| Literature DB >> 35408712 |
Philippe M Loiseau1, Kaluvu Balaraman2, Gillian Barratt3, Sébastien Pomel1, Rémy Durand1, Frédéric Frézard4, Bruno Figadère5.
Abstract
There is a need for new, cost-effective drugs to treat leishmaniasis. A strategy based on traditional medicine practiced in Bolivia led to the discovery of the 2-substituted quinoline series as a source of molecules with antileishmanial activity and low toxicity. This review documents the development of the series from the first isolated natural compounds through several hundred synthetized molecules to an optimized compound exhibiting an in vitro IC50 value of 0.2 µM against Leishmania donovani, and a selectivity index value of 187, together with in vivo activity on the L. donovani/hamster model. Attempts to establish structure-activity relationships are described, as well as studies that have attempted to determine the mechanism of action. For the latter, it appears that molecules of this series act on multiple targets, possibly including the immune system, which could explain the observed lack of drug resistance after in vitro drug pressure. We also show how nanotechnology strategies could valorize these drugs through adapted formulations and how a mechanistic targeting approach could generate new compounds with increased activity.Entities:
Keywords: 2-substituted quinolines; antileishmanial agents; antiparasitic drugs; drug targeting; leishmaniasis; mechanism of action
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35408712 PMCID: PMC9000572 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27072313
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Antileishmanial drugs most currently used in clinics.
Figure 2Aminoquinolines with antileishmanial activity.
Figure 3Chemical synthesis of 2-n-propylquinoline.
In vitro and in vivo antileishmanial activity of some of the most promising 2-substituted quinolines.
| Compound | Chemical Formula | In Vitro Activity Expressed as IC50 (µM) | Selectivity | In Vivo Significant Activity Monitored | References | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| Index = | on the Leishmania sp./BALB/c Mice Model | ||||||
| Oral | Sub-Cutaneous | Intralesional | Intraperitoneal | |||||||
| 2 |
| >100 (pro./i.a.) | >100 (i.a.) | / | 10 mg/kg/day × 10 ( | 85 mg/kg/day × 14 ( | 35 mg/kg/day × 15 ( | 100 mg/kg/day × 5 ( | Fournet et al., 1993 [ | |
| 2 |
| >100 (pro.) | / | / | / | 10 mg/kg/day × 10 ( | / | / | / | Campos-Vieira et al. 2011 [ |
| 2-(2-hydroxyprop-2-enyl)quinoline |
| 7.8 (pro.) | 2 | 4 | > 25 | 25 mg/kg/day × 15 ( | / | / | / | Campos-Vieira et al., 2008 [ |
| ( |
| 38.6 (pro.); 2.4 (i.a.) | / | / | / | 12.5 mg/kg/day × 10 ( | / | / | / | Nakayama et al., 2007 [ |
| tetraisopropyl (1-(1-(2-(quinolin-2-ylmethoxy)ethyl)-1H-1,2,3-triazol-4-yl)but-3-yne-1,1-53 diyl)bisphosphonate = Compound |
| 0.63 (i.a.) | / | / | 2.4 | In progress | / | / | / | Mao et al., 2017 [ |
| 3-(6- chloro-7-fluoro-4-morpholino) quinoline prop-2-en-1-ol = Compound |
| 0.22 (i.a.) | / | / | 187.5 | 50 mg/kg/twice daily × 5 ( | / | / | / | Gopinath et al., 2013 [ |
| Miltefosine |
| 3.6 (pro.); 7.5 (i.a.) | / | / | 55 | 7.5 mg/kg/day × 10 ( | / | / | / | Campos-Vieira et al., 2008 [ |
pro: promastigotes; i.a.: intramacrophage amastigotes.
In vitro and in vivo antileishmanial activity of liposomal formulations of 2-n-propyl quinoline and amphotericin B.
| Compound/Formulation | In Vitro Activity on | Cytotoxicity | SI = CC50/IC50 | Treatment Regimen | Number | In Vivo Activity Reduction of Parasite Burden (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IC50 (µM ± SD) | Intramacrophage | ||||||
| 2 | 3.10 ± 0.25 Eq 2 | 5.84 ± 0.31 Eq 2 | 74.09 ± 6.47 Eq 2 | 12.7 | 3 mg/kg Eq 2 | 8 | 83.8 a |
| 1.5 mg/kg Eq 2 | 8 | 32.5 a | |||||
| 0.75 mg/kg Eq 2 | 8 | 5.2 | |||||
| 2 | 2.02 ± 0.23 Eq 2 | 4.50 ± 0.23 Eq 2 | 58.31 ± 7.32 Eq 2 | 4.3 | (1.5 mg Eq 2 | 8 | 89.0 a |
| 0.003 Eq AmB | 0.006 Eq AmB | 0.08 Eq AmB | (0.75 mg Eq 2 | 8 | 86.5 a | ||
| (0.37 mg Eq 2 | 8 | 10.3 | |||||
| AmBisome® | 2.54 ± 0.70 Eq AmB | 1.51 ± 0.22 Eq AmB | 38.50 ± 2.37 Eq 2 | 25.5 | 1 mg Eq AmB/kg | 8 | 88.7 a |
| 0.25 mg Eq AmB/kg | 8 | 27.1 | |||||
| 0.006 mg Eq AmB/kg | 8 | 2.3 | |||||
| Blank liposomes | Inactive | Inactive | / | / | Same suspension | 10 | 5.7 |
| 2 | >100 | >100 | / | / | / | / | / |
| Control (vehicle) | Inactive | Inactive | Inactive | / | 0.2 mL | 12 | 0 |
2-n-PQ: 2-n-propyl quinoline; AmB: Amphotericin B; AmBisome®: Liposomal formulation of amphotericin B; 2-n-PQ-Lip: Liposomal formulation of 2-n-propyl quinoline; 2-n-PQ-AmB-Lip: Liposomal formulation of 2-n-propyl quinoline and amphotericin B; Eq 2-n-PQ: Equivalent 2-n-PQ; Eq AmB: Equivalent AmB; SI = Selectivity Index = CC50/IC50 on intramacrophage amastigotes; a Significant versus control mice: p < 0.05.
Figure 4Formulations of 2-n-propylquinoline that merit further investigation.
Figure 5Workflow for selecting the most promising compound.
Figure 6Structure–activity relationships of the 2-substituted quinolines.
Figure 7Kinetics of Leishmania sp. susceptibility to 2-n-propyl quinoline hydroxypropyl beta-cyclodextin under in vitro stepwise drug pressure [73].