| Literature DB >> 36235304 |
Harsh Kumar1, Navidha Aggarwal2, Minakshi Gupta Marwaha3, Aakash Deep4, Hitesh Chopra5, Mohammed M Matin6, Arpita Roy7, Talha Bin Emran8,9, Yugal Kishore Mohanta10, Ramzan Ahmed10, Tapan Kumar Mohanta11, Muthupandian Saravanan12, Rakesh Kumar Marwaha1, Ahmed Al-Harrasi11.
Abstract
Heterocyclic compounds containing nitrogen and sulfur, especially those in the thiazole family, have generated special interest in terms of their synthetic chemistry, which is attributable to their ubiquitous existence in pharmacologically dynamic natural products and also as overwhelmingly powerful agrochemicals and pharmaceuticals. The thiazolidin-2,4-dione (TZD) moiety plays a central role in the biological functioning of several essential molecules. The availability of substitutions at the third and fifth positions of the Thiazolidin-2,4-dione (TZD) scaffold makes it a highly utilized and versatile moiety that exhibits a wide range of biological activities. TZD analogues exhibit their hypoglycemic activity by improving insulin resistance through PPAR-γ receptor activation, their antimicrobial action by inhibiting cytoplasmic Mur ligases, and their antioxidant action by scavenging reactive oxygen species (ROS). In this manuscript, an effort has been made to review the research on TZD derivatives as potential antimicrobial, antioxidant, and antihyperglycemic agents from the period from 2010 to the present date, along with their molecular mechanisms and the information on patents granted to TZD analogues.Entities:
Keywords: antihyperglycemic activity; antimicrobial activity; antioxidant activity; mechanism of action; patents granted; thiazolidin-2,4-dione derivatives
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36235304 PMCID: PMC9572748 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27196763
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.927
Figure 1Structure of the thiazolidine-2,4-dione scaffold.
Figure 2Antidiabetic molecules developed with the thiazolidin-2,4-dione moiety.
Figure 3Principal functional domains of PPARs.
Biological functions of PPARs.
| Isoform | Agonists | Location | Biological Functions |
|---|---|---|---|
| PPAR-γ | TZDs, unsaturated fatty acids (oleate, linoleate), arachidonic and eicosapentaenoic acids, and prostanoid. | Mainly in the brown and white adipose tissue and, to a lesser extent, in the placenta, colon mucosa, and immune cells (Peyer’s patches in the digestive tract, monocytes, and macrophages). | - Sensitization of insulin. |
| PPAR-α | fibrates (clofibrate, fenofibrate, and bezafibrate), unsaturated fatty acids, 8-(S) hydroxyl eicosatetraenoic acid, B4 leukotriene, prostaglandin E, or farnesol. | Kidney cortex, skeletal muscles, enterocytes, cardiomyocytes, and hepatocytes. | - Oxidation of fatty acids, mostly in the heart, liver, and muscles. |
| PPAR-β/δ | Fatty acids | In almost all the tissues, especially in the brain, skin and, adipose tissue. | - Regulates fat oxidation. |
Figure 4Gene transcription mechanisms of PPAR.
Figure 5Gene trans-repression mechanisms of PPAR.
Figure 6Various target organs/sites of TZD-PPARγ.
Figure 7Peptidoglycan peptide stem formation by the Mur ligases enzymes.
Figure 8ROS generation and antioxidant scavenging mechanism of TZDs.
Antimicrobial results of the compounds (am1–am3).
| Compounds | Microbial Strains (MIC = µg/mL) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bacterial Species | Fungal Species | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 50 | 250 | 500 | 500 | 250 | 500 | 500 |
|
| 500 | 500 | 50 | 200 | 500 | 250 | 250 |
|
| 100 | 200 | 250 | 500 | 100 | 1000 | 1000 |
| Ampicillin | 100 | 100 | 250 | 100 | - | - | - |
| Griseofulvin | - | - | - | - | 500 | 100 | 100 |
Figure 9Molecular structures of the compounds (am1–am12).
Antimicrobial results of the compounds (am4–am5).
| Compounds | Microbial Strains (MIC = µg/mL) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Bacterial Species | |||
|
|
|
| |
|
| >64 | >64 | 8 |
|
| >64 | >64 | 8 |
Antimicrobial results (inhibitory zone = mm diameter) of the compounds (am6–am7).
| Compounds | Microbial Strains (Inhibitory Zone = mm Diameter) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bacterial Species | Fungal Species | |||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 15 | 19 | 20 | 16 | 18 | 15 | 17 | 19 |
|
| 17 | 18 | 21 | 15 | 19 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| Ciprofloxacin | 19 | 20 | 25 | 18 | - | - | - | - |
| Ciclopiroxolamine | - | - | - | - | 22 | 18 | 20 | 20 |
Antimicrobial activity (MIC = µg/mL) of the compounds (am8–am9).
| Compounds | Microbial Strains (MIC = µg/mL) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Bacterial Species | |||
|
|
|
| |
|
| 31.25 | 31.25 | 31.25 |
|
| 31.25 | 31.25 | 31.25 |
| Streptomycin | 3.90 | 3.90 | 3.90 |
Antimicrobial activity of the compounds (am10–am11).
| Comp. | Bacterial Species | Fungal Species | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inhibitory Zone = mm Diameter | Mycelial Growth Inhibition (%) | |||
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 21.6 | 22.3 | 35.5 | 43.3 |
|
| 18.6 | 19.3 | 53.3 | 55.8 |
| Ciprofloxacin | 26.6 | 24.0 | - | - |
| Fluconazole | - | - | 81.1 | 77.7 |
Antimicrobial activity (MIC = µg/mL) of the compounds (am12–am13).
| Comp. | Microbial Strains (MIC = µg/mL) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bacterial Species | Fungal Species | |||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 8 | 128 | 32 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 1 |
|
| 8 | 64 | 64 | 8 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 4 |
| Ampicillin | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | NT | NT | NT | NT |
| Ketoconazole | NT | NT | NT | NT | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
NT: not tested.
Figure 10Molecular structures of the compounds (am16-am24).
Antimicrobial activity (Inhibitory Zone = mm diameter) of the compounds (am14–am15).
| Comp. | Microbial Strains (Inhibitory Zone = mm Diameter) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bacterial Species | ||||
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 22 | 18 | 24 | 19 |
|
| 20 | 21 | 24 | 20 |
| Ciprofloxacin | 32 | 31 | 33 | 30 |
Results of antimicrobial screening of the synthesized compounds (am16–am17).
| Comp. | Microbial Strains (MIC = µM/mL) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bacterial Species | Fungal Species | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 250 | 125 | 125 | 100 | 500 | 500 | >1000 |
|
| 500 | 62.5 | 250 | 500 | 200 | 500 | 500 |
| Ampicillin | 250 | 100 | 100 | 100 | - | - | - |
| Griseofulvin | - | - | - | - | 500 | 100 | 100 |
Antimicrobial results (inhibitory zone = mm diameter) of the compounds (am18–am19).
| Comp. | Microbial Strains (Inhibitory Zone = mm Diameter) | |
|---|---|---|
| Bacterial Species | ||
|
|
| |
|
| 16 | 13 |
|
| 13 | 11 |
| Ciprofloxacin | 25 | 25 |
Antimicrobial screening results (inhibitory zone = mm diameter) of the compounds (am20–am23).
| Comp. | Microbial Strains (Inhibitory Zone = mm Diameter) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bacterial Species | ||||
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 24 | 24 | 26 | 25 |
|
| 26 | 24 | 25 | 24 |
|
| 24 | 22 | 26 | 23 |
|
| 25 | 24 | 24 | 24 |
| Ciprofloxacin | 32 | 31 | 33 | 30 |
Results of antimicrobial screening of the synthesized compounds (am24–am27).
| Comp. | Microbial Strains (MIC = µM/mL) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bacterial Species | Fungal Species | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| am24 | 500 ± 4.01 * | 50 ± 3.60 | 100 ± 1.00 ** | 50 ± 2.13 * | >1000 | 50 ± 2.20 * | 500 ± 3.60 ** |
| am25 | 50 ± 2.10 | 100 ± 3.05 *** | 50 ± 3.21 | 50 ± 3.01 | 500 ± 1.30 ** | 25 ± 0.23 *** | 50 ± 2.31 |
| am26 | 50 ± 2.63 * | 50 ± 3.21 ** | 100 ± 3.00 * | 12.5 ± 2.56 ** | 500 ± 2.44 | 50 ± 4.33 | 100 ± 2.36 *** |
| am27 | 12.5 ± 2.05 ** | 100 ± 4.01 * | 50 ± 1.33 *** | 12.5 ± 3.44 * | 500 ± 4.10 * | 125 ± 3.12 ** | 50 ± 1.22 * |
| Ampicillin | 250 ± 2.05 | 100 ± 0.98 | 100 ± 1.52 | 100 ± 2.06 | - | - | - |
| Griseofulvin | - | - | - | - | 500 ± 0.80 | 100 ± 1.98 | 100 ± 2.01 |
* p < 0.05 significant ** p < 0.01 moderately significant *** p < 0.001 extremely significant.
Antimicrobial activity of the compounds (am28–am31).
| Comp. | Bacterial Species | Fungal Species | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inhibitory Zone = mm Diameter | Mycelial growth Inhibition (%) | |||
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 22.3 | 21.6 | 50 | 33.3 |
|
| 20.6 | 18.3 | 55.5 | 61.1 |
|
| 21.6 | 20.6 | 38.8 | 55.5 |
|
| 19.3 | 20.6 | 55.5 | 55.5 |
| Ciprofloxin | 26.0 | 24.0 | - | - |
| Fluconazole | - | - | 81.1 | 77.7 |
Figure 11Molecular structures of the compounds (am25–am36).
Antimicrobial activity of the compounds (am32–am33).
| Comp. | Bacterial Species | Fungal Species | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inhibitory Zone = mm Diameter | Mycelial Growth Inhibition (%) | |||
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 23.3 | 21.3 | 61.1 | 63.3 |
|
| 20.6 | 21.6 | 82.5 | 78.8 |
| Ciprofloxin | 26.0 | 24.0 | - | - |
| Fluconazole | - | - | 81.1 | 77.7 |
Results of antimicrobial screening of the synthesized compounds (am34–am36).
| Comp. | Microbial Strains (MIC = µM/mL) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bacterial Species | Fungal Species | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 1.6 | 0.56 | 1.9 | 1.4 | 8.8 | 2.3 |
|
| 1.6 | 2.8 | 3.8 | 2.2 | 7.9 | 1.7 |
|
| 3.2 | 1.4 | 2.7 | 3.39 | 8.2 | 3.4 |
| Ciprofloxacin | 0.2 | 0.25 | 0.39 | 0.2 | - | - |
| Ketoconazole | - | - | - | - | 6.1 | 0.23 |
Results of antimicrobial activity of the synthesized compounds (am37–am38).
| Comp. | Microbial Strains (Inhibitory Zone = mm Diameter) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bacterial Species | Fungal Species | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 28 | 24 | 28 | 26 | 25 | 27 |
|
| 26 | 24 | 28 | 28 | 24 | 26 |
| Ciprofloxacin | 28 | 25 | 26 | 26 | - | - |
| Fluconazole | - | - | - | - | 25 | 26 |
Figure 12Molecular structures of the compounds (am37–am48).
Results of antimicrobial screening of the synthesized compounds (am39–am42).
| Comp. | Bacterial Species | Fungal Species | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIC = µg/mL | Mycelial Growth Inhibition (%) | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 60.0 | 60.4 |
|
| 16 | 32 | 16 | 16 | 60.0 | 60.0 |
|
| 16 | 16 | 64 | 32 | 61.2 | 61.2 |
|
| 32 | 64 | 16 | 32 | 61.6 | 60.2 |
| Ciprofloxacin | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | - | - |
| Fluconazole | - | - | - | - | 75.3 | 74.6 |
Antimicrobial activity (MIC = µg/mL) of the compounds (am43–am44).
| Comp. | Microbial Strains (MIC = µg/mL) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bacterial Species | Fungal Species | |||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 |
|
| 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 |
| Ampicillin | 2 | NT | NT | 2 | NT | NT | NT | NT |
| Ciprofloxacin | NT | 2 | 2 | NT | NT | NT | NT | NT |
| Ketoconazole | NT | NT | NT | NT | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
NT: not tested.
Antimicrobial activity (MIC = µg/mL) of the compound (am45).
| Comp. | Microbial Strains (MIC = µg/mL) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bacterial Species | Fungal Species | |||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 4 | 8 | 8 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 8 | 8 |
| Ampicillin | 2 | NT | NT | 2 | NT | NT | NT | NT |
| Ciprofloxacin | NT | 2 | 2 | NT | NT | NT | NT | NT |
| Ketoconazole | NT | NT | NT | NT | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
NT: not tested.
Antibacterial activity (MIC = µg/mL) of the compounds (am46–am47).
| Comp. | Microbial Strains (MIC = µg/mL) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gram Positive Bacterial Species | Gram Negative Bacterial Species | |||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 32 | 16 | 16 | 32 |
|
| 32 | 32 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 32 |
| Chloramphenicol | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 |
Antifungal activity (MIC = µg/mL) of the compounds (am46–am47).
| Comp. | Fungal Species | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 |
|
| 32 | 32 | 32 | 16 |
| Ketoconazole | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 |
Inhibitory activity (MIC, µg/mL) of the compounds am48 and am49 against the bacteria and clinical isolates of multidrug-resistant Gram-positive strains.
| Comp. | Microbial Strains (MIC = µg/mL) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bacterial Species | Clinical Isolates of Gram Positive Bacterial Species | |||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 1 | 2 | >64 | >64 | 1 | 0.5 | 2 | 2 |
|
| 1 | 2 | >64 | >64 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| Norfloxacin | 2 | 2 | 16 | 16 | 8 | 4 | >64 | >64 |
| Ofloxacin | 1 | 2 | >64 | >64 | >64 | >64 | 1 | 1 |
Figure 13Molecular structures of the compounds (am49–am62).
Antimicrobial activity (MIC = µg/mL) of the compounds (am50–am51).
| Comp. | Microbial Strains (MIC = µg/mL) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bacterial Species | Fungal Species | |||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 16 | 32 | 16 | 16 | 32 | 32 | 16 | 16 |
|
| 16 | 64 | 32 | 16 | 16 | 32 | 64 | 16 |
| Ciprofloxacin | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | NT | NT | NT | NT |
| Ketoconazole | NT | NT | NT | NT | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
NT: not tested.
Results of antimicrobial screening of the synthesized compounds (am52–am53).
| Comp. | Bacterial Species | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIC = µg/mL (MBC = µg/mL) | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| am52 | 2 (4) | 8 (16) | 2 (4) | 2 (4) | 16 (32) |
| am53 | 2 (4) | 8 (16) | 2 (4) | 2 (4) | 16 (32) |
| Cefalexin | <2 (2) | 8 (16) | <2 (2) | >128 (>128) | >128 (>128) |
Antimicrobial screening results of the compounds (am54–am55).
| Comp. | Microbial Strains | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inhibitory Zone = mm Diameter | ||||
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 25 ± 0.23 | 20 ± 2.53 | 14 ± 1.23 | 12 ± 1.59 |
|
| 14 ± 1.25 | 15 ± 0.94 | 15 ± 0.81 | 28 ± 1.23 |
| Amoxycillin | 28 ± 1.23 | 25 ± 1.34 | 17 ± 0.99 | 31 ± 0.41 |
Antimicrobial activity of the compounds (am56–am57).
| Comp. | Inhibitory Zone = mm Diameter | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Microbial Species | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 28/28/28 | 28/28/28 | 18/18/18 | 18/18/18 | 22/22/22 |
|
| 22/22/20 | 24/28/28 | 20/18/16 | 18/18/16 | 18/18/16 |
| Gentamicin | 18 | 19 | 18 | 22 | - |
| Fluconazole | - | - | - | - | 28 |
Antimicrobial activity (MIC = µg/mL) of the compounds (am58–am59).
| Comp. | Microbial Strains (MIC = µg/mL) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bacterial Species | Fungal +- | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 1 | 1 | 62.5 | 62.5 | 4 | 2 | 4 |
|
| 4 | 31.25 | 62.5 | 62.5 | 16 | 16 | 31.25 |
| Norfloxacin | 1 | 3.1 | 10 | 0.1 | - | - | - |
| Ciprofloxacin | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | - | - | - |
| Griseofulvin | - | - | - | - | 100 | 7.5 | 500 |
| Fluconazole | - | - | - | - | 8 | 8 | 16 |
Antimicrobial activity (MIC = µg/mL) of the compounds (am60–am61).
| Comp. | Microbial Strains (MIC = µg/mL) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bacterial Species | Fungal Species | |||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
|
| 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 2 |
| Ciprofloxacin | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | NT | NT | NT | NT |
| Ketoconazole | NT | NT | NT | NT | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
NT: not tested.
Antimicrobial activity of the compounds (am62).
| Comp. | Inhibitory Zone = mm Diameter | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Microbial Species | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| - | 20 | 14 | 7 | 7 |
| Imipenem | 34 | 30 | 35 | 20 | - |
| Fluconazole | - | - | - | - | 28 |
Hypoglycemic effect of the compounds (ad1–ad3) on sucrose-loaded hyperglycemic rats.
| Comp. | Dose (mg/dL) | % Activity | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 100 | 17.2 | |
|
| 100 | 16.5 | |
|
| 100 | 15.8 | |
| Metformin | 100 | 27.0 |
Figure 14Molecular structures of the compounds (ad1–ad15).
Antidiabetic potential of the compounds (ad4–ad6) in alloxan-induced diabetic rats.
| Comp. | Blood Glucose Level (mg/dL) | Log P | Change in Blood Glucose Level (from 1st to 6th Hour) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 h | 1 h | 3 h | 6 h | |||
|
| 312 ± 12.78 | 270 ± 10.67 | 135 ± 9.89 | 127 ± 7.76 | 3.22 | 185 |
|
| 303 ± 4.89 | 255 ± 7.56 | 211 ± 2.98 | 133 ± 10.56 | 2.95 | 170 |
|
| 302 ± 5.98 | 273 ± 7.65 | 211 ± 7.34 | 137 ± 6.34 | 2.95 | 165 |
| Pioglitazone | 276 ± 4.84 | 213 ± 3.44 | 114 ± 5.49 | 89 ± 3.26 | 3.58 | 187 |
(N = 6) All data represent the mean ± SEM analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) using Dunnett’s multiple comparison test applied for statistical analysis.
Hypoglycemic activity of the compounds (ad7–ad9) using a streptozotocin-induced diabetic rat model.
| Comp. | % PGL Reduction |
|---|---|
| Control | 0.433 ± 1.17 |
|
| 46.13 ± 4.96 a |
|
| 46.03 ± 3.08 a |
|
| 45.96 ± 4.51 a |
One-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s test. a p < 0.01. Values are presented as mean ± S.E.M. (N = 6).
Hypoglycemic effect of the compound ad10 depicted by docking score.
| Comp. | Mol-Dock Score | Re-Rank Score | H-Bond Score |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| −141.292 | −87.586 | −7.001 |
| Epalrestat | −113.889 | −70.997 | −1.481 |
Antidiabetic potential of the compounds (ad11–ad13) using molecular docking studies.
| Comp. | Docking Score (kcal/mol) | Interacting Residues |
|---|---|---|
|
| −10.49 | His 323, His 449, Ser 289, Tyr 473 |
|
| −10.12 | His 323, His 449, Ser 289, Tyr 473 |
|
| −10.04 | His 323, His 449, Ser 289, Tyr 327 |
| Rosiglitazone | −9.48 | His 323, His 449, Cys 285, Tyr 473 |
Aldose reductase inhibitory activity of the compound ad14.
| Comp. | % Inhibition | IC50(M) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10−4M | 10−5M | 10−6M | ||
|
| 91.11 ± 3.59 | 49.91 ± 2.49 | 14.06 ± 1.88 | 3.446 × 10−5 ± 0.30 × 10−5 |
Antidiabetic potential of the compounds (ad15–ad16) using a sucrose-loaded model in rats.
| Comp. | Blood Glucose Level (mg/dL) | % Reduction in Blood Glucose Level | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 min | 30 min | 60 min | 90 min | 120 min | ||
|
| 147 | 110 | 112 | 107 | 104 | −22.84 |
|
| 141 | 112 | 117 | 118 | 112 | −21.71 |
| Pioglitazone | 139 | 105 | 110 | 112 | 115 | −23.07 |
Figure 15Molecular structures of the compounds (ad16–ad30).
Antidiabetic potential of the compounds (ad17–ad18) based on molecular docking studies.
| Comp. | G Score | D Score | PMF Score | Chem Score | Interacting Residues |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| −273.19 | −149.75 | −81.45 | −40.54 | Tyr 327, His 449 |
|
| −249.42 | −162.88 | −81.45 | −40.54 | Ser 289 |
| Tesaglitazar | −279.20 | −157.61 | −67.78 | −34.20 | Ser 289, His 323, Tyr 473, Ser 342 |
Hypoglycemic activity of the compounds (ad19–ad20) in streptozotocin-induced diabetic rats.
| Comp. | % PPAR-γ Transactivation | Blood Glucose Level after 15 Days (mg/dL) |
|---|---|---|
|
| 64.67 | 134.0 ± 5.09 |
|
| 63.78 | 139.6 ± 6.40 |
| Pioglitazone | 71.94 | 132.0 ± 5.20 |
| Rosiglitazone | 85.27 | 144.2 ± 6.12 |
All data are given as mean ± SEM analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), using Dunnett’s multiple comparison test applied for statistical analysis.
Hypoglycemic activity of the compounds (ad21–ad22) using a streptozotocin-induced diabetic model in rats.
| Comp. | Dose (mg/kg Body wt.) | % Reduction, Plasma Glucose |
|---|---|---|
|
| 10/30/50 | 39.83 ± 0.29/44.62 ± 0.32/52.81 ± 0.32 |
|
| 10/30/50 | 36.76 ± 0.66/43.14 ± 0.35/49.99 ± 0.62 |
| Rosiglitazone | 10/30/50 | 38.57 ± 0.25/14.83 ± 0.18/12.74 ± 0.16 |
PTP1B inhibition activity of the compounds (ad23–ad24).
| Comp. | IC50(µM) |
|---|---|
|
| 4.6 |
|
| 4.9 |
| Ursolic acid | 4.0 |
Antidiabetic potential of the compounds (ad25–ad27) in alloxan-induced diabetes in rats.
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| |
|
| 343 ± 5.797 | 313.8 ± 9.411 ** | 303.2 ± 9.827 *** |
|
| 353.7 ± 6.026 | 315.8 ± 8.109 * | 311.2 ± 9.297 ** |
|
| 341.5 ± 6.158 | 320.5 ± 6.737 | 313.3 ± 9.500 ** |
| Metformin | 343.3 ± 6.206 | 322.8 ± 4.989 ** | 292.0 ± 7.767 *** |
(N = 5) All data are given as mean ± SEM, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.0001.
Antidiabetic potential of the compounds (ad28–ad30) in alloxan-induced diabetes in rats.
| Comp. | Mean ± SEM Blood Glucose Level (mg/dL) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 h | 1 h | 2 h | 4 h | 6 h | 8 h | |
|
| 305.3 ± 5.46 * | 290.3 ± 7.32 | 200.3 ± 9.29 | 145.33 ± 1.76 | 102.0 ± 5.78 * | 90.58 ± 4.73 |
|
| 306.0 ± 2.08 | 280.3 ± 3.85 ** | 208.3 ± 3.39 | 155.6 ± 3.48 ** | 110.3 ± 6.02 | 94.7 ± 4.41 |
|
| 316.0 ± 6.51 ** | 297.3 ± 6.37 * | 195.3 ± 6.02 | 142.0 ± 8.67 | 105.3 ± 6.02 ** | 95.0 ± 2.89 |
| Glibenclamide | 383.8 ± 14.28 | 222.8 ± 8.05 ** | 180.3 ± 6.92 | 120.42 ± 9.86 * | 93.6 ± 4.95 | 85.42 ± 2.53 |
All data are given as mean ± SEM analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), using Dunnett’s multiple comparison test applied for statistical analysis. ** p < 0.01 (considered as significant), * p < 0.001.
Antidiabetic potential of compound ad31 using PTP1B inhibitory studies.
| Comp. | IC50 (µM) |
|---|---|
|
| 9.96 |
| Suramin | 9.76 |
Figure 16Molecular structures of the compounds (ad31–ad45).
Antidiabetic potential of the compounds (ad32–ad33) based on PTP1B inhibitory studies.
| Comp. | IC50 (µM) |
|---|---|
|
| 6.89 |
|
| 8.53 |
| Suramin | 9.76 |
Antidiabetic potential of the compounds (ad34–ad35) in alloxan-induced diabetes in rats.
| Comp. | % Decrease in Plasma Glucose Level (PG) at Various | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 mg | 30 mg | 100 mg | |
|
| 42.48 ± 3.25 | 62.24 ± 3.42 | 70.35 ± 3.14 |
|
| 45.42 ± 1.25 | 58.36 ± 2.36 | 68.42 ± 2.16 |
| Pioglitazone | 47.25 ± 5.50 | 64.59 ± 5.42 | 75.43 ± 3.40 |
(N = 6) all data sare given as mean ± SEM value.
Antidiabetic potential of the compounds (ad36–ad39) in streptozotocin-induced diabetes in rats.
| Comp. (mg/kg | Blood Glucose Level (mg/dL) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0-Day | 3-Day | 7-Day | 10-Day | |
|
| 87 ± 4.31 | 429 ± 7.77 | 246.66 ± 13.78 | 112 ± 10.13 |
|
| 80 ± 4.31 | 416 ± 7.77 | 240.66 ± 13.78 | 117 ± 10.13 |
|
| 85 ± 5.22 | 425 ± 9.34 | 233.52 ± 19.15 | 119 ± 18.54 |
|
| 82 ± 5.22 | 418 ± 9.34 | 232.52 ± 19.15 | 120 ± 18.54 |
| Glibenclamide | 89 ± 5.34 | 411 ± 13.11 | 227.45 ± 10.38 | 109 ± 13.16 |
(N = 10) All data are given as mean ± SEM analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by the Tukey–Kramer multiple comparison test; p < 0.001.
Antidiabetic potential of the compounds (ad40–ad41) using the alloxan-induced model in rats.
| Comp. | Mean ± SEM Blood Glucose Level (mg/dL) | % Reduction in Blood Glucose Level after 14 Days | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 h | 3 h | 6 h | 24 h | 14 days | ||
|
| 355 ± 24.59 | 322.8 ± 24.10 | 253.8 ± 23.45 | 231.4 ± 23.48 | 123 ± 18.7 | 65.35 |
|
| 376.4 ± 21.00 | 342.8 ± 21.58 | 315.2 ± 21.66 | 276 ± 21.79 | 146.4 ± 20.5 | 61.10 |
| Metformin | 441.8 ± 18.71 | 399.4 ± 17.72 | 289.4 ± 18.46 | 219.6 ± 18.40 | 112.8 ± 16.84 | 73.83 |
| Pioglitazone | 402.2 ± 28.7 | 363.4 ± 26.08 | 302.4 ± 26.87 | 232.2 ± 20.53 | 123.8 ± 16.94 | 69.22 |
Antidiabetic potential of the compounds (ad42–ad43) in alloxan-induced diabetes in rats.
| Comp. (mg/kg | Blood Glucose Level (mg/dL) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0-Day | 3-Day | 5-Day | 7-Day | |
| ad42 | 186.17 ± 1.16 | 198.23 ± 0.77 | 162.47 ± 1.22 | 109.45 ± 2.13 |
| ad43 | 188.68 ± 1.23 | 195.35 ± 1.16 | 175.65 ± 0.86 | 118.63 ± 0.89 |
| Rosiglitazone | 188.45 ± 1.99 | 156.88 ± 0.82 | 125.77 ± 1.45 | 104.10 ± 1.72 |
(N = 6) All data are given as mean ± SEM analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Dunnett’s test.
Antidiabetic potential of the compounds (ad44–ad46) based on α-amylase and α-glucosidase inhibitory studies.
| Comp. | C log P (Lipophilicity) | MR (Molar Refractivity) | % Inhibition (250 µg/mL) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| α-Amylase | α-Glucosidase | |||
|
| 6.45 | 123 | 37.04 | 36 |
|
| 5.63 | 116.9 | 36.18 | 35.2 |
|
| 6.49 | 125.34 | 33.05 | 32.2 |
| Acarbose | −6.6 | 141 | 43.05 | 40.91 |
Figure 17Molecular structures of the compounds (ad46–ad56).
Antidiabetic potential of the compounds (ad47–ad49) using an alloxan-induced model in rats.
| Comp. | Mean ± SEM Blood Glucose Level (mg/dL) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 h | 2 h | 4 h | 6 h | 12 h | 15th Day | |
|
| 259.33 ± 25.65 | 234.61 ± 17.45 | 209.33 ± 5.84 | 183.00 ± 3.21 | 161.65 ± 2.72 | 158.64 ± 2.90 |
|
| 256.69 ± 16.19 | 224.00 ± 7.63 | 198.33 ± 1.76 | 177.64 ± 2.02 | 159.00 ± 2.08 | 159.00 ± 1.15 |
|
| 253.00 ± 8.71 | 230.64 ± 4.33 | 207.65 ± 2.33 | 175.61 ± 3.93 | 162.34 ± 2.90 | 159.00 ± 0.57 |
| Pioglitazone | 310.64 ± 8.09 | 165.00 ± 3.60 | 145.67 ± 4.09 | 137.00 ± 2.64 | 119.33 ± 2.96 | 104.33 ± 2.33 |
(N = 6) All data are given as mean ± SEM analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Dunnett’s test.
Antidiabetic potential of the compounds (ad50–ad51) according to α-amylase inhibitory activity.
| Comp. | % Inhibition | IC50 (µg/mL) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25 µg/mL | 50 µg/mL | 75 µg/mL | 100 µg/mL | ||
| ad50 | 32.59 | 51.78 | 66.98 | 81.30 | 22.35 |
| ad51 | 27.77 | 53.23 | 62.27 | 79.43 | 27.63 |
| Acarbose | 37.35 | 53.45 | 73.25 | 88.57 | 21.44 |
Antidiabetic potential of the compounds (ad52–ad54).
| Comp. | Mean ± S.E.M Blood Glucose Level (mg/dL) |
|---|---|
|
| 82.81 ± 1.115 |
|
| 86.31 ± 0.993 |
|
| 87.21 ± 1.233 |
| Rosiglitazone | 65.58 ± 1.013 |
Antidiabetic potential of the compounds (ad55–ad56) using a sucrose-loaded model in rats.
| Comp. | Blood Glucose Level (mg/dL) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 h | 1 h | 2 h | 4 h | |
|
| 96.5 ± 3.86 | 98.5 ± 5.01 *** | 82.5 ± 2.87 *** | 86.2 ± 4.25 *** |
|
| 91.6 ± 2.17 | 91.5 ± 3.58 *** | 86.2 ± 4.21 *** | 80.6 ± 3.25 *** |
| Pioglitazone | 98.5 ± 4.35 | 119 ± 3.57 *** | 95.5 ± 5.12 *** | 107.5 ± 3.62 *** |
Each value is the mean ± S.D. for six rats, ***p < 0.001 compared with normal control. Data analyzed by using one-way ANOVA followed by t-test.
In vitro antioxidant activity of the synthesized compounds (ao1–ao2) using the DPPH scavenging method.
| Comp. | IC50 = µg/mL |
|---|---|
|
| 09.18 |
|
| 12.67 |
| Ascorbic Acid | 40.00 |
Figure 18Molecular structures of the compounds (ao1–ao9).
Antioxidant activity of the compounds (ao3–ao4).
| Comp. | % Inhibition | IC50 = µg/mL | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25 µg/mL | 50 µg/mL | 75 µg/mL | 100 µg/mL | ||
|
| 36.83 | 45.41 | 71.51 | 87.34 | 27.66 |
|
| 35.89 | 42.67 | 70.25 | 85.44 | 29.04 |
| Ascorbic Acid | 38.99 | 55.78 | 72.51 | 93.15 | 21.64 |
In vitro antioxidant activity of the synthesized compounds (ao5–ao6) using the DPPH scavenging method.
| Comp. | % Radical Scavenging Activity | IC50 = µg/mL | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25 µg/mL | 50 µg/mL | 75 µg/mL | 100 µg/mL | ||
|
| 53.35 | 58.15 | 62.52 | 65.98 | 3.38 |
|
| 53.34 | 56.91 | 61.60 | 65.68 | 6.29 |
| Ascorbic Acid | 53.65 | 58.03 | 62.32 | 66.29 | 2.84 |
Antioxidant screening results of the synthesized compounds (ao7–ao8) by applying the DPPH scavenging method.
| Comp. | Mean abs ± SEM | % Inhibition |
|---|---|---|
|
| 0.5616 ± 0.0005 | 66.80 |
|
| 0.5140 ± 0.0014 | 65.50 |
| Ascorbic Acid | 0.5260 ± 0.05 | 68.50 |
Antioxidant screening results of the synthesized compounds (ao9-ao10) by applying the DPPH and ABTS+ scavenging methods.
| Comp. | % Radical Scavenging | |
|---|---|---|
| DPPH | ABTS | |
|
| 92.55 | 70.66 |
|
| 89.61 | 58.27 |
| BHT | 63.50 | - |
| Trolox | 73.62 | 54.35 |
| Ascorbic Acid | 77.20 | - |
Figure 19Molecular structures of the compounds (ao10-ao22).
In vitro antioxidant activity of the synthesized compounds (ao11–ao12) using the DPPH scavenging method.
| Comp. | % Radical Scavenging Activity | IC50 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 µg/mL | 50 µg/mL | 100 µg/mL | 250 µg/mL | 500 µg/mL | ||
|
| 8.73 | 35.39 | 46.59 | 57.34 | 62.65 | 75.00 |
|
| 10.56 | 45.76 | 59.58 | 65.45 | 71.98 | 80.00 |
| Ascorbic Acid | 35.84 | 41.35 | 58.83 | 69.28 | 84.67 | 26.00 |
Antioxidant activity of the synthesized compounds (ao13-ao14).
| Comp. | EC50 (µg/mL) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DPPH Radical Scavenging Activity | Superoxide Anion Scavenging Activity | Lipid Peroxidation Inhibition | Erythrocyte Hemolysis Inhibition | |
|
| 58.68 | 79.94 | 131.79 | 96.62 |
|
| 52.18 | 101.18 | 149.70 | 107.28 |
| Luteolin | 44.18 | 31.01 | 149.70 | 107.28 |
| Ascorbic Acid | 40.28 | 21.01 | 139.97 | 96.63 |
In vitro antioxidant activity of the synthesized compounds (ao15–ao16) using the DPPH scavenging method.
| Comp. | % Inhibition | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 µg/mL | 20 µg/mL | 30 µg/mL | 40 µg/mL | 50 µg/mL | |
|
| 39.6 | 44.4 | 48.9 | 58.1 | 66.8 |
|
| 39.2 | 43.9 | 48.9 | 55.5 | 65.5 |
| Ascorbic Acid | 49.3 | 53.2 | 57.9 | 65.8 | 70.2 |
In vitro antioxidant activity of the synthesized compounds (ao17–ao18).
| Comp. | IC50 (µM) |
|---|---|
|
| 940 |
|
| 998 |
| Ascorbic acid | 971 |
In vitro antioxidant activity of the synthesized compounds (ao19–ao20).
| Comp. | IC50 (µg/mL) |
|---|---|
|
| 12.78 |
|
| 16.44 |
| Ascorbic acid | 23.15 |
In vitro antioxidant activity of the synthesized compounds (ao21–ao22).
| Comp. | IC50 (µg/mL) |
|---|---|
|
| 10.78 |
|
| 11.16 |
| Ascorbic acid | 23.15 |
Patent grant information of the thiazolidinedione analogues.
| S. No. | Patent No. | Title | Procedure/Activity | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO/2019/016826 | Novel 5-[4-(2-biphenyl-4-yl-2-oxo-ethoxy)-benzylidene]-thiazolidine-2,4-diones, their synthesis, and uses thereof. | Antidiabetic activity | [ |
| 2 | WO/2002/026735 | Sodium salts of 5-’4-’2-(n-methyl-n-(2-pyridyl)amino)ethoxy]benzyl]thiazolidine-2,4-dione. | Synthetic procedure | [ |
| 3 | WO/2006/010345 | Salt of oxalic acid with 5-[4-[2-( | Antidiabetic activity | [ |
| 4 | US 6,784,184 B2 | 5-(arylsulfonyl)-,5-(arylsulfinyl) and 5-(arylsulfanyl)-thiazolidine-2,4-diones useful for the inhibition of farnesyl-protein transferase. | Anticancer activity | [ |
| 5 | WO/2003/053962 | 5-(4-(2-(n-methyl-n-(2-pyridyl)amino)ethoxy)benzyl)thiazolidine-2, 4-dione malic acid salt and its use against diabetes mellitus. | Antidiabetic activity | [ |
| 6 | US 2020/0093812 A1 | 5-[[4-[2-[5-(1-Hydroxyethyl)pyridin-2-yl] ethoxy]phenyl]methyl]-1,3-thiazolidine-2,4-dione for treating nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. | Treatment of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease | [ |
| 7 | EP0508740A1 | Thiazolidinedione derivatives, their production, and their use. | Hypoglycemic and hypolipidemic activity | [ |
| 8 | WO03053367A2 | Hydrogenation of precursors to thiazolidinedione antihyperglycemics. | Anti-hyperglycemic activity | [ |
| 9 | CN101531657A | Dimethyldiguanide of the thiazolidinedione pharmaceutical, preparation method and use thereof. | Anti-diabetic activity | [ |
| 10 | CN104230915A | Thiazolidinedione-containing phenylpiperazine derivatives, as well as the preparation method and applications of thiazolidinedione-containing phenylpiperazine derivatives. | Anti-cancer activity | [ |
| 11 | WO2010077101A2 | Novel thiazolidinedione derivative and use thereof. | Treatment of CVS, renal disease, and GIT disease | [ |
| 12 | JP2002322177A | Thiazolidinedione derivative. | Anticancer activity | [ |
| 13 | WO2007109037A2 | Thiazolidinedione analogues. | Antihypertensive activity | [ |
| 14 | WO2017021634A1 | Association between 3-[(3-{[4-(4-morpholinylmethyl)-1H-pyrrol-2-yl] methylene}-2-oxo-2,3-dihydro-1h-indol-5-yl)methyl]-1,3-thiazolidine-2,4-dione and a tyrosine kinase inhibitor of the EGFR. | Anticancer activity | [ |