Comparative α-glucosidase and α-amylase inhibition studies of rhodanine–pyrazole conjugates and their simple rhodanine analogues
- 32 Downloads
Novel rhodanine–pyrazole conjugates (6a–i) and their simple rhodanine analogues (8a–e) were prepared and comparatively screened for their antidiabetic activities against enzymatic targets, α-glucosidase and α-amylase. As expected, the molecular hybrids exhibited significantly greater inhibitory activity against α-glucosidase (IC50 = 2.259 × 10−6–1.160 × 10−4 mol/L), relative to their simple rhodanine counterparts (IC50 = 3.056 × 10−4–9.494 × 10−4 mol/L). Amongst the screened derivatives compounds 6a and 6f displayed a 3-fold and 42-fold greater potency against α-glucosidase (IC50 = 2.854 × 10−5 and 2.259 × 10−6mol/L, respectively) compared to the standard drug, acarbose. The designed molecular conjugates displayed an improved binding affinity toward α-glucosidase than α-amylase. Compound 6d was identified as the most potent inhibitor of α-amylase (IC50 = 6.377 × 10−5 mol/L) with a 1.5-fold greater inhibitory activity than acarbose. Structural assessment of the molecules revealed that electron withdrawing (Cl) and electron donating (OCH3) groups at the ortho-position played a significant role in the inhibitory activity. Molecular docking studies of the molecular conjugates and simple rhodanine analogues in the active site of α-glucosidase were performed to describe and highlight the putative binding interactions attributing to the selective inhibition. The identification of these novel rhodanine–pyrazole molecular hybrids forms part of a potential treatment in the management of diabetes.
KeywordsPyrazole Rhodanine Molecular hybrids α-glucosidase α-amylase
The authors would like to acknowledge the support from the NRF South Africa (Grant UID: 99563) as well as the CHPC in Cape Town for access to computational resources.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Case DA, Babin V, Berryman J, Betz RM, Cai Q, Cerutti DS, Cheatham III TE, Darden TA, Duke RE, Gohlke H, Goetz AW, Gusarov S, Homeyer N, Janowski P, Kaus J, Kolossvary I, Kovalenko A, Lee TS, LeGrand S, Luchko T, Luo R, Madej B, Merz KM, Paesani F, Roe DR, Roitberg A, Sagui C, Salomon-Ferrer R, Seabra G, Simmerling CL, Smith W, Swails J, Walker RC, Wang J, Wolf RM, Wu X, Kollman PA (2014) AMBER 14. University of California, San Francisco, p 29–31Google Scholar
- Kerru N, Bhaskaruni SVHS, Maddila S, Singh P, Jonnalagadda SB (2017a) Synthesis and antioxidant evaluation of a new class of thienopyrimidine–rhodanine hybrids. Lett Drug Des Discov 15:118–126Google Scholar
- Sundarram A, Murthy TPK (2014) α-Amylase production and applications: a review. J Appl Environ Microbiol 2:166–175Google Scholar
- Taha M, Ismail NH, Javaid K, Imran S, Anouar EH, Wadood A, Atia-tul W, Ali M, Khan KM, Saad SM, Rahim F, Choudhary MI (2015) Evaluation of 2-indolcarbohydrazones as potent α-glucosidase inhibitors, in silico studies and DFT based stereochemical predictions. Bioorg Chem 63:24–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Vazquez EH, Ocampo-Montalban H, Ceron-Romero L, Cruz M, Gomez-Zamudio J, Hiriart-Valencia G, Villalobos-Molina R, Flores-Flores A, Estrada-Soto S (2017) Antidiabetic, antidyslipidemic and toxicity profile of ENV-2: a potent pyrazole derivative against diabetes and related diseases. Eur J Pharmacol 803:159–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar