J.A. Mendes et al.
BioorganicChemistry80(2018)585–590
Table 4
Physicochemical parameters of the compounds and DNR.
Table 3
Selectivity indices (SI) of 4a, 5b, 6b, 6c, 7 and daunorubicin (DNR).
Compound MCF-10A/
MDA-MB-231
MCF-10A/
MCF-7
PBMC/
K562
PBMC/LUC PBMC/
FEPS
Compound miLogP nON nOHNH MW TPSA
nrotb nviolations
4a
4b
4c
5a
5b
5c
6a
6b
6c
7
5.27
5.41
6.33
5.28
5.30
5.30
5.21
4.77
4.77
4.33
5.36
3.93
0.90
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
1
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
6
375.49 37.38
393.48 37.38
501.39 37.38
405.52 46.61
405.52 46.61
405.52 46.61
391.49 57.61
391.49 57.61
391.49 57.61
325.43 37.38
373.48 39.08
219.29 15.79
527.53 185.85
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
0
4
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
3
4a
5b
6b
6c
7
DNR
0.19
2.65
0.85
NA
NA
0.68
0.34
3.70
3.26
NA
NA
2.57
10.34
13.75
8.30
3.00
21.62
0.26
12.04
8.81
6.69
1.51
9.66
0.04
14.15
15.50
8.22
4.53
23.81
0.02
Selectivity indices (SI) were calculated as a ratio of the IC50 in non-neoplastic
cells (PBMC or MCF-10A, Table 2) to the IC50 in the corresponding neoplastic
cell (breast cancer or leukemias, Table 1). When IC50 was expressed on Tables 1
or 2 as being higher than a concentration (e.g. > 30), this value, 30 μM, was
used for the SI calculation (e.g. SI of 4 towards K562: IC50 PBMC/IC50
K562 = 30/2.90 = 10.34). NA = Not analyzed.
8
9
DNR
miLogP: octanol/water partition coefficient; nON: number of hydrogen bond
acceptors; nOHNH: number of hydrogen bond donors; MW: Molecular weight,
TPSA: Topological Polar Surface Area; nrotb: Number of Rotatable Bonds;
nviolations: number of violations from Lipinski’s rule.
contrast, 4a reduced the viability of non-tumor MCF-10A in lower IC50
than in tumor cells. Conversely, the non-neoplastic breast human cell
line HB4a was resistant to the action of 4a in another work [8], sug-
gesting that the SI for breast cancer could vary depending on the sub-
types of both the tumor and the normal cell. This is especially true for
5b, that despite presenting lower IC50 than 6b on MCF-10A, it was more
effective toward breast cancer cells. Results toward normal blood cells
indicate that substitutions in the A-ring were associated with loss of
selectivity. In this regard, removal of the A-ring in 7 led to the highest
SI of all compounds for K562 and FEPS cells. Overall, results on models
of normal cells indicate 5b and 7, respectively, as interesting drug
candidates for breast cancer and leukemias.
positively correlated to ABCC1-mediated drug efflux, in a way that
xenobiotics with low values of this descriptor present low affinity for
this transporter as well [35]. This is in accordance to the IC50 values on
cells such as FEPS (Table 1), whose ABCC1 activity has been well de-
scribed [17]. For the Lipinskís rule, all compounds presented para-
meters for good oral bioavailability, except DNR and compound 4c.
Our study correlated in silico physicochemical properties (drugli-
keness and drug scores), to potential toxicity risks, such as mutageni-
city, tumorigenicity, irritating effects and reproductive effects.
Prediction of toxicity risks showed that the structure with the lowest
risk of undesirable effects is compound 7, which would likely not
manifest risks of tumorigenicity, mutagenicity, irritant nor reproductive
effects. However, all other synthetic compounds presented high risk for
reproductive effect, though compounds 8 and 9 were predicted to
present tumorigenic effects. Results suggest that these risks may be
linked to the presence of the aromatic A-ring in all substances and its
absence in compound 7 (Table 4). The standard drug DNR was pre-
dicted to manifest both reproductive and irritant effects. A high drug
score suggest that the structure is a promising lead for future devel-
opment of an efficient drug, and all compounds were in the range of
0.0693–0.3208, while the positive control presented 0.1889. Ad-
ditionally, DNR presented the highest druglikeness value in relation to
the compounds, and this drug is commercially available as an injectable
pharmaceutical formulation (see Table 5).
3.3. Admetox predictions
In order to describe the potential for good oral bioavailability and to
evaluate the druglikeness and drug score values of the synthesized
compounds, physicochemical properties were predicted in silico and
compared with the descriptors obtained for daunorubicin (DNR). The
physicochemical and toxicological descriptors were calculated using
the Molinspiration Cheminformatics version 2016.10 server (http://
The Lipinskís ‘rule of five’ descriptors were analyzed, which describes
physicochemical properties of a compound required to estimate im-
portant pharmacokinetic parameters, such as absorption or permeation
of the molecule, distribution, metabolism and excretion, being those
parameters associated with permeability and solubility [32]. For the
Lipinski’s rule the compounds 4(a,b), 5(a–c), 6a and 8 presented only
one violation. Additionally, compounds 6b, 6c, 7 and 9 did not violate
any criteria. These results showed that the compounds have structures
that would present good absorption properties, therefore permeability
across the cell membrane, and good theoretical oral bioavailability.
However, the positive control DNR and compound 4c showed at least
three and two violations, including acceptor, donor hydrogen, mole-
cular weight and miLogP, respectively. The data for other physico-
chemical parameters such as Topological Polar Surface Area (TPSA)
and number of rotatable bonds is presented in Table 4. The TPSA
methodology described by Ertl et al. using published data of various
types of drug transport properties shown to be a very good descriptor to
characterize drug absorption, including intestinal absorption, bioa-
vailability, blood-brain barrier penetration, and Caco-2 cell perme-
ability [33]. Compounds that present TPSA values equal to or less than
140 Å2 and fewer rotatable bonds would show good potential for oral
bioavailability [34]. The results indicate that all compounds presented
lower TPSA values than 140 Å2 and lower number of rotatable bonds
when compared to DNR (Table 4). Furthermore, TPSA has been
Table 5
In silico predicted druglikeness, drug score and toxicity risks of the synthesized
compounds and DNR.
Compound
Druglikeness
Drug score
4a
4b
4c
5a
5b
5c
6a
6b
6c
7
−4.7053
−6.505
0.1435
0.1304
0.0942
0.1402
0.1402
0.1402
0.1565
0.1565
0.1565
0.3208
0.0693
0.1761
0.1889
Reproductive
Reproductive
Reproductive
Reproductive
Reproductive
Reproductive
Reproductive
Reproductive
Reproductive
None
Reproductive tumorigenic
Reproductive tumorigenic
Reproductive irritant
−4.6745
−4.4787
−4.4811
−4.4811
−4.778
−4.8167
−4.8167
−8.8552
−4.5446
−0.4097
6.1633
8
9
DNR
a
Mutagenicity, tumorigenicity, irritating effects, reproductive effects.
589