| Literature DB >> 29088121 |
Jaime Pérez-Villanueva1, Lilián Yépez-Mulia2, Ignacio González-Sánchez3, Juan Francisco Palacios-Espinosa4, Olivia Soria-Arteche5, Teresita Del Rosario Sainz-Espuñes6, Marco A Cerbón7, Karen Rodríguez-Villar8, Ana Karina Rodríguez-Vicente9, Miguel Cortés-Gines10, Zeltzin Custodio-Galván11, Dante B Estrada-Castro12.
Abstract
Indazole is considered a very important scaffold in medicinal chemistry. It is commonly found in compounds with diverse biological activities, e.g., antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory agents. Considering thatEntities:
Keywords: Entamoeba histolytica; Giardia intestinalis; Trichomonas vaginalis; anticandidal; indazole; rational drug design
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29088121 PMCID: PMC6150295 DOI: 10.3390/molecules22111864
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Design of the 2,3-diphenyl-2H-indazole derivatives.
Scheme 1Synthesis of indazole derivatives 7–26.
Antiprotozoal activity of 2-pheny-2H-indazole derivatives and 2,3-diphenyl-2H-indazole derivatives.
| Compound | R1 | R2 | IC50 (µM) | IC50 (µM) | IC50 (µM) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H | – | 0.1133 ± 0.0218 | 0.0798 ± 0.0036 | 0.1184 ± 0.0218 | |
| Cl | – | 0.0634 ± 0.0031 | 0.0415 ± 0.0031 | 0.1071 ± 0.0031 | |
| OCH3 | – | 0.2051 ± 0.0063 | 0.1538 ± 0.0158 | 0.3723 ± 0.0158 | |
| COOCH3 | – | 0.0634 ± 0.0056 | 0.0218 ± 0.0028 | 0.1070 ± 0.0056 | |
| SCH3 | – | 0.2185 ± 0.0088 | 0.0978 ± 0.0147 | 0.2725 ± 0.0147 | |
| OH | – | 0.1189 ± 0.0067 | 0.0737 ± 0.0101 | 0.1570 ± 0.0135 | |
| COOH | – | 0.1931 ± 0.0119 | 0.0965 ± 0.0059 | 0.3274 ± 0.0178 | |
| SOCH3 | – | 0.1678 ± 0.0110 | 0.0878 ± 0.0083 | 0.3121 ± 0.0110 | |
| SO2CH3 | – | 0.0900 ± 0.0234 | 0.1359 ± 0.0052 | 0.1450 ± 0.0026 | |
| H | H | 0.0518 ± 0.0052 | 0.3033 ± 0.0105 | 0.0573 ± 0.0026 | |
| Cl | H | 0.0607 ± 0.0023 | 0.0213 ± 0.0023 | 0.1034 ± 0.0023 | |
| COOCH3 | H | 0.0959 ± 0.0022 | 0.0502 ± 0.0022 | 0.1020 ± 0.0151 | |
| COOH | H | 0.0795 ± 0.0045 | 0.0445 ± 0.0045 | 0.1113 ± 0.0180 | |
| SO2CH3 | H | 0.1242 ± 0.0122 | 0.2081 ± 0.0061 | 0.2138 ± 0.0101 | |
| H | Cl | 0.1132 ± 0.0070 | 0.0394 ± 0.0000 | 0.1181 ± 0.0046 | |
| H | COOCH3 | 0.1188 ± 0.0086 | 0.0731 ± 0.0086 | 0.1431 ± 0.0043 | |
| H | COOH | 0.1209 ± 0.0090 | 0.0509 ± 0.0000 | 0.2402 ± 0.0067 | |
| H | SO2CH3 | 0.1062 ± 0.0081 | 0.0459 ± 0.0081 | 0.1837 ± 0.0162 | |
| MTZ | – | – | 1.2260 ± 0.1250 | 0.3798 ± 0.1461 | 0.2360 ± 0.0160 |
| ABZ | – | – | 0.0370 ± 0.0030 | 56.5334 ± 18.8445 | 1.5905 ± 0.0113 |
Antimycotic effect for selected compounds.
| Compound | MIC (mM) | MIC (mM) |
|---|---|---|
| 3.807 | 15.227 | |
| 3.807 | 15.227 | |
| Ketoconazole | 0.045 | 0.079 |
Results for the in silico and in vitro evaluations against human COX-2 for selected compounds.
| Compound | Docking Score (Lowest Energy Conformation) | % of Inhibition of COX-2 |
|---|---|---|
| −8.0 | Inactive | |
| −9.7 | Inactive | |
| −9.5 | 50.01 ± 9.49 | |
| −10.1 | 44.45 ± 2.65 | |
| −10.0 | 36.35 ± 1.7 | |
| −11.1 | 41.22 ± 5.93 | |
| Celecoxib 2 | −11.7 | 64.92 ± 2.36 |
1 Compounds 7, 16, 18, 21, 23, and 26 were tested at 10 µM. 2 Reference tested at 1 µM.
Figure 2Predicted binding modes on human COX-2 for celecoxib (panel (a)) and 18 (panel (b)). Docked compounds are shown in green, whereas the crystallographic reference rofecoxib is in pink.
Results for cytotoxicity assays in HaCaT and HeLa cell lines.
| Compound | % Viability (10 µM) HaCaT Cells 1 | % Viability (10 µM) HeLa Cells | IC50 (µM) HaCaT cells 2 | IC50 (µM) HeLa Cells |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 95.01 ± 2.44 | 93.04 ± 4.57 | 93.65 ± 17.30 | 125.00 ± 29.60 | |
| 96.25 ± 4.14 | 94.14 ± 3.31 | - | - | |
| 97.83 ± 5.19 | 93.72 ± 7.48 | - | - |
1 Percent of viability for selected compounds at 10 μM. 2 Half maximal inhibitory concentration for a selected compound.