| Literature DB >> 35631402 |
Rashmika Moodley1, Chakes Mashaba1, Goitsemodimo H Rakodi2, Nomagugu B Ncube1, Mabuatsela V Maphoru2, Mohammed O Balogun3, Audrey Jordan4, Digby F Warner4,5,6, Rene Khan7, Matshawandile Tukulula1.
Abstract
A series of 25 new benzothiazole-urea-quinoline hybrid compounds were synthesized successfully via a three-step synthetic sequence involving an amidation coupling reaction as a critical step. The structures of the synthesized compounds were confirmed by routine spectroscopic tools (1H and 13C NMR and IR) and by mass spectrometry (HRMS). In vitro evaluation of these hybrid compounds for their antitubercular inhibitory activity against the Mycobacterium tuberculosis H37Rv pMSp12::GPF bioreporter strain was undertaken. Of the 25 tested compounds, 17 exhibited promising anti-TB activities of less than 62.5 µM (MIC90). Specifically, 13 compounds (6b, 6g, 6i-j, 6l, 6o-p, 6r-t, and 6x-y) showed promising activity with MIC90 values in the range of 1-10 µM, while compound 6u, being the most active, exhibited sub-micromolar activity (0.968 µM) in the CAS assay. In addition, minimal cytotoxicity against the HepG2 cell line (cell viability above 75%) in 11 of the 17 compounds, at their respective MIC90 concentrations, was observed, with 6u exhibiting 100% cell viability. The hybridization of the quinoline, urea, and benzothiazole scaffolds demonstrated a synergistic relationship because the activities of resultant hybrids were vastly improved compared to the individual entities. In silico ADME predictions showed that the majority of these compounds have drug-like properties and are less likely to potentially cause cardiotoxicity (QPlogHERG > -5). The results obtained in this study indicate that the majority of the synthesized compounds could serve as valuable starting points for future optimizations as new antimycobacterial agents.Entities:
Keywords: HepG2 cell line; antitubercular activity; cytotoxicity; in silico ADME properties; minimum inhibitory concentration; quinoline–urea–benzothiazole hybrids
Year: 2022 PMID: 35631402 PMCID: PMC9146500 DOI: 10.3390/ph15050576
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmaceuticals (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8247
Figure 1Breakthrough anti-TB compounds in various stages of development, approval, and use.
Figure 2Components making up the desired quinoline–urea–benzothiazole hybrid compounds.
Scheme 1Reagents and conditions: (i) heat at 80 °C, 1 h (without stirring), then at 135 °C, 4 h (with stirring); (ii) CDI, dry DCM, reflux at 45 °C, 20 h; (iii) dry ACN, reflux at 85 °C, 24 h.
Yields and melting points of target hybrid compounds 6a–y.
| Compound | Diamine Linker | X | m.p. (°C) | Yield (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| H | 298–302 | 88.52 |
|
| CF3 | 343–345 | 84.81 | |
|
| F | 340–342 | 86.11 | |
|
| NO2 | 339–341 | 78.75 | |
|
|
| CF3 | 249–251 | 64.90 |
|
| Cl | 244–245 | 83.23 | |
|
| Br | 240–242 | 78.41 | |
|
| F | 230 –232 | 75.23 | |
|
|
| CF3 | 198–200 | 83.42 |
|
| Cl | 286–288 | 76.82 | |
|
| CH3 | 234–239 | 55.94 | |
|
| H | 285–288 | 59.31 | |
|
| Br | 254–257 | 60.20 | |
|
| F | 241–243 | 78.50 | |
|
|
| Cl | 189–191 | 83.04 |
|
| Br | 192–194 | 82.34 | |
|
| F | 256–259 | 92.05 | |
|
|
| Cl | 239–241 | 79.72 |
|
| Br | 192–194 | 82.32 | |
|
| F | 256–259 | 92.03 | |
|
|
| CF3 | 243–245 | 89.01 |
|
| F | 228–230 | 87.52 | |
|
| Br | 246–248 | 89.99 | |
|
| CH3 | 229–231 | 78.81 | |
|
| Cl | 301–304 | 81.19 |
In vitro 90% Mtb inhibition in 7H0/CAS/Glu/Tx and 7H9/ADC/Glu/Tw with clogP values of the target compounds 6a–y.
| Compound | a 7H9/CAS/GLU/Tx | b 7H9/ADC/GLU/Tw | c clogP |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7 Days (µM) | 7 Days (µM) | ||
|
| 21.001 | >125 | 4.32 |
|
| 4.943 | 6.854 | 5.22 |
|
| >125 | >125 | 4.44 |
|
| >125 | >125 | 4.10 |
|
| ND | ND | 6.35 |
|
| 125 | >125 | 6.10 |
|
| 8.89 | 14.898 | 6.25 |
|
| 62.5 | 62.5 | 5.53 |
|
| 7.812 | 12.837 | 6.72 |
|
| 4.389 | 11.748 | 6.48 |
|
| 31.25 | 62.33 | 6.25 |
|
| 9.628 | 9.447 | 5.75 |
|
| 15.924 | 16.863 | 6.63 |
|
| >125 | 125 | 5.91 |
|
| 7.455 | 23.529 | 6.49 |
|
| 7.812 | 15.609 | 6.64 |
|
| >125 | >125 | 5.92 |
|
| 7.597 | 14.617 | 7.54 |
|
| 8.76 | 20.954 | 7.69 |
|
| 6.974 | 31.25 | 6.97 |
|
| 0.968 | 5.732 | 6.66 |
|
| >125 | >125 | 5.84 |
|
| 8.191 | 14.001 | 6.56 |
|
| 7.219 | 10.35 | 6.19 |
|
| 2.331 | 8.455 | 6.41 |
|
| >125 | >125 | 4.07 |
|
| >125 | >125 | 1.97 |
|
| >125 | >125 | 0.474 |
|
| >125 | >125 | −1.66 |
|
| >125 | >125 | - |
|
| 0.03 | 0.001 | 3.71 |
a Protein-poor Mtb media. b Protein-rich Mtb media; ND = not determined. c Calculated using PerkinElmer ChemDraw Professional V18.0.0.231 [46].
Figure 3The dose–response curves for HepG2 cells exposed to 0–200 µM concentrations of the selected number of synthesized compounds. The 20% inhibitory concentration (IC20) and cell viability at the 90% Mtb inhibitory concentration for CAS (MIC90) were extrapolated from the dose–response curve.
In silico ADME and drug-likeness properties of the selected compounds.
| Compound | % Human Oral Absorption a | QPlogHERG b | QPlogBB c | QPlogKhsa d | Ro5 e |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 91 | −5.3 | −0.594 | −0.093 | 0 |
|
| 100 | −5.235 | −0.351 | 0.142 | 0 |
|
| 93 | −5.169 | −0.487 | −0.056 | 0 |
|
| 71 | −5.211 | −1.744 | −0.117 | 0 |
|
| 100 | −5.661 | −0.371 | 0.363 | 0 |
|
| 100 | −5.094 | −0.378 | 0.184 | 0 |
|
| 100 | −5.119 | −0.369 | 0.205 | 0 |
|
| 100 | −5.062 | −0.425 | 0.116 | 0 |
|
| 100 | −5.748 | −0.648 | 0.458 | 0 |
|
| 100 | −5.695 | −0.48 | 0.313 | 0 |
|
| 100 | −5.854 | −0.865 | 0.382 | 0 |
|
| 100 | −5.809 | −0.634 | 0.203 | 0 |
|
| 100 | −5.725 | −0.477 | 0.337 | 0 |
|
| 100 | −5.676 | −0.529 | 0.243 | 0 |
|
| 100 | −5.884 | −0.831 | 0.433 | 0 |
|
| 91 | −5.904 | −0.822 | 0.456 | 1 |
|
| 100 | −5.851 | −0.843 | 0.427 | 0 |
|
| 100 | −6.077 | −0.863 | 0.637 | 1 |
|
| 83 | −6.212 | −0.904 | 0.695 | 2 |
|
| 96 | −6.049 | −0.908 | 0.563 | 1 |
|
| 95 | −5.776 | −0.319 | 0.511 | 1 |
|
| 100 | −5.736 | −0.459 | 0.303 | 0 |
|
| 100 | −5.777 | −0.402 | 0.396 | 0 |
|
| 100 | −5.749 | −0.593 | 0.414 | 0 |
|
| 100 | −5.753 | −0.409 | 0.374 | 0 |
a % Human Oral Absorption: Predicted human absorption on 0 to 100% scale (recommended: >80% is good and <25% is poor). b QPlog HERG: Predicted IC50 values for blockage of HERG K+ channels (below −5 is a concern). c QPlogBB: Predicted brain–blood partition coefficient (recommended: −3.0–1.2 range). d QPlogKhsa: Prediction of binding to human serum albumin (recommended: −1.5–1.5 range). e Ro5: Number of violations of Lipinski’s rule (recommended: a maximum of four violations).