| Literature DB >> 34333425 |
Kun Wang1, Jia-Jing Wu2, Qing-Xuan Zeng1, Na Zhang1, Wei-Jin Huang2, Sheng Tang1, Yan-Xiang Wang1, Wei-Jia Kong1, You-Chun Wang2, Ying-Hong Li3, Dan-Qing Song4.
Abstract
So far, there is still no specific drug against COVID-19. Taking compound 1 with anti-EBOV activity as the lead, fifty-four 12N-substituted aloperine derivatives were synthesized and evaluated for the anti-SARS-CoV-2 activities using pseudotyped virus model. Among them, 8a exhibited the most potential effects against both pseudotyped and authentic SARS-CoV-2, as well as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, indicating a broad-spectrum anti-coronavirus profile. The mechanism study disclosed that 8a might block a late stage of viral entry, mainly via inhibiting host cathepsin B activity rather than directly targeting cathepsin B protein. Also, 8a could significantly reduce the release of multiple inflammatory cytokines in a time- and dose-dependent manner, such as IL-6, IL-1β, IL-8 and MCP-1, the major contributors to cytokine storm. Therefore, 8a is a promising agent with the advantages of broad-spectrum anti-coronavirus and anti-cytokine effects, thus worthy of further investigation.Entities:
Keywords: Aloperine; COVID-19; Cathepsin B; Cytokine; SARS-CoV-2
Year: 2021 PMID: 34333425 PMCID: PMC8318836 DOI: 10.1016/j.bioorg.2021.105196
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bioorg Chem ISSN: 0045-2068 Impact factor: 5.275
Fig. 1Structures of remdesivir (left), hydroxychloroquine (center) and dexamethasone (right).
Fig. 2Chemical structures of aloperine and lead 1 as well as modification strategies.
Scheme 1(a) R1XBr and R1XCl, MeCN or CH2Cl2, K2CO3, r.t., 2 h; (b) bromoacetyl bromide, CH2Cl2, Et3N, 0 °C to r.t., 2 h; (c) CH2Cl2, Et3N, r.t.; (d) ethyl bromoacetate, EtOH/NaHCO3, reflux, 8 h; (e) LiOH, H2O, reflux 1.5 h; (f) HOBt, DIEA, EDCI, CH2Cl2, 0 °C to r.t.; (g) SOCl2, reflux, 2 h; (h) K2CO3, CH2Cl2, r.t., 2 h; (i) LiAlH4, THF, r.t., 2 h; (j) R6NCO, CH2Cl2, Et3N, 0 °C to r.t., 1 h.
Structures and antiviral activities of all the target compounds against SARS-CoV-2.
| No | R | R1 | CC50(µM) | EC50-SARS- CoV-2(µM) | SI | EC50-VSV (µM) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3′,4′-Cl2PhCH2 | / | 147.3 | 28.2 | 5.2 | 15.9 | |
| PhCH2 | / | >266.7 | 162.6 | >1.6 | 68.9 | |
| / | >266.7 | 115.5 | >2.3 | 40.2 | ||
| / | >266.7 | 97.0 | >2.7 | 25.4 | ||
| / | >266.7 | 151.5 | >1.8 | 15.9 | ||
| 2′,4′-Cl2PhCH2 | / | 138.0 | 22.0 | 6.3 | 16.2 | |
| / | >266.7 | 235.6 | − | 214.4 | ||
| 3′,4′-Cl2PhCO | / | >266.7 | 196.9 | − | 48.7 | |
| 3′,5′-Cl2PhCO | / | 170.3 | 65.6 | 2.6 | 79.2 | |
| / | >266.7 | >266.7 | − | 267.6 | ||
| 3′,4′-Cl2PhSO2 | / | >266.7 | 136.8 | >1.9 | 175.6 | |
| 3′,5′-Cl2PhSO2 | / | >266.7 | 49.0 | >5.4 | 38.5 | |
| / | >266.7 | 19.1 | >14.0 | 25.9 | ||
| 3′,5′-Cl2Ph(CH2)3 | / | 58.1 | 7.4 | 7.9 | 6.9 | |
| H | >266.7 | 103.2 | >2.6 | 154.6 | ||
| H | >266.7 | 62.8 | >4.2 | 79.9 | ||
| H | 124.4 | 29.5 | 4.2 | 47.8 | ||
| 2′,4′-Cl2Ph | H | 167.4 | 54.8 | 3.1 | 70.5 | |
| 2′,5′-Br2Ph | H | 163.9 | 55.3 | 3.0 | 40.3 | |
| 2′-F-5′-BrPh | H | 221.8 | 57.5 | 3.9 | 66.8 | |
| 2′-Cl-5′-BrPh | H | >266.7 | 90.3 | >3.0 | 77.5 | |
| 2′-F-6′-CH3Ph | H | >266.7 | >266.7 | − | >266.7 | |
| 2′-Cl-4′-CH3Ph | H | >266.7 | 77.4 | >3.4 | 87.9 | |
| 2′–CH3-4′-ClPh | H | >266.7 | 106.8 | >2.5 | 75.1 | |
| 3′-Cl-5′-CF3Ph | H | 57.1 | 10.4 | 5.5 | 17.5 | |
| 3′-Cl-5′-CF3OPh | H | 62.8 | 14.7 | 4.3 | 21.8 | |
| 3′-CF3-4′-BrPh | H | 38.3 | 4.0 | 9.6 | 6.0 | |
| 3′,4′-(CH3)2Ph | H | >266.7 | 70.8 | >3.8 | 107.7 | |
| 3′,5′-(CF3)2Ph | H | 71.0 | 17.0 | 4.2 | 21.9 | |
| H | 96.7 | 37.1 | 2.6 | 43.5 | ||
| H | >266.7 | 67.4 | >4.0 | 119.8 | ||
| CH3 | >266.7 | 42.3 | >6.3 | 152.9 | ||
| Ph | 45.1 | 10.8 | 4.2 | 14.2 | ||
| Ph | H | >266.7 | >266.7 | − | >266.7 | |
| H | >266.7 | 177.4 | >1.5 | >266.7 | ||
| H | >266.7 | 144.4 | >1.8 | >266.7 | ||
| H | >266.7 | 61.3 | >4.4 | 162.8 | ||
| H | 180.1 | 37.3 | 4.8 | 85.4 | ||
| H | 106.8 | 9.4 | 11.4 | 50.2 | ||
| H | >266.7 | >266.7 | − | >266.7 | ||
| H | >266.7 | 69.2 | >3.9 | 134.1 | ||
| H | >266.7 | >266.7 | − | >266.7 | ||
| H | 117.6 | 19.3 | 6.1 | 47.6 | ||
| 2′,4′-Cl2Ph | H | 65.8 | 17.8 | 3.7 | 36.2 | |
| 3′,4′-Cl2Ph | H | 63.0 | 15.8 | 4.0 | 35.9 | |
| 3′,5′-(CH3)2Ph | H | >266.7 | >266.7 | − | >266.7 | |
| 3′,5′-(CH3O)2Ph | H | >266.7 | >266.7 | − | >266.7 | |
| 3′,5′-(CF3)2Ph | H | 112.7 | 37.6 | 3.0 | 48.3 | |
| H | 199.1 | 73.6 | 2.7 | 124.6 | ||
| H | 224.1 | 87.2 | 2.6 | 108.3 | ||
| CH3 | 191.8 | 21.1 | 9.1 | 85.6 | ||
| 2′,4′-F2Ph | H | >266.7 | 195.4 | >1.4 | 138.6 | |
| 3′,5′-(CH3)2Ph | H | >266.7 | 151.4 | >1.8 | 94.9 | |
| 3′,5′-(CF3)2Ph | H | 53.9 | 11.5 | 4.7 | 14.9 | |
| H | >266.7 | 52.9 | >5.0 | 106.7 | ||
| / | 230.7 | 2.7 | 85.4 | 10.5 |
The concentration of 50% cellular toxicity in Huh 7 cells.
The concentration of compound that inhibited 50% of the virus level in Huh 7 cells.
The selectivity index-the ratio of CC50 to EC50.
Antiviral activities of part compounds against different coronaviruses.
| No | CC50 (µM) | EC50(µM) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Authentic SARS-CoV-2 | Pseudo SARS-CoV-2 | Pseudo SARS-CoV | Pseudo MERS-CoV | Pseudo VSV | ||
| 177.4 | >3750 | 22.0 | NT | NT | 16.2 | |
| >266.7 | 39.1 | 19.1 | 5.6 | 9.4 | 25.9 | |
| 109.6 | >3750 | 7.4 | NT | NT | 6.9 | |
CC50: the concentration of 50% cellular toxicity in Vero E6 cell;
EC50: the concentration of compound that inhibited 50% of the virus level in Vero E6 cell.
EC50: the concentration of compound that inhibited 50% of the virus level in Huh 7 cell.
NT: not tested.
Fig. 3Compounds 8a and CA-074 block SARS-CoV-2 entry into host cells. (A) Cartoon diagram of a single-cycle time-of-addition at different time and temperature. (B) Compound 8a and (C) CA-074 block SARS-CoV-2 infection at different entry stage. Error bars indicate standard deviations.
Fig. 4Effects of 8a on Cat B and Cat L. (A) Inhibitory activity of 8a Cat B in Huh 7 cells. (B) Inhibitory activity of 8a Cat L. (C) Affinity activity of 8a to recombinant Cat B.
Fig. 5Compound 8a inhibits releases of cytokines. (A) IL-6, (B) IL-1β, (C) IL-8 and (D) MCP-1 in a concentration-dependent and time-dependent manner. Data were presented as the mean ± SEM, (###) p < 0.001 as compared to that of control group; (*) p < 0.05, (**) p < 0.01 (***) p < 0.01 as compared to that of LPS/Nig group. The experiment was repeated for 3 times.
The oral PK and safety profile of compound 8a.
| No | Tmax (h) | Cmax (μM) | AUC0-t (μM·h) | AUC0-∞ (μM·h) | MRT (h) | t1/2 (h) | LD50 (mg/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.50 ± 3.04 | 0.82 ± 0.32 | 4.47 ± 0.95 | 4.85 ± 0.26 | 4.59 ± 1.29 | 2.90 ± 1.69 | 812 |
AUC: Area under the concentration–time curve; Cmax: Maximum plasma concentration; MRT: Mean residence time; Tmax: peak time; T1/2: Half-life; LD50: 50% lethal dose.
Fig. 6Effects of compound 8a on liver or kidney function in Kunming mice. (A) ALT and AST levels, (B) BUN and Scr levels in the treatment of 8a at the dosage of 250 or 500 mg/kg were tested. Data were presented as mean and sd values.