| Literature DB >> 28979311 |
Keyu Zhang1, Chunmei Wang1, Xiaoyang Wang1, Haihong Zheng1, Juan Zhao1, Mi Wang1, Sui Xiao1, Chenzhong Fei1, Wenli Zheng1, Lifang Zhang1, Feiqun Xue1.
Abstract
To investigate the cytotoxicity mechanism of quinocetone from the perspective of chemical structure, quinocetone and other new quinoxaline-1, 4-dioxide derivatives were synthesized, and evaluated for their activities, and analysed for the metabolic characteristics. Quinocetone and other new quinoxaline-1,4-dioxide derivatives were synthesized, and evaluated for their activities, and analysed for the metabolic characteristics. The synthetic route started from 2-nitroaniline which was reacted with 3-bromopropanoic acid followed by the reaction of acetylacetone to afford 2-acetyl-3-methylquinoxaline-1, 4-dioxide. The aldol condensation of the later compound with aromatic aldehydes led to the formation of the quinocetone structure similar compounds. A number of prepared derivatives exerted antimicrobial activities and cytotoxicity potency. Analysis of metabolic pathways in vitro displayed 2-propenyl and N→O groups were the major sites. The results suggested 2-propenyl group exert important role in cytotoxicity of quinocetone and is another major toxiccophore for quinocetone, and different electronic substituents in arylidene aryl ring could affect the electronic arrangement of 2-propenyl and N→O groups to chang the cytostatic potency.Entities:
Keywords: 2-Propenyl moiety; Cytotoxicity mechanism; Quinocetone; Toxiccophore
Year: 2017 PMID: 28979311 PMCID: PMC5603865
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Iran J Pharm Res ISSN: 1726-6882 Impact factor: 1.696
Figure 1Structures of the quinoxaline-1,4-dioxides derivatives.
Figure 2The reagents used in the syntheses of compounds are as follows, namely (ⅰ) acetylacetone/ triethylamine, (ⅱ) aryl aldehyde/ diethylamine, (ⅲ) sodium dithionite, (ⅳ) furaldehyde/ diethylamine, (ⅴ) ethyl acetylacetate/ morpholine, (ⅵ) sodium hydroxide, (ⅶ) acetone/ morpholine
Results of antibacterial activities of quinoxaline-1,4-dioxides and their deoxygenations
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| olaquindox | 21.04 | 84.16 | 21.04 | 67.328 | 42.08 |
| 2 | 4.36 | 17.44 | 17.44 | 8.72 | 17.44 |
| 4 | >500 | 476.16 | 119.04 | >500 | >500 |
| 6 | 94.72 | 189.44 | 94.72 | 94.72 | 94.72 |
| 7 | >500 | >500 | 337.92 | >500 | >500 |
| 8 | 4.96 | 19.84 | 39.68 | 4.96 | 39.68 |
| 9 | >500 | >500 | 138.24 | >500 | >500 |
| 10 | >500 | >500 | 481.28 | >500 | >500 |
| 11 | 56.32 | 450.56 | 225.28 | 225.28 | 450.56 |
| 3a | 97.92 | 48.96 | 48.96 | 195.84 | 24.48 |
| 5a | >500 | >500 | >500 | >500 | >500 |
| 3b | 103.04 | 25.76 | 206.08 | 51.52 | 12.88 |
| 5b | >500 | >500 | 371.2 | >500 | >500 |
| 3c | 103.04 | 103.04 | 103.04 | 25.76 | 25.76 |
| 5c | >500 | >500 | 371.2 | >500 | >500 |
| 3d | >500 | 56.16 | 449.28 | >500 | 449.28 |
| 5d | >500 | >500 | >500 | >500 | >500 |
| 3e | 449.28 | 224.64 | 112.32 | 449.28 | 449.28 |
| 5e | >500 | >500 | >500 | >500 | >500 |
| 3f | >500 | >500 | >500 | 26.88 | 13.44 |
| 5f | >500 | >500 | >500 | >500 | >500 |
| 3g | >500 | >500 | >500 | 435.2 | 27.2 |
| 5g | >500 | >500 | >500 | >500 | >500 |
| 3h | 446.72 | >500 | 223.36 | 446.72 | 446.72 |
| 5h | >500 | >500 | >500 | >500 | >500 |
A comparison of the cytotoxic effects of quinoxaline-1,4-dioxide derivatives and their deoxygenation on HepG2 and Chang liver cells
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| 5h | 626.29±25.35 | 567.27±26.67 |
| olaquindox | 892.78±14.66 | 815.21±31.24 |
| 2 | 287.64±9.74 | 262.58±3.11 |
| 4 | 571.88±36.20 | 671.59±23.24 |
| 6 | 240.27±34.81 | 299.44±6.72 |
| 7 | 440.89±12.31 | 468.56±5.26 |
| 8 | 217.40±3.48 | 217.26±3.52 |
| 9 | 547.01±7.71 | 609.94±18.37 |
| 10 | 2487.44±133.18 | 2117.55±90.13 |
| 11 | 465.41±28.81 | 452.04±6.86 |
| 3a | 49.31±1.94 | 63.30±5.55 |
| 5a | 451.23±11.06 | 532.24±7.66 |
| 3b | 30.46±1.30 | 67.99±2.90 |
| 5b | 525.53±20.92 | 463.02±9.91 |
| 3c | 102.44±4.13 | 191.98±10.30 |
| 5c | 273.98±11.64 | 361.36±10.23 |
| 3d | 380.14±10.58 | 410.60±17.09 |
| 5d | 461.04±4.49 | 499.30±8.75 |
| 3e | 449.32±19.40 | 535.99±22.95 |
| 5e | 605.91±34.56 | 590.09±2.22 |
| 3f | 99.68±2.97 | 86.91±6.30 |
| 5f | 653.34±31.97 | 531.31±19.28 |
| 3g | 102.54±4.08 | 113.73±4.59 |
| 5g | 532.68±24.77 | 688.78±46.18 |
| 3h | 394.94±14.59 | 508.74±14.78 |
The IC50 figure is the concentration of the compound required to reduce the number of viable cells by 50%. The highest concentration used is maximum values which can be dissolved in DMEM.
Figure 3Total ion chromatogram and selected ion recording of quinocetone 3a in HepG2 cells incubated for 24h (A: Total ion chromatogram, A1 for the control group, A2 for the drug group; B: Selected ion reaction spectras, B1 for the control group, B2 for the drug group
Figure 4The proposed metabolic pathways of quinocetone 3a, deoxyquinocetone 5a, olaquindox, compound 6 and 8 in HepG2 cells
The protonated molecular ions of the compounds metabolites
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| olaquindox | 264 | 248(O1) |
| 3a | 307 | 309(Q1), 311(Q2), 295(Q3), 293(Q4), 277(Q5) |
| 5a | 275 | 291(DQ1), 293 (DQ2), 277(DQ3) , 279 (DQ4), 295(DQ5) |
| 6 | 297 | 299(QA1), 283(QA2), 267(QA3), 301(QA4), 285(QA5), 265(QA6) |
| 8 | 249 | 233(MQ1), 233(MQ2), 217(MQ3) |
Figure 5Cytotoxicity of 3a (quinocetone) and 3b in HepG2 cells and Chang cells. Cells were incubated with the drugs at indicated concentrations for 24 h. Cell proliferation was measured by MTT assay. Control value was taken as 100%.