| Literature DB >> 35684435 |
Fahad Hussain1, Fahad Imtiaz Rahman1, Poushali Saha1, Atsushi Mikami2, Takashi Osawa2, Satoshi Obika2, S M Abdur Rahman1.
Abstract
Chemical modification of sugars and nucleosides has a long history of producing compounds with improved selectivity and efficacy. In this study, several modified sugars (2-3) and ribonucleoside analogs (4-8) have been synthesized from α-d-glucose in a total of 21 steps. The compounds were tested for peripheral anti-nociceptive characteristics in the acetic acid-induced writhing assay in mice, where compounds 2, 7, and 8 showed a significant reduction in the number of writhes by 56%, 62%, and 63%, respectively. The compounds were also tested for their cytotoxic potential against human HeLa cell line via trypan blue dye exclusion test followed by cell counting kit-8 (CCK-8) assay. Compound 6 demonstrated significant cytotoxic activity with an IC50 value of 54 µg/mL. Molecular docking simulations revealed that compounds 2, 7, and 8 had a comparable binding affinity to cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1) and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) enzymes. Additionally, the bridged nucleoside analogs 7 and 8 potently inhibited adenosine kinase enzyme as well, which indicates an alternate mechanistic pathway behind their anti-nociceptive action. Cytotoxic compound 6 demonstrated strong docking with cancer drug targets human cytidine deaminase, proto-oncogene tyrosine-protein kinase Src, human thymidine kinase 1, human thymidylate synthase, and human adenosine deaminase 2. This is the first ever reporting of the synthesis and analgesic property of compound 8 and the cytotoxic potential of compound 6.Entities:
Keywords: analgesic; anticancer; molecular docking; nucleoside analogs; sugar derivatives; synthesis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35684435 PMCID: PMC9182362 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27113499
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.927
Scheme 1Synthesis of sugar derivatives (2–3) and nucleoside analogs (4–8) from α-d-glucose. (i) (a) H2SO4, CuSO4,(CH3)2CO, (b) TEMPO, NaOCl, CH2Cl2, KBr, (c) NaBH4, CH3OH; (ii) (a) BnBr, NaH, DMF, (b) 80% CH3COOH, (c) NaIO4, THF, H2O, (d) 37% HCHO, C4H8O, NaOH; (iii) (a) BnBr, NaH, DMF; (b) (CH3CO)2O, H2SO4, CH3COOH; (c) thymine, BSA, CH3CN, TMSOTf; (iv) 28% Aq. NH3, CH3OH; (v) (a) BnBr, NaH, DMF, (b) TBDPSCl, imidazole, DMF, (c) (CH3CO)2O, H2SO4, CH3COOH, (d) thymine, BSA, CH3CN, TMSOTf; (vi) (a) BnBr, NaH, DMF, (b) TsCl, DMAP, N(C2H5)3, CH2Cl2, (c) (CH3CO)2O, H2SO4, CH3COOH, (d) thymine, BSA, TMSOTf, CH3CN, (e) K2CO3, THF, CH3OH, (f) 20% Pd(OH)2 over carbon, C2H5OH; (vii) isobutyric anhydride, pyridine.
Figure 1Percent inhibition of writhing at different concentrations (mg/kg) of tested compounds. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 and *** p < 0.001 indicate significant difference compared to negative control (0.9% NaCl saline).
Determination of percentage of cell viability after administration of synthesized compounds in the trypan blue dye exclusion test.
| Compound | Concentration (µg/mL) | Live Cell Count (Approx.) | Cell Viability % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control | - | 20,000 | 100% |
| DMSO (2.5%) | - | 19,000 | >95% |
|
| 500 | 19,000 | >95% |
|
| 500 | 19,000 | >95% |
|
| 500 | 14,000–16,000 | 70–80% |
|
| 500 | 8000–10,000 | 40–50% |
|
| 500 | <1000 | <5% |
|
| 500 | 19,000 | >95% |
|
| 500 | 14,000–16,000 | 70–80% |
Figure 2Cell viability visualized under an inverted microscope after administration of synthesized compounds in the trypan blue dye exclusion test. (a) The >95% viable cells after administration of 2.5% DMSO; (b) About 50–60% HeLa cells ruptured due to administration of 500 µg/mL compound 5; (c) More than 95% rupture of HeLa cells after administration of 500 µg/mL compound 6.
Determination of IC50 (µM/mL) from the cell viability observed after administration of different concentrations of compound 6 on HeLa cancer cell line.
| Compound | Concentration (µg/mL) | Cell Viability % | Mean Absorbance at 490 nm | % Growth Inhibition | IC50 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DMSO (2.5%) | - | 100 | 3.9405 | 0 | - |
|
| 15.62 | 99.48 | 3.8395 | 0.52 | >250 µg/mL |
| 31.25 | 99.61 | 3.8445 | 0.39 | ||
| 62.5 | 99.68 | 3.8475 | 0.32 | ||
| 125 | 99.98 | 3.859 | 0.02 | ||
| 250 | 99.62 | 3.845 | 0.38 | ||
|
| 15.62 | 97.94 | 3.8595 | 2.06 | 54 µg/mL (76.4 µM) |
| 31.25 | 91.91 | 3.622 | 8.09 | ||
| 62.5 | 35.03 | 1.3805 | 64.97 | ||
| 125 | 30.89 | 1.2175 | 69.11 | ||
| 250 | 25.69 | 1.0125 | 74.31 |
Binding affinities (kcal/mol) of standard ligands and synthesized compounds that demonstrated analgesic activity against target proteins.
| Compound | 1EQG | 5IKT | 4O1L |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard | −7.7 | −8.4 | −8.9 |
|
| −6.9 | −7.1 | −6.5 |
|
| −6.1 | −7.0 | −7.9 |
|
| −6.8 | −6.8 | −7.4 |
Standard ligands for cyclooxygenase-1 (PDB: 1EQG) and cyclooxygenase-2 (PDB: 5IKT) is aceclofenac; for human adenosine kinase (PDB: 4O1L) is 5-ethynyl-7-(beta-D-ribofuranosyl)-7H-pyrrolo [2,3-d]pyrimidin-4-amine.
Binding affinities (kcal/mol) of standard ligands and cytotoxic compound 6 against target proteins.
| Compound | 1MQ0 | 3G5D | 1XBT | 6ZXO | 3LGG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standard | −6.8 | −9.4 | −8.0 | −9.1 | −7.4 |
|
| −7.1 | −7.6 | −8.0 | −7.8 | −8.0 |
Standard ligands for human cytidine deaminase (PDB: 1MQ0) is 1-beta-ribofuranosyl-1,3-diazepinone; for proto-oncogene tyrosine-protein kinase Src (PDB: 3G5D) is dasatinib; for human thymidine kinase 1 (PDB: 1XBT) is thymidine-5′-triphosphate; for human thymidylate synthase (PDB: 6ZXO) is 5-fluorodeoxyuridine monophosphate; for human adenosine deaminase 2 (PDB: 3LGG) is coformycin.
Figure 3Pictorial representation (2D and 3D) of docking results for best-ranked pose of key interactions of ligands with the binding pocket of cyclooxygenase-1 (PDB: 1EQG). (a) Aceclofenac with 1EQG; (b) compound 2 with 1EQG; (c) compound 7 with 1EQG; (d) compound 8 with 1EQG.
Figure 4Pictorial representation (2D and 3D) of docking results for best-ranked pose of key interactions of ligands with the binding pocket of cyclooxygenase-2 (PDB: 5IKT). (a) Aceclofenac with 5IKT; (b) compound 2 with 5IKT; (c) compound 7 with 5IKT; (d) compound 8 with 5IKT.
Figure 5Pictorial representation (2D and 3D) of docking results for best-ranked pose of key interactions of ligands with the binding pocket of human adenosine kinase (PDB: 4O1L). (a) 5-ethynyl-7-(beta-d-ribofuranosyl)-7H-pyrrolo [2,3-d]pyrimidin-4-amine with 4O1L; (b) compound 2 with 4O1L; (c) compound 7 with 4O1L; (d) compound 8 with 4O1L.
Figure 6Pictorial representation (2D and 3D) of docking results for best-ranked pose of key interactions of ligands with the binding pocket of human cytidine deaminase (PDB: 1MQ0). (a) 1-beta-ribofuranosyl-1,3-diazepinone with 1MQ0; (b) compound 6 with 1MQ0.
Figure 7Pictorial representation (2D and 3D) of docking results for best-ranked pose of key interactions of ligands with the binding pocket of proto-oncogene tyrosine-protein kinase Src (PDB: 3G5D). (a) dasatinib with 3G5D; (b) compound 6 with 3G5D.
Figure 8Pictorial representation (2D and 3D) of docking results for best-ranked pose of key interactions of ligands with the binding pocket of human thymidine kinase 1 (PDB: 1XBT). (a) Thymidine-5′-triphosphate with 1XBT; (b) compound 6 with 1XBT.
Figure 9Pictorial representation (2D and 3D) of docking results for best-ranked pose of key interactions of ligands with the binding pocket of human thymidylate synthase (PDB: 6ZXO). (a) 5-fluorodeoxyuridine monophosphate with 6ZXO; (b) compound 6 with 6ZXO.
Figure 10Pictorial representation (2D and 3D) of docking results for best-ranked pose of key interactions of ligands with the binding pocket of human adenosine deaminase 2 (PDB: 3LGG). (a) Coformycin with 3LGG; (b) compound 6 with 3LGG.