| Literature DB >> 32545290 |
Samra Farooq1, Aqsa Mazhar1, Areej Ghouri1, Naseem Ullah1.
Abstract
Mankind has always suffered from multiple diseases. Therefore, there has been a rigorous need in the field of medicinal chemistry for the design and discovery of new and potent molecular entities. In this work, thirteen tetrahydroquinoline derivatives were synthesized and evaluated biologically for their antioxidant, α-amylase enzyme inhibitory, anti-prolifeEntities:
Keywords: MTT assay; antioxidant; in vivo anti-inflammatory activity; tetrahydroquinoline; α-amylase enzyme inhibition
Year: 2020 PMID: 32545290 PMCID: PMC7321408 DOI: 10.3390/molecules25112710
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Selected examples of promising compounds with a quinoline ring system.
Figure 2Selected examples of a promising tetrahydroquinoline ring system containing derivatives and their pharmacological activities.
Scheme 1One-pot multicomponent synthesis of 1, 2, 3, 4-tetrahydroquinoline Mannich base derivatives.
Lipinski’s rule of five for the drug-likeness of all synthesized compounds (SF1–SF13).
| Comp. No | MW 1 | HBA 2 | HBD 3 | ilog (Po/w) 4 | Mlog(Po/w) 5 | Lipinski Violation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 230 | 1 | 0 | 3.02 | 3.21 | No |
|
| 232.32 | 2 | 0 | 2.69 | 2.07 | No |
|
| 216.32 | 1 | 0 | 2.78 | 2.95 | No |
|
| 246.39 | 1 | 0 | 3.41 | 3.46 | No |
|
| 245.36 | 2 | 0 | 2.94 | 2.33 | No |
|
| 231.34 | 2 | 1 | 2.67 | 2.07 | No |
|
| 314.42 | 0 | 0 | 3.46 | 4.89 | No |
|
| 272.77 | 0 | 1 | 3.08 | 3.98 | No |
|
| 317.22 | 0 | 1 | 3.17 | 4.10 | No |
|
| 280.36 | 1 | 0 | 2.82 | 3.30 | No |
|
| 218.34 | 1 | 0 | 3.11 | 2.95 | No |
|
| 268.35 | 1 | 1 | 3.21 | 3.10 | No |
|
| 296.36 | 2 | 1 | 2.61 | 2.81 | No |
MW = molecular weight, HBA = hydrogen bond acceptor, HBD = hydrogen bond donor, ilog (Po/w): octanol–water partition coefficient, Mlog (Po/w): Moriguchi LogP (octanol–water partition).
Scheme 2Mechanism of DPPH with an antioxidant with a transferable hydrogen radical [67].
DPPH free radical scavenging activity of synthetic compounds with IC50 values.
| Compound | % DPPH Scavenging Activity at Different Concentrations | IC50 (µg/mL) a | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 200 µg/mL | 66.66 µg/mL | 22.22 µg/mL | 7.4 µg/mL | ||
|
| 62.45 ± 0.12 | 50.08 ± 0.18 | 27.76 ± 0.11 | 11.91 ± 0.32 | 44.22 ± 0.25 |
|
| 71.85 ± 0.27 | 58.39 ± 0.27 | 36.61 ± 0.22 | 17.44 ± 0.26 | 42.55 ± 0.36 |
|
| 27.19 ± 0.31 | 18.32 ± 0.91 | 9.85 ± 0.18 | 3.76 ± 0.125 | 52.75 ± 0.28 |
|
| 58.58 ± 0.33 | 53.65 ± 0.14 | 41.63 ± 0.28 | 18.12 ± 0.20 | 29.79 ± 0.26 |
|
| 45.24 ± 0.28 | 28.77 ± 0.14 | 17.39 ± 0.16 | 7.76 ± 0.23 | 56.63 ± 0.32 |
|
| 66.61 ± 0.13 | 50.32 ± 0.18 | 37.75 ± 0.31 | 8.81 ± 0.21 | 35.89 ± 0.33 |
|
| 64.48 ± 0.18 | 50.48 ± 0.054 | 26.76 ± 0.17 | 9.28 ± 0.13 | 44.4 ± 0.29 |
|
| 62.35 ± 0.14 | 52.12 ± 0.36 | 50.17 ± 0.32 | 27.98 ± 0.24 | 29.19 ± 0.25 |
|
| 67.46 ± 0.14 | 50.28 ± 0.22 | 19.35 ± 0.11 | 7.64 ± 0.26 | 50.76 ± 0.37 |
|
| 49.73 ± 0.19 | 40.77 ± 0.31 | 31.89 ± 0.21 | 23.45 ± 0.28 | 47.81 ± 0.27 |
|
| 43.93 ± 0.28 | 30.9 ± 0.12 | 15.54 ± 0.09 | 7.76 ± 0.18 | 53.63 ± 0.13 |
|
| 64.20 ± 0.31 | 54.10 ± 0.17 | 31.80 ± 0.42 | 11.24 ± 0.11 | 39.33 ± 0.28 |
|
| 19.34 ± 0.34 | 11.78 ± 0.15 s | 4.44 ± 0.18 | 1.98 ± 0.20 | 60.78 ± 0.36 |
| Blank | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -- |
| Ascorbic Acid | 89.01 ± 0.18 | 76.63 ± 0.19 | 52.12 ± 0.31 | 31.35 ± 0.23 | 41.38 ± 0.34 |
| Quercetin | 81.43 ± 0.21 | 69.81 ± 0.17 | 58.31 ± 0.28 | 42.34 ± 0.36 | 41.64 ± 1.01 |
a required concentration of the tested compounds to scavenge 50% of the DPPH radicals; values are mean ± SEM (standard error of the mean, n = 3).
Figure 3Ascorbic acid equivalent (AAE) antioxidant values, expressed as µg/mL. The symbol ### indicates the significance of results where p < 0.01, ## p < 0.05.
Figure 4Ascorbic acid calibration curves (y = 0.0198x − 0.1257, R2 = 0.987) for total antioxidant capacity (TAC) and (y = 0.0436x + 1.7841, R2 = 0.9858) for total reducing power (TRP) estimations.
Figure 5% inhibition of α-amylase enzyme by a library of synthetic compounds and a reference amylase inhibitor, acarbose (values are expressed as ± SEM, n = 3), ### indicates the significance of results where p < 0.01, ## p < 0.05.
Cytotoxicity of compounds (SF1–SF13) using brine shrimp lethality bioassay.
| Compounds | LD50 |
|---|---|
|
| 120.8 ± 2.3 |
|
| 141.4 ± 2.1 |
|
| 102 ± 1.98 |
|
| 100 ± 1.78 |
|
| 94 ± 1.06 |
|
| 121.2 ± 1.09 |
|
| 100.8 ± 1.14 |
|
| 123.4 ± 1.87 |
|
| 139 ± 0.87 |
|
| 196.1 ± 1.12 |
|
| 200 ± 2.11 |
|
| 128 ± 1.87 |
|
| 204 ± 1.67 |
| Doxorubicin | 124 ± 1.54 |
1 SEM = standard error of the mean, n = 3.
Scheme 3Conversion of MTT into formazan crystals by mitochondrial reductase enzyme.
Cell cytotoxicity of synthetic compounds at different concentrations.
| Compound | % Cell Viability at Different Concentrations | IC50 (µM) a | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100 µM | 50 µM | 10 µM | 1 µM | ||
|
| 44.66 ± 0.5 | 47 ± 0.84 | 48 ± 1.34 | 58 ± 0.76 | 6.23 ± 0.01 *** |
|
| 50 ± 1.52 | 60 ± 0.91 | 70 ± 0.91 | 76 ± 0.46 | 26.80 ± 0.30 |
|
| 41 ± 1.07 | 72 ± 1.34 | 78 ± 0.74 | 83 ± 0.63 | 29.13 ± 0.50 |
|
| 39 ± 0.88 | 42 ± 0.87 | 53 ± 0.63 | 79 ± 0.92 | 7.20 ± 0.05 *** |
|
| 60 ± 1.20 | 67 ± 0.84 | 74 ± 0.42 | 98 ± 1.01 | 6.18 ± 0.05 *** |
|
| 60 ± 1.21 | 65 ± 0.76 | 87 ± 0.82 | 91 ± 0.99 | 23.37 ± 0.17 |
|
| 58 ± 0.83 | 84 ± 0.77 | 95 ± 0.96 | 96 ± 0.89 | 18.64 ± 0.13 ** |
|
| 52 ± 1.00 | 68 ± 0.79 | 83 ± 0.78 | 97 ± 1.04 | 21.23 ± 0.33 ** |
|
| 82 ± 0.96 | 84 ± 1.21 | 91 ± 0.91 | 98 ± 0.87 | 14.24 ± 0.26 ** |
|
| 76 ± 1.20 | 80 ± 1.24 | 95 ± 0.93 | 100 ± 0.88 | 24.82 ± 0.269 |
|
| 41 ± 0.83 | 62 ± 1.20 | 82 ± 0.84 | 95 ± 0.91 | 26.36 ± 0.31 |
|
| 41 ± 0.86 | 57 ± 0.89 | 84 ± 0.87 | 87 ± 0.82 | 35.10 ± 0.50 |
|
| 60 ± 1.24 | 73 ± 1.01 | 82 ± 0.66 | 85 ± 0.93 | 41.43 ± 0.69 |
| Control | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| Doxorubicin | 17 ± 0.83 | 33 ± 1.01 | 40 ± 0.87 | 51 ± 1.34 | 17.08 ± 0.37 *** |
a Values are mean ± SEM (standard error of the mean, n = 3, *** indicates significance at p < 0.01 and ** indicates significance at p < 0.05.
Figure 6A 3-(4, 5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2, 5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) spectrophotometric assay of compounds (SF1, SF4, SF5, SF7, SF8) at 50, 25, 12.5 and 6.25 µM concentration in Hep-2C cells. Data are reported as mean ± SD of each compound tested in triplicate. The symbols ###/## indicates significance at p < 0.01 and p < 0.05, respectively.
IC50 data of synthetic compounds at 24, 48 and 72 h.
| Compound | IC50 (µM) 1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 24 h | 48 h | 72 h | |
|
| 27.98 ± 1.07 | 21.82 ± 1.1 | 14.82 ± 1.07 ** |
|
| 23.94 ± 1.07 | 21.15 ± 1.2 | 15.53 ± 1.03 ** |
|
| 21.3 ± 1.09 | 18.02 ± 1.05 | 16.78 ± 1.07 |
|
| 26.68 ± 1.10 | 21.57 ± 1.05 | 16.81 ± 1.03 |
|
| 20.23 ± 1.07 | 15.73 ± 1.08 | 11.90 ± 1.04 ** |
| THQ | 41.27 ± 1.4 | 38.54 ± 1.23 | 31.98 ± 1.12 |
| Cisplatin | 19.12 ± 1.06 | 17.47 ± 1.07 | 14.63 ± 1.01 ** |
Values are calculated as standard error of the mean (SEM), ** indicates significance at p < 0.05.
Figure 7Characteristic images of Hep-2C cells before (A) and after (B) MTT treatment. Cells with MTT solution showed dark purple crystal formations inside of the cells.
Figure 8NaNO2 standard curve used to obtain NO concentration.
Nitric oxide scavenging activity of synthesized compounds at different concentrations.
| Compound | Concentration (µM) and % NO Production | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100 | 50 | 10 | 1 | |
| Piroxicam | 13.351 ± 0.54 | 16.457 ± 0.41 | 20.710 ± 0.24 | 25.35 ± 0.45 |
|
| 17.313 ± 0.35 | 23.687 ± 0.41 | 26.0406 ± 0.43 | 27.77 ± 0.46 *** |
|
| 15.345 ± 0.29 | 22.091 ± 0.33 | 27.093 ± 0.36 | 32.23 ± 0.34 *** |
|
| 19.67 ± 0.37 | 23.810 ± 0.39 | 29.571 ± 0.42 | 33.17 ± 0.47 ** |
|
| 20.226 ± 0.28 | 32.045 ± 0.31 | 39.172 ± 0.38 | 43.03 ± 0.41 |
|
| 21.924 ± 0.38 | 28.644 ± 0.44 | 43.036 ± 0.45 | 51.43 ± 0.48 |
|
| 52.437 ± 0.49 | 61.110 ± 0.54 | 72.333 ± 0.59 | 77.30 ± 0.62 |
|
| 17.455 ± 0.45 | 21.382 ± 0.48 | 63.122 ± 0.61 | 69.71 ± 0.65 |
|
| 15.031 ± 0.33 | 24.111 ± 0.41 | 29.351 ± 0.44 | 39.40 ± 0.48 |
|
| 49.073 ± 0.45 | 55.601 ± 0.51 | 58.541 ± 0.55 | 66.97 ± 0.61 |
|
| 33.842 ± 0.33 | 42.487 ± 0.54 | 58.512 ± 0.59 | 62.40 ± 0.65 |
|
| 25.701 ± 0.44 | 33.701 ± 0.53 | 39.799 ± 0.61 | 42.97 ± 0.66 |
|
| 23.203 ± 0.55 | 26.522 ± 0.578 | 32.310 ± 0.59 | 49.70 ± 0.61 |
|
| 14.494 ± 0.44 | 15.572 ± 0.47 | 22.153 ± 0.52 | 25.10 ± 0.59 *** |
1 Data are presented as standard error of the mean (SEM), n = 3, ***/** indicate significance at p < 0.01 and p < 0.05, respectively.
Figure 9The dose response of synthesized compounds at 0.1, 1 and 10 mg/kg i.p. carrageenan-induced (100 µL/paw) acute inflammatory model in mice (n = 5). To determine the effect of pretreatment on carrageenan-induced paw edema, the following effects were measured 4 h post carrageenan injection. The data are given as mean ± SEM (standard error of the mean), * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 and ### indicates significant differences from the carrageenan-treated group.
Effect of acute treatment of synthetic compounds (10 mg/kg) on carrageenan-induced inflammation (n = 5).
| Compounds | Time After Carrageenan Injection 1 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 h | 2 h | 4 h | 6 h | |
| Control | 2.04 ± 0.07 | 2.05 ± 0.06 | 2.07 ± 0.04 | 2.10 ± 0.02 |
| Carrageenan (100 µL) | 2.11 ± 0.07 | 2.57 ± 0.08 ### | 2.75 ± 0.07 ### | 2.86 ± 0.05 ### |
| Acetyl salicylic acid (10 mg/kg) | 2.14 ± 0.08 | 2.26 ± 0.05 *** | 2.32 ± 0.04 *** | 2.39 ± 0.02 *** |
| 2.06 ± 0.07 | 2.13 ± 0.03 *** | 2.18 ± 0.06 *** | 2.25 ± 0.05 *** | |
| 2.05 ± 0.05 | 2.11 ± 0.06 *** | 2.17 ± 0.03 *** | 2.23 ± 0.07 *** | |
| 2.05 ± 0.06 | 2.16 ± 0.05 *** | 2.22 ± 0.02 *** | 2.28 ± 0.07 *** | |
| 2.04 ± 0.07 | 2.18 ± 0.03 *** | 2.26 ± 0.06 *** | 2.31 ± 0.07 *** | |
1 Readings were measured every 2 h post carrageenan administration from 0 to 6 h. All values are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 5). The data are given as mean ± SD, *** p < 0.001 and ### indicate significant differences from the carrageenan-treated group.
Figure 10Structure–activity relationship of tetrahydroquinoline ring derivatized with thirteen amines.
Scheme 4Synthesis of compounds SF1–SF13. Reaction conditions: S (2.0 equiv), 1–13 (1.0 equiv), F (1.0 equiv); 3 mL solvent, conc. HCl 2 mol %, 80 °C (oil bath). Yields obtained after purification of product.