| Literature DB >> 36235300 |
Aftab Ahmed1, Sajid-Ur Rehman2, Syeda Abida Ejaz1, Aamer Saeed2, Rabail Ujan3, Pervaiz Ali Channar2,4, Khalida Mahar5, Reshma Sahito6, Sarah M Albogami7, Qamar Abbas8, Mohammed Alorabi7, Michel De Waard9,10,11, Gaber El-Saber Batiha12.
Abstract
The current study focused on the laboratory approach in conjunction with computational methods for the synthesis and bioactivity assessment of unique 2-tetradecanoylimino-3-aryl-4-methyl-1,3-thiazolines (2a-2k). Processes included cyclizing 1-aroyl-3-arylthioureas with propan-2-one in the presence of trimethylamine and bromine. By using spectroscopic techniques and elemental analyses, structures were elucidated. To assess the electronic properties, density functional theory (DFT) calculations were made, while binding interactions of synthesized derivatives were studied by the molecular docking tool. Promising results were found during the evaluation of bioactivity of synthesized compounds against alkaline phosphatase. The drug likeliness score, an indicator used for any chemical entity posing as a drug, was within acceptable limits. The data suggested that most of the derivatives were potent inhibitors of alkaline phosphatase, which in turn may act as lead molecules to synthesize derivatives having desired pharmacological profiles for the treatment of specific diseases associated with abnormal levels of ALPs.Entities:
Keywords: 1-aroyl-3-arylthioureas; alkaline phosphatase; density functional theory; molecular docking
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36235300 PMCID: PMC9572939 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27196766
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.927
Figure 1Chemical structures of pharmacologically important compounds [33,34,35,36].
Figure 22-Tetradecanoylimino-3-aryl-4-methyl-1,3-thiazolines derivatives synthesis (2a–2k).
Alkaline phosphatase inhibitory activity of compounds 2a–2k.
| Compound | Alkaline Phosphatase |
|---|---|
|
| 0.019 ± 0.001 |
|
| 0.193 ± 0.004 |
|
| 0.052 ± 0.011 |
|
| 0.113 ± 0.021 |
|
| 0.086 ± 0.011 |
|
| 0.015 ± 0.011 |
|
| 0.211 ± 0.003 |
|
| 0.342 ± 0.011 |
|
| 0.292 ± 0.015 |
|
| 0.136 ± 0.002 |
|
| 0.032 ± 0.001 |
|
| 4.28 ± 0.311 |
Values are presented as mean ± SEM.
Figure 3Graphical representation of percentage free radical scavenging activity. Values are given as mean ± SEM. Concentrations of tested compounds = 100 µg/mL.
Figure 4Optimized structures of compounds 2f, 2a, 2k, and 2c.
Electronic properties of synthesized compounds (2a–2k).
| Comp. | Optimization Energy | Dipole Moment | Polarizability (α) | HOMO (eV) | LUMO (eV) | LUMO–HOMO (ΔeV) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| −1806.171 | 3.755 | 310.336 | −0.226 | −0.123 | 0.103 |
|
| −1968.498 | 5.928 | 285.312 | −0.209 | −0.0365 | 0.173 |
|
| −2425.884 | 5.285 | 296.332 | −0.214 | −0.048 | 0.167 |
|
| −1628.423 | 5.399 | 309.696 | −0.207 | −0.025 | 0.182 |
|
| −1968.500 | 3.970 | 288.829 | −0.2131 | −0.038 | 0.175 |
|
| −1968.500 | 4.385 | 288.499 | −0.2134 | −0.040 | 0.174 |
|
| −1714.446 | 3.681 | 298.769 | −0.2214 | −0.107 | 0.115 |
|
| −1917.773 | 4.230 | 309.403 | −0.223 | −0.132 | 0.092 |
|
| −1699.835 | 4.326 | 299.960 | −0.185 | −0.042 | 0.144 |
|
| −2132.772 | 4.777 | 312.171 | −0.195 | −0.047 | 0.148 |
|
| −1550.211 | 6.024 | 289.314 | −0.205 | −0.024 | 0.181 |
Figure 5HOMO–LUMO orbitals (2a, 2c, 2f, 2k). Red, yellow, and blue atoms indicate O, S, and N atoms.
Global reactivity descriptors.
| Comp. | Chemical Potential µ | Softness S | Hardness ƞ | Electrophilicity Index ω | Electronegativity X |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| −0.175 | 9.720 | 0.051 | 0.296 | 0.175 |
|
| −0.123 | 5.782 | 0.086 | 0.087 | 0.123 |
|
| −0.131 | 6.002 | 0.083 | 0.103 | 0.131 |
|
| −0.115 | 5.484 | 0.091 | 0.073 | 0.115 |
|
| −0.125 | 5.701 | 0.088 | 0.090 | 0.125 |
|
| −0.127 | 5.764 | 0.087 | 0.092 | 0.127 |
|
| −0.164 | 8.730 | 0.057 | 0.235 | 0.164 |
|
| −0.178 | 10.918 | 0.046 | 0.344 | 0.178 |
|
| −0.114 | 6.965 | 0.072 | 0.090 | 0.114 |
|
| −0.121 | 6.750 | 0.074 | 0.099 | 0.121 |
|
| −0.114 | 9.720 | 0.091 | 0.072 | 0.114 |
The docking energy values of all synthetic derivatives.
| Compound | Binding Energy (Kcal/mol) |
|---|---|
|
| 4.9 |
|
| 5 |
|
| 4.9 |
|
| 4.7 |
|
| 4.6 |
|
| 5.3 |
|
| 4.7 |
|
| 4.7 |
|
| 4.8 |
|
| 4.4 |
|
| 5.1 |
|
| 5.0 |
Figure 6The 2D and 3D protein ligand (2f) interactions.
Cheminformatics properties (2a–2k).
| Comp. | MW | nHBA | nHBD | LogP | PSA (A2) | Volume (A3) | Drug Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 470.24 | 6 | 0 | 7.05 | 79.81 | 513.39 | −1.85 |
|
| 434.22 | 3 | 0 | 8.12 | 24.49 | 470.26 | −0.56 |
|
| 468.18 | 3 | 0 | 8.71 | 24.49 | 485.93 | −0.36 |
|
| 442.30 | 3 | 0 | 8.49 | 24.19 | 516.74 | −0.70 |
|
| 434.22 | 3 | 0 | 8.24 | 24.79 | 471.18 | −0.08 |
|
| 434.21 | 3 | 0 | 8.20 | 24.60 | 470.18 | −0.09 |
|
| 445.24 | 5 | 0 | 7.25 | 63.05 | 479.62 | −0.65 |
|
| 490.22 | 7 | 0 | 6.86 | 100.71 | 506.39 | −1.51 |
|
| 444.24 | 5 | 1 | 7.23 | 53.20 | 487.09 | −0.38 |
|
| 480.21 | 6 | 1 | 7.60 | 67.20 | 496.89 | −0.69 |
|
| 414.27 | 3 | 0 | 7.92 | 24.79 | 474.93 | −0.06 |