M. Jagrat et al. / Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 21 (2011) 4296–4300
4297
Figure 1. Selective MAO-B inhibitors reported3 and predicted4 earlier.
Scheme 1. Reagents and conditions: (a) NH2NH2ÁH2O (99%), C2H5OH, reflux, 3 h; (b) R2-C6H4–NCS, C2H5OH, reflux, 30–45 min.
methoxy (favourable at para > meta position) and methyl (favour-
able at meta > para position) group at either para or meta positions.
The compounds without ring C (21–30) were found to be selec-
tive towards MAO-A (except 22, 23 and 27) but the potency and
selectivity index are poor when compared with 5–16. Compound
22 is slightly selective towards MAO-B with Ki of 4.79 0.24 lM
and SIMAO-B of 1.46. The experimental Ki values of 21, 22 and 23
were found to be 25-, 8- and 10-fold higher than the predicted val-
ues (Fig. 1).4 This may be due to the fact that Boppanna et al.4 has
developed the pharmacophore model by including the ligands in
training set that could able to interact covalently with the receptor.
Moreover these three molecules were proposed by Boppana et al.4
as potent MAO-B selective inhibitors. But, only 22 was found to be
slightly selective towards MAO-B. They have predicted the data-
base only with the model developed for MAO-B inhibitors. No
model for MAO-A inhibitors was developed and molecules were
predicted against the model by Boppana et al.4 This may be the rea-
son why these molecules were predicted and reported as potent
MAO-B inhibitors. Possibly prediction of these molecules against
model for MAO-A inhibitors and MAO-B inhibitors might have pro-
vided a true picture of selectivity towards isoforms.
Further compound 7, 11, 22 and 27 were selected for molecular
docking simulations studies. Both R and S conformers were docked
to understand the impact of configuration at C5 carbon of pyrazo-
line towards activity and selectivity. It has been reported already
that enantiomer exhibited improved selectivity than racemates
through chiral separation of racemates8–10 and also through mod-
elling studies.11,12 Compounds 7 and 11 were studied against h
MAO-A isoform to understand the factors contributing towards po-
tency, while compounds 22 and 27 were studied against both
hMAO-A and hMAO-B to understand the factors determining the
Scheme 2. Reagents and conditions: (a) NH2–NH–C(=Y)–NH2 (where X = O, S, NH),
C2H5OH, reflux, 12–18 h.
Pharmaceuticals, Germany). AmplexÒ-Red MAO Assay Kit
(Molecular Probes, USA) contained benzylamine, p-tyramine,
Clorgyline (MAO-A inhibitor), Pargyline (MAO-B inhibitor) and
horse radish peroxidase. The interactions of the synthesized com-
pounds (5–16 and 21–30) with hMAO isoforms were determined
by a fluorimetric method described and modified previously.6,7
The production of H2O2 catalysed by MAO isoforms was detected
using 10-acetyl-3,7-dihydroxyphenoxazine (AmplexÒ-Red reagent),
a non-fluorescent, highly sensitive and stable probe that reacts
with H2O2 in the presence of horseradish peroxidase to produce a
fluorescent product, resorufin. The results are presented in
Table 1(a and b).
All the compounds were found to inhibit MAO-A selectively and
reversibly, except 22, 23 and 27 those were non-selective towards
either MAO isoforms. The compounds with ring C (5–16) were po-
tent MAO-A inhibitors with Ki in nM range (except 15) and SIMAO-A
is in the order of 103–104. Compounds 7 and 11 were found to be
the most potent MAO-A inhibitors within this series with Ki values
99.55 9.07 and 90.45 4.73 nM, respectively. SAR within this ser-
ies reveals (i) 2-hydroxy substitution in ring B is better than 4-hy-
droxy (except 11 and 14), (ii) methoxy substitution in ring C is
better than methyl substitution (except 15) and (iii) meta substitu-
tion found to be favourable when above two factors exists. Ortho
hydroxy substitution in ring B increases potency and selectivity in-
dex towards MAO-A when there is methoxy substitution in meta
position of ring C. Whereas para hydroxy substitution in ring B
increases potency and selectivity towards MAO-A, with both
selectivity. The Estimated Ki (EKi in
lM) and Selectivity Index
(SI) for R, S and average of R and S were presented in Table 2. Dock-
ing protocol reported already by our group has been followed.3,5,13
Docking reports revealed that S-conformers are slightly better than
R-conformer (except 11 for MAO-A and 27 for MAO-B).
Since racemates were screened for MAO inhibitory activity, the
average Estimated Ki (EKi in lM) for S and R conformers was also
calculated (EKiav) for comparison. From the EKiav, it is clear that
7 and 11 were selective towards MAO-A, 22 was slightly selective