| Literature DB >> 31831761 |
Hien Thi Thu Le1, Tatu Rimpilainen2, Saravanan Konda Mani3, Akshaya Murugesan1,4, Olli Yli-Harja5,6, Nuno R Candeias2, Meenakshisundaram Kandhavelu7.
Abstract
Purinergic receptor is a potential drug target for neuropathic pain,Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31831761 PMCID: PMC6908675 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-55194-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Hit identification based on docking score. (A) Library of 1-indolinoalkyl 2-phenols for P2Y1R docking screen. (B) Glide docking score (kcal/mol) of 923 compounds against P2Y1R. Two ligand-like compounds 1 and 2 ranks top with high docking scores.
Figure 2The ligand binding residues of the receptor is shown as the surface model and the ligand is shown in black colored ball and stick model (A) compound 1 and P2Y1 (B) compound 2 and P2Y1. The non-ligand interacting regions of receptor is shown as ribbon model. (C) Two-dimensional ligand interaction diagram of compound 1 and (D) compound 2. The color coding and interactions are described in the ligand key. (E) Synthesis scheme of 1-indolinoalkyl 2-phenols 1 and 2.
Figure 3Measurement of intracellular calcium with Fura 2-AM on activation of P2Y1R by compound 1 and 2. The fluorescence was measured using MagelanTM microplate plate reader at every 5 min. The ratiometric Ca2+ fold change was analyzed based on the emitted fluorescence intensities of the samples. PC-3 cells were treated with (A) compound 1, (B) compound 2 and DU-145 cells with (C) compound 1 and (D) compound 2. (E) P2Y1R silencing by siRNA and and its effect on Ca2+ signaling activation by compound 1, 2 and MRS2365 in PC-3 cells (F) same condition as “E” in DU-145 cells. The experiments were repeated 3 independent times, *p < 0.05 by one-way ANOVA.
Figure 4Effect of compound 1 and 2 on the cell viability. (A) PC-3 cells and (B) DU-145 cells were treated with the varying concentrations of compound 1 and 2. IC50 of the untreated cells along with the respective compounds were determined by Prism 7.0. (C) PC3 and DU-145 cells and (D) HEK293 and MEF cells were treated with 100 µM of compound 1 and 2, MRS2365 for 48 h with DMSO as negative control. (E) PC-3 and (F) DU-145 cells were incubated with the IC50 concentration of compound 1 and 2 and 50 µM Na3VO4 for 24 h, 48 h, and 72 h. The experiment was performed with replicates of biological and technical repeats. Statistical significance was considered at *p < 0.05.
Figure 5Induction of apoptosis by compound 1 and 2 on PCa cells. (A) Representative images of PC-3 cells stained with Annexin-V/PI in untreated, compound 1, 2, and Na3VO4 treated condition. (B) percentage of apoptotic and necrotic cell death in the corresponding condition as in A. (C) The representative images of DU-145 cells stained with Annexin-V/PI (D) the percentage of apoptosis and necrosis in DU-145 cells. Results are represented as mean of three independent experiments, mean ± S.D. *P < 0.05, versus control, n = 3.
Figure 6Production of ROS and activation of Caspase3/7 by compound 1 and 2 in PCa cells. (A) The fold change in ROS in PC-3 and DU-145 cells treated with compound 1, 2 and H2O2. H2DCFDA labelled cells was used to measure the ROS production and its fluorescence signal was recorded using 96 well plate reader. The fold change of ROS was calculated using fluorescence intensities of the untreated control. (B) The fold change in Caspase 3/7 in PC-3 and DU-145 cells treated with compound 1, 2, and Na3VO4. Biological and the technical replicates were maintained to assess the significance of the results, with mean ± S.D. *P < 0.05, versus control, n = 3.