| Literature DB >> 35991984 |
Ratchanok Pingaew1, Veda Prachayasittikul2, Apilak Worachartcheewan3, Anusit Thongnum4, Supaluk Prachayasittikul2, Somsak Ruchirawat5,6,7, Virapong Prachayasittikul8.
Abstract
Sulfur-containing compounds are considered as attractive pharmacophores for discovery of new drugs regarding their versatile properties to interact with various biological targets. Quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) modeling is one of well-recognized in silico tools for successful drug discovery. In this work, a set of 38 sulfur-containing derivatives (Types I-VI) were evaluated for their in vitro anticancer activities against 6 cancer cell lines. In vitro findings indicated that compound 13 was the most potent cytotoxic agent toward HuCCA-1 cell line (IC50 = 14.47 μM). Compound 14 exhibited the most potent activities against 3 investigated cell lines (i.e., HepG2, A549, and MDA-MB-231: IC50 range = 1.50-16.67 μM). Compound 10 showed the best activity for MOLT-3 (IC50 = 1.20 μM) whereas compound 22 was noted for T47D (IC50 = 7.10 μM). Subsequently, six QSAR models were built using multiple linear regression (MLR) algorithm. All constructed QSAR models provided reliable predictive performance (training sets: Rtr range = 0.8301-0.9636 and RMSEtr = 0.0666-0.2680; leave-one-out cross validation sets: RCV range = 0.7628-0.9290 and RMSECV = 0.0926-0.3188). From QSAR modeling, chemical properties such as mass, polarizability, electronegativity, van der Waals volume, octanol-water partition coefficient, as well as frequency/presence of C-N, F-F, and N-N bonds in the molecule are essential key predictors for anticancer activities of the compounds. In summary, a series of promising fluoro-thiourea derivatives (10, 13, 14, 22) were suggested as potential molecules for future development as anticancer agents. Key structure-activity knowledge obtained from the QSAR modeling was suggested to be advantageous for suggesting the effective rational design of the related sulfur-containing anticancer compounds with improved bioactivities and properties.Entities:
Keywords: Anticancer activity; QSAR; Sulfonamide; Thiourea
Year: 2022 PMID: 35991984 PMCID: PMC9389185 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10067
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Figure 1Chemical structures of compounds 1–38.
Cytotoxic activity (IC50, μM) of S-containing derivatives (1–38) against 6 cancer cell lines.
| Compound | Cancer cell lines | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HuCCA-1 | HepG2 | A549 | MOLT-3 | MDA-MB-231 | T47D | |
| NC | 139.66 ± 4.97 | NC | 128.72 ± 1.74 | NC | NC | |
| NC | 141.40 ± 2.51 | NC | 104.91 ± 1.01 | NC | NC | |
| 80.79 ± 1.74 | 84.51 ± 2.34 | 77.50 ± 0.97 | 31.43 ± 0.62 | 105.43 ± 4.81 | 80.97 ± 1.68 | |
| 98.59 ± 1.57 | 71.72 ± 0.95 | 101.61 ± 1.54 | 24.41 ± 0.97 | 99.05 ± 6.47 | 69.42 ± 0.30 | |
| 72.34 ± 2.87 | 102.11 ± 2.84 | 68.63 ± 0.64 | 14.66 ± 0.20 | 115.45 ± 2.61 | 62.45 ± 4.85 | |
| 67.51 ± 0.83 | 16.28 ± 0.67 | 61.69 ± 2.35 | 5.07 ± 0.21 | 20.35 ± 0.25 | 52.86 ± 2.24 | |
| 99.29 ± 2.21 | 22.80 ± 0.19 | 59.16 ± 1.67 | 11.07 ± 0.62 | 119.51 ± 4.42 | 70.44 ± 1.58 | |
| NC | NC | NC | 13.90 ± 1.09 | 91.83 ± 2.19 | NC | |
| NC | NC | NC | 32.32 ± 6.92 | NC | NC | |
| 39.11 ± 2.88 | 14.94 ± 0.29 | 52.99 ± 2.40 | 43.34 ± 0.04 | 95.38 ± 4.80 | ||
| 30.22 ± 1.25 | 13.29 ± 1.05 | NC | 2.23 ± 0.26 | 14.74 ± 0.33 | 31.54 ± 2.16 | |
| NC | 41.30 ± 0.03 | NC | 2.62 ± 0.28 | 13.70 ± 0.03 | NC | |
| 8.40 ± 0.43 | 17.97 ± 2.96 | 1.55 ± 0.17 | 9.68 ± 0.84 | 17.33 ± 1.77 | ||
| 18.82 ± 2.34 | 3.63 ± 0.46 | 21.12 ± 0.08 | ||||
| 14.84 ± 0.50 | 10.53 ± 0.58 | 44.71 ± 3.49 | 3.40 ± 0.44 | 12.55 ± 0.82 | 27.59 ± 0.42 | |
| 82.83 ± 8.48 | 21.67 ± 2.24 | NC | NC | 69.46 ± 2.05 | NC | |
| NC | NC | NC | NC | 90.12 ± 2.52 | 74.92 ± 0.96 | |
| 99.54 ± 5.96 | 86.88 ± 4.58 | NC | NC | NC | 106.45 ± 3.67 | |
| NC | NC | NC | NC | NC | 73.53 ± 0.96 | |
| NC | NC | NC | NC | 60.81 ± 4.62 | 83.48 ± 3.67 | |
| NC | 15.52 ± 1.12 | NC | 6.06 ± 0.79 | NC | 71.60 ± 5.30 | |
| 30.95 ± 4.58 | 8.81 ± 0.71 | 26.16 ± 0.35 | 2.49 ± 0.19 | 12.70 ± 0.40 | ||
| NC | 61.02 ± 2.56 | NC | 11.40 ± 0.45 | 59.01 ± 4.10 | 80.65 ± 7.55 | |
| 43.23 ± 3.20 | 58.28 ± 1.62 | NC | 30.07 ± 0.67 | 61.79 ± 0.77 | 43.93 ± 0.85 | |
| 77.73 ± 2.06 | 46.94 ± 3.37 | 78.30 ± 3.45 | 31.85 ± 14.34 | 42.21 ± 2.32 | 30.92 ± 0.71 | |
| NC | 74.52 ± 5.55 | NC | NC | 31.14 ± 0.57 | NC | |
| NC | 72.08 ± 1.30 | NC | 43.06 ± 0.98 | 68.30 ± 0.35 | 75.27 ± 2.04 | |
| 34.51 ± 1.13 | 49.69 ± 1.56 | 39.14 ± 1.17 | 16.52 ± 0.62 | 54.33 ± 0.64 | 37.47 ± 2.15 | |
| 81.16 ± 4.98 | 16.38 ± 1.25 | NC | NC | 57.48 ± 5.48 | 75.38 ± 5.29 | |
| NC | NC | NC | 38.41 ± 2.08 | NC | 69.28 ± 3.55 | |
| 38.52 ± 0.55 | 51.77 ± 0.31 | NC | 16.92 ± 0.38 | 54.39 ± 1.77 | 39.29 ± 2.02 | |
| NC | NC | NC | 34.04 ± 4.34 | NC | 75.36 ± 2.15 | |
| NC | NC | NC | 24.97 ± 0.50 | 63.67 ± 0.33 | NC | |
| NC | NC | NC | 50.61 ± 1.01 | NC | 90.61 ± 0.95 | |
| NC | 74.37 ± 5.31 | NC | NC | NC | NC | |
| 97.96 ± 0.67 | NC | NC | NC | 95.32 ± 2.56 | NC | |
| NC | NC | NC | 48.00 ± 1.31 | NC | NC | |
| 97.08 ± 2.38 | 62.03 ± 1.70 | 97.96 ± 3.20 | 35.33 ± 0.55 | 58.97 ± 0.79 | 87.22 ± 4.39 | |
| Doxorubicin | 0.42 ± 0.02 | 0.57 ± 0.05 | 0.37 ± 0.02 | - | 1.97 ± 0.30 | 0.88 ± 0.02 |
| Etoposide | - | 26.05 ± 0.50 | - | 0.041 ± 0.003 | - | - |
NC: IC50 > 50 μg/mL denoted as non-cytotoxic. IC50 is a concentration of compound required to produce 50% of inhibitory effect.
The most potent compounds against each cell line displaying the lowest IC50 values were highlighted in bold.
Cancer cell lines comprise the following: HuCCA-1 cholangiocarcinoma cancer cell line, HepG2 hepatocellular carcinoma cell line, A549 lung carcinoma cell line, MOLT-3 lymphoblastic leukemia cell line, MDA-MB-231 hormone-independent breast cancer, and T47D hormone-dependent breast cancer.
Cytotoxic activities against HuCCA-1, HepG2, A549 and MOLT-3 have been reported in [32, 33].
Cytotoxic activity against T47D has been reported in [20].
Doxorubicin and etoposide were used as reference drugs.
Definitions of informative descriptors for QSAR modeling.
| Descriptor | Type | Definition |
|---|---|---|
| QZZm | Geometrical descriptors | Quadrupole z-component value/weighted by mass |
| B08[N–N] | 2D Atom Pairs | Presence/absence of N–N at topological distance 8 |
| Mor03m | 3D-MoRSE descriptors | Signal 03/weighted by mass |
| Mor07u | 3D-MoRSE descriptors | Signal 07/unweighted |
| Mor29v | 3D-MoRSE descriptors | Signal 29/weighted by van der Waals volume |
| Mor07e | 3D-MoRSE descriptors | Signal 07/weighted by Sanderson electronegativity |
| IC2 | Information indices | Information Content index (neighborhood symmetry of 2-order) |
| Mor11p | 3D-MoRSE descriptors | Signal 11/weighted by polarizability |
| cRo5 | Drug-like indices | Complementary Lipinski Alert index |
| F01[C–N] | 2D Atom Pairs | Frequency of C–N at topological distance 1 |
| E2m | WHIM descriptors | 2nd component accessibility directional WHIM index/weighted by mass |
| MLOGP | Molecular properties | Moriguchi octanol-water partition coefficient (logP) |
| ATS7m | 2D autocorrelations | Broto-Moreau autocorrelation of lag 7 (log function) weighted by mass |
| RDF090m | RDF descriptors | Radial Distribution Function - 090/weighted by mass |
| MLOGP2 | Molecular properties | Squared Moriguchi octanol-water partition coefficient (logPˆ2) |
| F06[F–F] | 2D Atom Pairs | Frequency of F–F at topological distance 6 |
| RDF095m | RDF descriptors | Radial Distribution Function - 095/weighted by mass |
| RDF150m | RDF descriptors | Radial Distribution Function - 150/weighted by mass |
Predictors of HuCCA-1 model (Eq. 1).
Predictors of HepG2 model (Eq. 2).
Predictors of A549 model (Eq. 3).
Predictors of MOLT-3 model (Eq. 4).
Predictors of MDA-MB-231 model (Eq. 5).
Predictors of T47D model (Eq. 6).
Figure 2Plots of experimental VS predicted activities from 6 QSAR models (Eqs. (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6)). Plots of training set are presented as circle symbols and solid regression lines whereas those of testing set (leave-one-out cross validation) are presented as triangles and dashed regression lines. A: HuCCA-1 model, Eq. (1) (N = 20), B: HepG2 model, Eq. (2) (N = 27), C: A549 model, Eq. (3) (N = 13), D: MOLT-3 model, Eq. (4) (N = 29), E: MDA-MB-231 model, Eq. (5) (N = 27), F: T47D model, Eq. (6) (N = 27).
Predictive performance of the constructed∗ QSAR models.
| Cell line | N | Training | LOOCV | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rtr | RMSEtr | RCV | RMSECV | ||
| 20 | 0.8528 | 0.1449 | 0.8528 | 0.1646 | |
| 27 | 0.8520 | 0.2367 | 0.7628 | 0.2952 | |
| 13 | 0.9636 | 0.0666 | 0.9290 | 0.0926 | |
| 29 | 0.8690 | 0.2680 | 0.8114 | 0.3188 | |
| 27 | 0.8301 | 0.1958 | 0.7766 | 0.2217 | |
| 27 | 0.8465 | 0.1424 | 0.7966 | 0.1618 | |
Rtr: Correlation coefficient of the training set.
RMSEtr: Root mean square error of the training set.
RCV: Correlation coefficient of the leave-one-out cross validation set.
RMSECV: Root mean square error of the leave-one-out cross validation set.
Training set is a dataset used for construction of the model. The dataset includes a set of both descriptor values (X variables) and activities (Y variables).
LOOCV set is an excluded sample in which its activity (Y variable) was predicted using the relationship model constructed by the training set.