Design, synthesis, anticancer, and docking of some S‐ and/or N‐heterocyclic derivatives as VEGFR‐2 inhibitors

Novel heterocyclic derivatives (4–22) were designed, synthesized, and evaluated against hepatocellular carcinoma type (HepG2) and breast cancer (MCF‐7) cells, targeting the VEGFR‐2 enzyme. Compounds 18, 10, 13, 11, and 14 were found to be the most potent derivatives against both the HepG2 and MCF‐7 cancer cell lines, with GI50 = 2.11, 2.54 µM, 3.16, 3.64 µM, 3.24, 6.99 µM, 7.41, 6.49 µM and 8.08, 10.46 µM, respectively. Compounds 18 and 10 showed higher activities against both HepG2 and MCF‐7 cells than sorafenib (GI50 = 9.18, 5.47 µM, respectively) and doxorubicin (GI50 = 7.94, 8.07 µM, respectively). Compounds 13, 11, and 14 showed higher activities than sorafenib against HepG2 cancer cells, but lower activities against MCF‐7 cells. Compounds 18, 13, and 10 were more potent than sorafenib, inhibiting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor‐2 (VEGFR‐2) at GI50 values of 0.05, 0.06, and 0.08 µM, respectively. Compound 11 inhibited VEGFR‐2 at an IC50 value of 0.10 µM, which is equipotent to sorafenib. Compound 14 inhibited VEGFR‐2 at an IC50 value of 0.11 µM, which is nearly equipotent to sorafenib. The tested compounds have more selectivity against cancer cell lines. Compounds 18, 10, 13, 11, and 14 are, respectively, 16.76, 9.24, 6.06, 2.78, and 2.85 times more toxic in HePpG2 cancer cells than in VERO normal cells. Also, compounds 18, 10, 13, 11, and 14 are, respectively, 14.07, 8.02, 2.81, 3.18, and 2.20 times more toxic in MCF‐7 than in VERO normal cells. The most active compounds, 10, 13, and 18, showed a good ADMET (absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity) profile. Novel heterocyclic derivatives (4–22) were designed, synthesized, and evaluated as vascular endothelial growth factor receptor‐2 enzyme inhibitors in hepatocellular carcinoma type (HepG2) and breast cancer (MCF‐7) cells. Of the five most potent derivatives, compounds 18 and 10 showed higher activities in both HepG2 and MCF‐7 cells than sorafenib and doxorubicin. Compounds 13, 11, and 14 showed higher activities than sorafenib in HepG2, but lower activities in MCF‐7 cells. The most active compounds, 10, 13, and 18, showed a good ADMET (absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity) profile.