Ashfaq Ahmad1,2, Farhat Ullah2, Abdul Sadiq2, Muhammad Ayaz2, Muhammad Saeed Jan2, Muhammad Shahid1, Abdul Wadood3, Fawad Mahmood1, Umer Rashid4, Riaz Ullah5, Muhammad Umar Khayam Sahibzada1, Ali S Alqahtani5, Hafiz Majid Mahmood6. 1. Department of Pharmacy, Sarhad University of Science & Technology, Peshawar, KPK, Pakistan. 2. Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Malakand, Chakdara, 18000, KP, Pakistan. 3. Department of Biochemistry, UCS, Shankar Abdul Wali Khan University, Mardan 23200, Pakistan. 4. Department of Chemistry, COMSATS University Islamabad, Abbottabad Campus, Abbottabad 22060, Pakistan. 5. Department of Pharmacognosy, Medicinal, Aromatic and Poisonous Plants Research Center (MAPRC), College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh, 11451, Saudi Arabia. 6. Department of Pharmacology, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The current study was designed to synthesize derivatives of succinimide and compare their biological potency in anticholinesterase, alpha-glucosidase inhibition, and antioxidant assays. METHODS: In this research, two succinimide derivatives including (S)-1-(2,5-dioxo-1-phenylpyrrolidin-3-yl) cyclohexanecarbaldehyde (Compound 1) and (R)-2-((S)-2,5-dioxo-1-phenylpyrrolidin-3-yl)-2-phenylpropanal (Compound 2) were synthesized using Michael addition. Both the compounds, ie, 1 and 2 were evaluated for in-vitro acetylcholinesterase (AChE), butyrylctcholinesterase (BChE), antioxidant, and α-glucosidase inhibitory potentials. Furthermore, molecular docking was performed using Molecular Operating Environment (MOE) to explore the binding mode of both the compounds against different enzymes. Lineweaver-Burk plots of enzyme inhibitions representing the reciprocal of initial enzyme velocity versus the reciprocal of substrate concentration in the presence of synthesized compounds and standard drugs were constructed using Michaelis-Menten kinetics. RESULTS: In AChE inhibitory assay, compounds 1 and 2 exhibited IC50 of 343.45 and 422.98 µM, respectively, against AChE enzyme. Similarly, both the compounds showed IC50 of 276.86 and 357.91 µM, respectively, against BChE enzyme. Compounds 1 and 2 displayed IC50 of 157.71 and 471.79 µM against α-glucosidase enzyme, respectively. In a similar pattern, compound 1 exhibited to be more potent as compared to compound 2 in all the three antioxidant assays. Compound 1 exhibited IC50 values of 297.98, 332.94, and 825.92 µM against DPPH, ABTS, and H2O2 free radicals, respectively. Molecular docking showed a triple fold in the AChE and BChE activity for compound 1 compared with compound 2. The compound 1 revealed good interaction against both the AChE and BChE enzymes which revealed the high potency of this compound compared to compound 2. CONCLUSION: Both succinimide derivatives exhibited considerable inhibitory activities against cholinesterases and α-glucosidase enzymes. Of these two, compound 1 revealed to be more potent against all the in-vitro targets which was supported by molecular docking with the lowest binding energies. Moreover, compound 1 also proved to have antiradical properties.
INTRODUCTION: The current study was designed to synthesize derivatives of succinimide and compare their biological potency in anticholinesterase, alpha-glucosidase inhibition, and antioxidant assays. METHODS: In this research, two succinimide derivatives including (S)-1-(2,5-dioxo-1-phenylpyrrolidin-3-yl) cyclohexanecarbaldehyde (Compound 1) and (R)-2-((S)-2,5-dioxo-1-phenylpyrrolidin-3-yl)-2-phenylpropanal (Compound 2) were synthesized using Michael addition. Both the compounds, ie, 1 and 2 were evaluated for in-vitro acetylcholinesterase (AChE), butyrylctcholinesterase (BChE), antioxidant, and α-glucosidase inhibitory potentials. Furthermore, molecular docking was performed using Molecular Operating Environment (MOE) to explore the binding mode of both the compounds against different enzymes. Lineweaver-Burk plots of enzyme inhibitions representing the reciprocal of initial enzyme velocity versus the reciprocal of substrate concentration in the presence of synthesized compounds and standard drugs were constructed using Michaelis-Menten kinetics. RESULTS: In AChE inhibitory assay, compounds 1 and 2 exhibited IC50 of 343.45 and 422.98 µM, respectively, against AChE enzyme. Similarly, both the compounds showed IC50 of 276.86 and 357.91 µM, respectively, against BChE enzyme. Compounds 1 and 2 displayed IC50 of 157.71 and 471.79 µM against α-glucosidase enzyme, respectively. In a similar pattern, compound 1 exhibited to be more potent as compared to compound 2 in all the three antioxidant assays. Compound 1 exhibited IC50 values of 297.98, 332.94, and 825.92 µM against DPPH, ABTS, and H2O2 free radicals, respectively. Molecular docking showed a triple fold in the AChE and BChE activity for compound 1 compared with compound 2. The compound 1 revealed good interaction against both the AChE and BChE enzymes which revealed the high potency of this compound compared to compound 2. CONCLUSION: Both succinimide derivatives exhibited considerable inhibitory activities against cholinesterases and α-glucosidase enzymes. Of these two, compound 1 revealed to be more potent against all the in-vitro targets which was supported by molecular docking with the lowest binding energies. Moreover, compound 1 also proved to have antiradical properties.
Authors: Saba Tahir Tanoli; Muhammad Ramzan; Abbas Hassan; Abdul Sadiq; Muhammad Saeed Jan; Farhan A Khan; Farhat Ullah; Haseen Ahmad; Maria Bibi; Tariq Mahmood; Umer Rashid Journal: Bioorg Chem Date: 2018-10-23 Impact factor: 5.275
Authors: Thomas C Nugent; Abdul Sadiq; Ahtaram Bibi; Thomas Heine; Lei Liu Zeonjuk; Nina Vankova; Bassem S Bassil Journal: Chemistry Date: 2012-02-22 Impact factor: 5.236
Authors: Thomas C Nugent; Ahtaram Bibi; Abdul Sadiq; Mohammad Shoaib; M Naveed Umar; Foad N Tehrani Journal: Org Biomol Chem Date: 2012-10-29 Impact factor: 3.876
Authors: Muhammad Ayaz; Muhammad Junaid; Farhat Ullah; Abdul Sadiq; Mir Azam Khan; Waqar Ahmad; Muhammad Raza Shah; Muhammad Imran; Sajjad Ahmad Journal: Lipids Health Dis Date: 2015-11-04 Impact factor: 3.876
Authors: Abdullah S M Aljohani; Fahad A Alhumaydhi; Abdur Rauf; Essam M Hamad; Umer Rashid Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2022-04-13 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Mater H Mahnashi; Yahya S Alqahtani; Ali O Alqarni; Bandar A Alyami; Omaish S Alqahtani; Muhammad Saeed Jan; Fida Hussain; Zia Ul Islam; Farhat Ullah; Muhammad Ayaz; Muhammad Abbas; Umer Rashid; Abdul Sadiq Journal: BMC Complement Med Ther Date: 2022-06-13
Authors: Sajjad Ahmad; Mater H Mahnashi; Bandar A Alyami; Yahya S Alqahtani; Farhat Ullah; Muhammad Ayaz; Muhammad Tariq; Abdul Sadiq; Umer Rashid Journal: Drug Des Devel Ther Date: 2021-03-23 Impact factor: 4.162
Authors: Mater H Mahnashi; Yahya S Alqahtani; Bandar A Alyami; Ali O Alqarni; Mohammad Ahmed Alshrahili; Mahrous A Abou-Salim; Mohammed N Alqahtani; Sadaf Mushtaq; Abdul Sadiq; Muhammad Saeed Jan Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2022-03-31 Impact factor: 2.629
Authors: Bushra Waheed; Syed Muhammad Mukarram Shah; Fida Hussain; Mohammad Ijaz Khan; Anwar Zeb; Muhammad Saeed Jan Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2022-03-28 Impact factor: 2.629
Authors: Rehman Zafar; Humaira Naureen; Muhammad Zubair; Khadija Shahid; Muhammad Saeed Jan; Samar Akhtar; Hammad Ahmad; Wajeeha Waseem; Ali Haider; Saqib Ali; Muhammad Tariq; Abdul Sadiq Journal: Drug Des Devel Ther Date: 2021-06-21 Impact factor: 4.162
Authors: Mater H Mahnashi; Bandar A Alyami; Yahya S Alqahtani; Ali O Alqarni; Muhammad Saeed Jan; Muhammad Ayaz; Farhat Ullah; Muhammad Shahid; Umer Rashid; Abdul Sadiq Journal: BMC Complement Med Ther Date: 2021-10-02