6a-k Molecular docking studies
were screened for their in vitro anti-proliferative activity against
four cancer cell lines such as HeLa (cervical), MDA-MB-231 Docking is a computational technique that places a small mole-
(breast), A549 (lung) and MIAPACA (pancreatic) summarized in cule (ligand) in the binding site of its macromolecular target and
Table 1. estimates its binding affinity.2026 In order to understand the
The compounds were picked for an advanced assay against molecular interaction between the synthesized molecules and b-
these four human cancer cell lines at five concentrations (0.01, tubulin, molecular docking followed by MM-GBSA calculations
0.1, 1, 10, 100 lM). GI50 (growth inhibitory activity) was calculated was performed. Crystal structure of b-tubulin co crystallized with
and these values corresponded to the concentration of the com- nocodazole was downloaded from protein data bank (PDB id:
pound causing 50% decrease in the net cell growth as compared 5CA1). GLIDE 5.6 was used for docking all the molecules into
with the standard drug, Nocodazole. Results were calculated for 5CA1, the change in binding free energy of protein ligand complex
each of these parameters if the level of activity was reached; how- was calculated by PRIME MM-GBSA protocol, where in the amino
ever, if the effect was not achieved, the value was expressed as acid residues with 5 radius of binding site were allowed to flex.
greater or less than the maximum or minimum concentration Each molecule protein complex was analyzed for interactions with
tested. the receptor. Nocodazole showed three hydrogen bond interac-
Based on Table 1, the synthesized compounds 6a-k showed tions (Fig. 4) with a binding affinity DGbind of 66.782 kcal/mol.
moderate to significant cancer cell growth inhibition with GI50 The synthesized molecules showed majorly hydrophobic interac-
values ranging from 0.010 to 24.4 lM. The effect of various sub- tion with the active site amino acid residues, molecule 6e the best
stituents on the benzosuberone tethered piperazine moiety was active molecule in the series showed better binding affinity (DGbind
examined. The structure-activity relationship (SAR) study revealed of 108.626 kcal/mol) than Nocodazole corroborating with exper-
that the orientation of substituent on piperazine ring is not only imental anti-proliferative studies (GI50), the DGbind values are
crucial but also required benzosuberone along with a b-amino given in Table 2. Nocodazole binds to Colchicine binding site of
alcohol linker for inducing the anti-proliferative activity against b-tubulin through three hydrogen bonds with Glu 198 and Asn
these cancer cell lines. In particular, the compounds 6b, 6c, 6e 165, the imidazole ring shows p-p interaction with phenyl ring
Table 1
GI50a values of the synthesized b-amino alcohols 6a-k against four human cancer cell lines.
Table 2
Binding affinity of molecules obtained from Prime MM-
In conclusion, we have designed and synthesized a novel piper-
GBSA calculation.
azine based b-amino alcohols of benzosuberone derivatives 6a-k in
Molecule DGbind (kcal/mol) excellent yields and their structures were confirmed by spectral
6a 88.181 analysis. Newly synthesized derivatives were evaluated for their
6b 97.004 in vitro anti-proliferative activity against four cancer cell lines such
6c 91.807 as HeLa, MDA-MB-231, A549 and MIAPACA. Among them com-
6d 52.116
6e 108.626
pounds 6b, 6c, 6e and 6j were showed better anti-proliferative
6f 79.621 activity with GI50 values ranging from 0.010 to 24.4 lM compared
6g 100.625 to other evaluated compounds. Particularly, the compound 6e has
6h 93.796 shown potent activity (GI50: 0.0100.097 lM) compared to stan-
6i 82.042
dard drug Nocodazole. From docking studies it could be assumed
6j 87.957
6k 85.160 that the synthesized molecules bind to the colchine binding site.
Nocodazole 66.782 Compound 6e has shown better binding affinity compared to
nocodazole.
Bold value shown significant activity.
Acknowledgements
of Tyr 200, the benzimidazole ring and thiophene ring occupies the
hydrophobic cavity of the binding site. The synthesized molecules The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support
also bound to the colchicines binding site in a similar manner. through the project: DST-SERB/EMEQ-078/2013.
Fig. 5 shows the overlay of molecule 6e and Nocodazole in the
binding site. Molecular interaction of molecule 6e (Fig. 6) Supplementary material
benzocyloheptene ring occupying the hydrophobic cavity showed
alkyl-alkyl hydrophobic interaction with amino acid residues Leu Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
246, Lys 252, Ala 314 and Lys 350. Electrostatic interactions were the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bmcl.2017.01.
seen with Glu 198 and Try 250. The nitro phenyl group showed 031.
p-p interaction with phenyl ring of Phe 167. Based on the above
observations it can be concluded that 6e has a better binding
References
affinity compared to Nocodazole.
1. Hatnapure GD, Keche AP, Rodge AH, Birajdar SS, Tale RH, Kamble VM. Bioorg
Med Chem Lett. 2012;22:6385.
2. Khan Z, Bisen PS. Biophys Res Acta. 2013;123:183.
3. Yang CS, Lambert JD, Ju J, Lu G, Sang S. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2007;2:265.
4. Chaplin DJ, Hills SA. Int Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;54:1491.
5. Gallego L, Arroyo P. J Sep Sci. 2003;26:947.
6. Klingler FD. Acc Chem Res. 2007;40:1367.
7. (a) Angelina MA, Thiago N, Bianca SF, et al. Bioorg Med Chem Lett.
2013;23:2883;
(b) Fabien A, Bernard T, Eric H, Daniel C, Alain C, Sandrine B. J Chem Soc, Dalton
Trans. 2010;39:8982;
(c) Imzil L, Elamrani K, Charaf A, Bouzoubaa M, Leclerc G. J Pharm Belg.
1993;48:335.
8. (a) Hermann C, Pais GCG, Geyer A, Kuhnert SM, Maier ME. Tetrahedron.
2000;56:8461;
(b) Palomo C, Oiarbide M, Garcia JM, et al. J Org Chem. 2004;69:4126.
9. Lee HK, Chun JS, Pak CS. J Org Chem. 2003;68:2471.
10. Au CWG, Pyne SG. J Org Chem. 2006;71:7097.
11. Ceccon J, Greene AE, Poisson J-F. Org Lett. 2006;8:4739.
12. Press JB, Falotico R, Hajos ZG, et al. J Med Chem. 1992;35:4509.
13. Barton DL, Press JB, Hajos ZG, Sawyers RA. Tetrahedron Asymmetry. 1992;31189.
14. Butrous GS, Debbas NMG, Erwin J, et al. Eur Heart J. 1988;9489.
15. Sircar I, Haleen SJ, Burke S. Eur J Med Chem. 1992;35:4442.
16. Suzuki T, Fukazawa N, San-nohe K. J Med Chem. 1997;40:2047.
17. (a) Nagarapu L, Gaikwad HK, Sirikonda K, et al. Eur J Med Chem. 2010;45:4720;
(b) Nagarapu L, Gaikwad HK, Bantu R, Manikonda SR. Eur J Med Chem.
Fig. 5. Dockpose overlay of Nocodazole (green) and compound 6e (blue) in the 2011;46:2152;
Colchicine binding site of b-tubulin. (c) Nagarapu L, Vanaparthi S, Bantu R, Kumar CG. Eur J Med Chem. 2013;69:817;
796 S. Vanguru et al. / Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry Letters 27 (2017) 792796
(d) Nagarapu L, Yadagiri B, Bantu R, Kumar CG, Pombala S, Nanubolu J. Eur J Med 19. Sheldrick GM. SHELXS97 and SHELXL Version 2014/7. <http://shelx.uni-ac.gwdg.
Chem. 2014;71:91; de/SHELX/index.php>.
(e) Yadagiri B, Holagunda BUD, Bantu R, et al. Eur J Med Chem. 2014;79:260; 20. Kavallaris M. Nat Rev Cancer. 2010;10:194.
(f) Bandi Y, Gurrala S, Bantu R, et al. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2015;25:2220; 21. Zhou J, Giannakakou P. Curr Med Chem Anticancer Agents. 2005;5:65.
(g) Bandi Y, Holagunda UD, Bantu R, et al. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2014;24:5041; 22. Hammond JW, Cai D, Verhey KJ. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2008;20:71.
(h) Bollu R, Palem JD, Bantu R, Nagarapu L. Eur J Med Chem. 2015;89:138; 23. Schrdinger LLC Glide, Version 5.6. Prime Version 3.0, New York, NY.
(i) Banu S, Bollu R, Bantu R, Nagarapu L. Eur J Med Chem. 2017;125:400. 24. Wang Y. FEBS J. 2016;283:102.
18. SMART & SAINT. Software Reference Manuals. Versions 6.28a & 5.625. Madison, 25. Friesner RA, Banks JL, Murphy RB, et al. J Med Chem. 2004;47:1739.
Wisconsin, U.S.A.: Bruker Analytical X-ray Systems Inc.; 2001. 26. Hayes JM, Archontis G. J R Soc Interface. 2011;8:171190.