| Literature DB >> 26543706 |
Veda Prachayasittikul1, Ratchanok Pingaew2, Nuttapat Anuwongcharoen1, Apilak Worachartcheewan3, Chanin Nantasenamat4, Supaluk Prachayasittikul4, Somsak Ruchirawat5, Virapong Prachayasittikul6.
Abstract
Considerable attention has been given on the search for novel anticancer drugs with respect to the disease sequelae on human health and well-being. Triazole is considered to be an attractive scaffold possessing diverse biological activities. Structural modification on the privileged structures is noted as an effective strategy towards successful design and development of novel drugs. The quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR) is well-known as a powerful computational tool to facilitate the discovery of potential compounds. In this study, a series of thirty-two 1,2,3-triazole derivatives (1-32) together with their experimentally measured cytotoxic activities against four cancer cell lines i.e., HuCCA-1, HepG2, A549 and MOLT-3 were used for QSAR analysis. Four QSAR models were successfully constructed with acceptable predictive performance affording R CV ranging from 0.5958 to 0.8957 and RMSECV ranging from 0.2070 to 0.4526. An additional set of 64 structurally modified triazole compounds (1A-1R, 2A-2R, 7A-7R and 8A-8R) were constructed in silico and their predicted cytotoxic activities were obtained using the constructed QSAR models. The study suggested crucial moieties and certain properties essential for potent anticancer activity and highlighted a series of promising compounds (21, 28, 32, 1P, 8G, 8N and 8Q) for further development as novel triazole-based anticancer agents.Entities:
Keywords: Anticancer activity; Computational chemistry; Drug design; QSAR; Structural modification; Triazoles
Year: 2015 PMID: 26543706 PMCID: PMC4628044 DOI: 10.1186/s40064-015-1352-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Springerplus ISSN: 2193-1801
Fig. 1Chemical structures of tested compounds 1–32
Fig. 2The substitutions on opened (1–15) and closed (16–32) chain core structures of 1,2,3-triazole
Fig. 3Chemical structures of modified compound series 1 (1A–1R)
Fig. 4Chemical structures of modified compound series 2 (2A–2R)
Fig. 5Chemical structures of modified compound series 7 (7A–7R)
Fig. 6Chemical structures of modified compound series 8 (8A–8R)
Fig. 7Modification on 1,2,3-triazole scaffold series 1, 2, 7 and 8
Experimental cytotoxic activity of triazoles 1–32 against four cancer cell lines
| Compound | IC50 (μM) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HuCCA-1 | HepG2 | A549 | MOLT-3 | |
|
| 8.65 ± 1.70b | 9.07 ± 1.15b | 34.54 ± 0.89c | Inactived |
|
| Inactived | 57.54 ± 8.66c | Inactived | Inactived |
|
| Inactived | 28.21 ± 2.89c | Inactived | 74.23 ± 5.08c |
|
| Inactived | 81.75 ± 2.89c | Inactived | Inactived |
|
| 87.89 ± 0.92c | 100.54 ± 2.12c | Inactived | 32.02 ± 0.76c |
|
| Inactived | Inactived | Inactived | 61.42 ± 1.01c |
|
| Inactived | 41.62 ± 1.15c | Inactived | 34.24 ± 3.11c |
|
| Inactived | 49.40 ± 4.04c | Inactived | 8.81 ± 0.42b |
|
| Inactived | 57.52 ± 6.51c | 79.18 ± 14.15c | 9.22 ± 0.48b |
|
| Inactived | 34.51 ± 4.36c | 39.04 ± 0.37c | 10.33 ± 0.08c |
|
| 16.12 ± 0.71c | 12.44 ± 1.71c | 19.60 ± 2.33c | 88.97 ± 3.42c |
|
| Inactived | Inactived | Inactived | 10.65 ± 0.48c |
|
| Inactived | 23.89 ± 3.00c | 18.19 ± 0.35c | 60.99 ± 6.66c |
|
| Inactived | Inactived | 28.03 ± 1.63c | 17.43 ± 0.41c |
|
| Inactived | Inactived | Inactived | 10.10 ± 0.27c |
|
| 51.35 ± 5.66c | Inactived | Inactived | Inactived |
|
| Inactived | 6.50 ± 0.14b | Inactived | Inactived |
|
| Inactived | 60.48 ± 14.14c | Inactived | Inactived |
|
| Inactived | Inactived | 66.30 ± 0.70c | Inactived |
|
| 30.16 ± 4.07c | 19.12 ± 3.06c | 14.90 ± 1.02c | 21.86 ± 3.67c |
|
| 0.63 ± 0.04a,e | 12.36 ± 1.97c | 0.57 ± 0.02a,e | 18.63 ± 1.62c |
|
| Inactived | 5.27 ± 0.71b | 59.07 ± 11.31c | Inactived |
|
| 24.80 ± 2.19c | Inactived | 25.29 ± 10.78c | 80.78 ± 10.23c |
|
| 72.0 ± 10.54c | 31.79 ± 2.89c | 41.04 ± 9.40c | Inactived |
|
| Inactived | 2.57 ± 0.99b | Inactived | Inactived |
|
| Inactived | 1.26 ± 0.42b | Inactived | 36.35 ± 1.36c |
|
| 39.71 ± 1.48c | 1.48 ± 0.61b | 27.21 ± 1.77c | Inactived |
|
| inactived | 0.56 ± 0.01a,e | Inactived | Inactived |
|
| 4.79 ± 0.28b | 3.37 ± 0.96b | 8.43 ± 2.79b | 11.74 ± 4.97c |
|
| 31.09 ± 8.91c | 12.49 ± 2.47c | 31.84 ± 8.13c | 34.12 ± 0.97c |
|
| 76.15 ± 1.77c | 41.36 ± 2.89c | 31.91 ± 9.76c | 5.82 ± 0.85b |
|
| 39.98 ± 4.03c | Inactived | Inactived | 5.50 ± 0.61b,e |
| Etoposidef | –g | 30.16 ± 0.50 | –g | 0.051 ± 0.002 |
| Doxorubixinf | 0.83 ± 0.07 | 0.79 ± 0.08 | 0.44 ± 0.01 | –g |
The compounds (1–32) were classified by their IC50 values into four classes i.e., highly active (IC50 < 1 µM), moderately active (1 µM < IC50 < 10 µM), weakly active (IC50 > 10 µM) (Pérez-Sacau et al. 2007) and inactive (IC50 > 50 µg/mL) (Prachayasittikul et al. 2014). All inactive compounds were excluded from the QSAR analysis. Four QSAR models were separately constructed based on experimental testing against four cancer cell lines
aHighly active compound
bModerately active compound
cWeakly active compound
dInactive compound
eThe most potent compound against each cell line
fReference drugs
gNot tested
Definition of descriptors using for development of QSAR models
| Descriptor | Type | Definition |
|---|---|---|
| R5e+ | GETAWAY descriptors | R maximal autocorrelation of lag 5/weighted by Sanderson electronegativity |
| nArCOOR | Functional group counts | Number of esters (aromatic) |
| RDF105m | RDF descriptors | Radial Distribution Function—105/weighted by mass |
| MATS7m | 2D autocorrelations | Moran autocorrelation of lag 7 weighted by mass |
| MATS8v | 2D autocorrelations | Moran autocorrelation of lag 8 weighted by van der Waals volume |
| Lop | lopping centric index | Topological indices |
| R7m | GETAWAY descriptors | R autocorrelation of lag 7/weighted by atomic masses |
Summary of QSAR models and their predictive performances against four cancer cell line
| Cell line | Equation | N |
| RMSETr |
| RMSECV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| 13 | 0.9597 | 0.1603 | 0.8957 | 0.2562 |
|
|
| 24 | 0.7537 | 0.4006 | 0.6724 | 0.4526 |
|
|
| 16 | 0.8673 | 0.2390 | 0.5958 | 0.4211 |
|
|
| 20 | 0.8936 | 0.1714 | 0.8430 | 0.2070 |
pIC50 is the concentration of compound required for 50 % inhibition of cell growth
N number of data set, R correlation coefficient of the training set, RMSE root mean square error of the training set, R correlation coefficient of leave-one-out cross validation (LOO-CV) of the testing set, RMSE root mean square error LOO-CV of the testing set
Experimental and predicted cytotoxic activities (pIC50) of compounds 1–32 against cancer cell lines
| Compound | HuCCA-1 | HepG2 | A549 | MOLT-3 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exp. | Pred. | Exp. | Pred. | Exp. | Pred. | Exp. | Pred. | |
|
| −0.937 | −1.004 | −0.958 | −1.571 | −1.538 | −1.345 | –a | –a |
|
| –a | –a | −1.760 | −1.640 | –a | –a | –a | –a |
|
| –a | –a | −1.450 | −1.543 | –a | –a | −1.871 | −1.797 |
|
| –a | –a | −1.912 | −1.514 | –a | –a | –a | –a |
|
| −1.944 | −1.790 | −2.002 | −1.835 | –a | –a | −1.505 | −1.588 |
|
| –a | –a | –a | –a | –a | –a | −1.788 | −1.548 |
|
| –a | –a | −1.619 | −1.624 | –a | –a | −1.535 | −1.513 |
|
| –a | –a | −1.694 | −1.711 | –a | –a | −0.945 | −0.833 |
|
| –a | –a | −1.760 | −1.426 | −1.899 | −1.760 | −0.965 | −1.306 |
|
| –a | –a | −1.538 | −1.524 | −1.592 | −1.790 | −1.014 | −1.074 |
|
| −1.207 | −1.420 | −1.095 | −1.739 | −1.292 | −1.544 | −1.949 | −1.785 |
|
| –a | –a | –a | –a | –a | –a | −1.027 | −1.497 |
|
| –a | –a | −1.378 | −0.589 | −1.260 | −1.231 | −1.785 | −1.775 |
|
| –a | –a | –a | –a | −1.448 | −1.540 | −1.241 | −1.319 |
|
| –a | –a | –a | –a | –a | –a | −1.004 | −1.238 |
|
| −1.711 | −1.454 | –a | –a | –a | –a | –a | –a |
|
| –a | –a | −0.813 | −1.241 | –a | –a | –a | –a |
|
| –a | –a | −1.782 | −1.112 | –a | –a | –a | –a |
|
| –a | –a | –a | –a | −1.822 | −1.498 | –a | –a |
|
| −1.479 | −1.665 | −1.281 | −1.090 | −1.173 | −1.415 | −1.340 | −1.216 |
|
| 0.201 | −0.306 | −1.092 | −0.858 | 0.244 | −0.857 | −1.270 | −1.423 |
|
| –a | –a | −0.722 | −1.259 | −1.771 | −1.635 | –a | –a |
|
| −1.394 | −1.051 | –a | –a | −1.403 | −1.252 | −1.907 | −1.640 |
|
| −1.857 | −2.031 | −1.502 | −1.431 | −1.613 | −1.524 | –a | –a |
|
| –a | –a | −0.410 | −0.589 | –a | –a | –a | –a |
|
| –a | –a | −0.100 | −0.859 | –a | –a | −1.561 | −1.604 |
|
| −1.599 | −1.652 | −0.170 | −0.456 | −1.435 | −1.449 | –a | –a |
|
| –a | –a | 0.252 | −0.449 | –a | –a | –a | –a |
|
| −0.680 | −0.173 | −0.528 | −0.590 | −0.926 | 0.176 | −1.070 | −0.609 |
|
| −1.493 | −1.570 | −1.097 | −0.866 | −1.503 | −1.573 | −1.533 | −1.412 |
|
| −1.882 | −1.802 | −1.617 | −0.653 | −1.504 | −1.664 | −0.765 | −0.843 |
|
| −1.602 | −1.652 | –a | –a | –a | –a | −0.740 | −0.749 |
Exp. experimental activity, Pred. predicted activity
aCompounds determined to be experimentally inactive and were excluded from QSAR analysis
Fig. 8Plots of experimental versus predicted pIC50 values of cytotoxic activities against four cell lines (a HuCCA-1, b HepG2, c A549, d MOLT-3) generated by QSAR models (training set: compounds are represented by closed circle and regression line is shown as a solid line, leave-one-out validated testing set: compounds are represented by opened hex and regression line is shown as a dotted line)
A summary of potential compounds for further development
aHighly active
bModerately active
cPotent than reference drug
Fig. 9Workflow of the study