| Literature DB >> 23833710 |
Abstract
In the present investigation, some new pyrazolo[3,4-d]pyrimidin-4(5H)-one derivatives (7-12) as well as fused pyrazolo[3',4':Entities:
Keywords: 7,8,9,10-Tetrahydropyrazolo[3′,4′:4,5]pyrimido[1,2-b]cinnolin-4-one; Anti-inflammatory activity; C log P; Pyrazolo[3,4-d]pyrimidin-4-ones; Pyrazolo[3′,4′:4,5]pyrimido[1,2-b]pyridazin-4-ones; Synthesis; Ulcerogenicity
Year: 2013 PMID: 23833710 PMCID: PMC3700072 DOI: 10.3797/scipharm.1211-21
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Pharm ISSN: 0036-8709
Fig. 1Some selected models of pyrazolopyrimidine derivatives possessing anti-inflammatory activity.
Sch. 1.Synthetic routes for the preparation of compound 5.
Sch. 2.Synthetic routes for the preparation of compounds 7–12.
Sch. 3.Synthetic routes for the preparation of compounds 13–17.
Results of anti-inflammatory activity of the tested compounds against carrageenan-induced rat paw edema in rats; Calculated lipophilicity C log P values.
| Control | 1.57 ± 0.033 | 20.84 ± 0.237 | – | – | – |
| Indomethacin | 0.50 ± 0.026[ | 6.37 ± 0.366[ | 68.15 | 100.0 | – |
| 5 | 1.05 ± 0.089[ | 19.82 ± 1.600 | 33.12 | 48.60 | 1.36 |
| 7a | 1.03 ± 0.033[ | 15.32 ± 0.515[ | 34.39 | 50.46 | 2.15 |
| 7b | 1.00 ± 0.063[ | 15.19 ± 1.400[ | 36.31 | 53.28 | 2.87 |
| 8a | 0.98 ± 0.017[ | 12.48 ± 0.376[ | 37.58 | 55.14 | 3.14 |
| 8b | 0.93 ± 0.042[ | 12.98 ± 0.702[ | 40.76 | 59.81 | 3.85 |
| 9a | 0.90 ± 0.058[ | 12.71 ± 0.748[ | 42.68 | 62.63 | 2.09 |
| 9b | 0.82 ± 0.048[ | 15.71 ± 1.035[ | 47.77 | 70.10 | 2.80 |
| 10a | 0.75 ± 0.022[ | 9.50 ± 0.326[ | 52.23 | 76.64 | 2.19 |
| 10b | 0.65 ± 0.022[ | 8.31 ± 0.430[ | 58.60 | 85.99 | 2.91 |
| 11a | 0.73 ± 0.021[ | 10.54 ± 0.468[ | 53.50 | 78.50 | 6.65 |
| 11b | 0.67 ± 0.049[ | 8.42 ± 0.482[ | 57.32 | 84.11 | 7.52 |
| 11c | 0.72 ± 0.031[ | 10.76 ± 0.457[ | 54.14 | 79.44 | 7.37 |
| 11d | 0.68 ± 0.065[ | 8.73 ± 0.868[ | 56.69 | 83.18 | 7.37 |
| 11e | 0.52 ± 0.031[ | 8.74 ± 0.929[ | 66.88 | 98.14 | 8.23 |
| 11f | 0.55 ± 0.043[ | 9.29 ± 0.961[ | 64.97 | 95.33 | 8.08 |
| 12a | 1.02 ± 0.060[ | 13.56 ± 0.795[ | 35.03 | 51.40 | 1.77 |
| 12b | 0.85 ± 0.043[ | 19.33 ± 0.905 | 45.86 | 67.29 | 2.48 |
| 13 | 0.95 ± 0.043[ | 15.10 ± 1.066[ | 39.49 | 57.95 | 1.40 |
| 14 | 0.87 ± 0.076[ | 11.12 ± 1.138[ | 44.59 | 65.43 | 1.68 |
| 15 | 0.92 ± 0.060[ | 16.35 ± 1.016[ | 41.40 | 60.75 | 1.93 |
| 16 | 1.13 ± 0.067[ | 14.33 ± 0.980[ | 28.03 | 41.13 | 2.78 |
| 17 | 1.10 ± 0.052[ | 15.77 ± 0.756 [ | 29.94 | 43.93 | 2.26 |
SEM denoted the standard error of the mean.
Number of animals N = 6 rats.
* Significant difference from control group using Dunnett’s test; p< 0.001.
Fig. 2The Anti-inflammatory Effect of the Tested compounds.
Ulcerogenic effects of compounds 10b and 11a–f in comparison with indomethacin.
| Control | – | – | – | Nil | – |
| Indomethacin | 10 | 4.4 | 2.86 | 17.26 | 100.00 |
| 10b | 6 | 0.8 | 1.25 | 8.05 | 46.63 |
| 11a | 6 | 1.6 | 1.38 | 8.98 | 52.02 |
| 11b | 8 | 1.2 | 1.33 | 10.53 | 61.00 |
| 11c | 6 | 1.6 | 1.63 | 9.23 | 53.47 |
| 11d | 8 | 1.0 | 1.20 | 10.20 | 59.09 |
| 11e | 2 | 0.8 | 1.75 | 4.55 | 26.36 |
| 11f | 4 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 7.10 | 41.13 |
Fig. 3The Ulcerogenic Effect of the Tested compounds.
| Score | Score | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Normal (No injury) | 0 | Slight injury | 3 |
| Latent small red spot | 1 | Severe injury | 4 |
| Wide red spot | 2 |