Explore new quinoxaline pharmacophore tethered sulfonamide fragments as in vitro α‐glucosidase, α‐amylase, and acetylcholinesterase inhibitors with ADMET and molecular modeling simulation
A new series of quinoxaline‐sulfonamide derivatives 3–12 were synthesized using fragment‐based drug design by reaction of quinoxaline sulfonyl chloride (QSC) with different amines and hydrazines. The quinoxaline‐sulfonamide derivatives were evaluated for antidiabetic and anti‐Alzheimer's potent...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Drug development research 2024-06, Vol.85 (4), p.e22216-n/a |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | A new series of quinoxaline‐sulfonamide derivatives 3–12 were synthesized using fragment‐based drug design by reaction of quinoxaline sulfonyl chloride (QSC) with different amines and hydrazines. The quinoxaline‐sulfonamide derivatives were evaluated for antidiabetic and anti‐Alzheimer's potential against α‐glucosidase, α‐amylase, and acetylcholinesterase enzymes. These derivatives showed good to moderate potency against α‐amylase and α‐glucosidase with inhibitory percentages between 24.34 ± 0.01%–63.09 ± 0.02% and 28.95 ± 0.04%–75.36 ± 0.01%, respectively. Surprisingly, bis‐sulfonamide quinoxaline derivative 4 revealed the most potent activity with inhibitory percentages of 75.36 ± 0.01% and 63.09 ± 0.02% against α‐glucosidase and α‐amylase compared to acarbose (IP = 57.79 ± 0.01% and 67.33 ± 0.01%), respectively. Moreover, the quinoxaline derivative 3 exhibited potency as α‐glucosidase and α‐amylase inhibitory with a minute decline from compound 4 and acarbose with inhibitory percentages of 44.93 ± 0.01% and 38.95 ± 0.01%. Additionally, in vitro acetylcholinesterase inhibitory activity for designed derivatives exhibited weak to moderate activity. Still, sulfonamide‐quinoxaline derivative 3 emerged as the most active member with inhibitory percentage of 41.92 ± 0.02% compared with donepezil (IP = 67.27 ± 0.60%). The DFT calculations, docking simulation, target prediction, and ADMET analysis were performed and discussed in detail. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0272-4391 1098-2299 |
DOI: | 10.1002/ddr.22216 |