Adenosine receptor ligands: Coumarin–Chalcone hybrids as modulating agents on the activity of hARs

Article abstract of DOI:10.3390/molecules25184306

Adenosine receptors (ARs) play an important role in neurological and psychiatric disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy and schizophrenia. The different subtypes of ARs and the knowledge on their densities and status are important for understanding the mechanisms underlying the pathogenesis of diseases and for developing new therapeutics. Looking for new scaffolds for selective AR ligands, coumarin–chalcone hybrids were synthesized (compounds 1–8) and screened in radioligand binding (hA₁, hA_2A and hA₃) and adenylyl cyclase (hA_2B) assays in order to evaluate their affinity for the four human AR subtypes (hARs). Coumarin–chalcone hybrid has been established as a new scaffold suitable for the development of potent and selective ligands for hA₁ or hA₃ subtypes. In general, hydroxy-substituted hybrids showed some affinity for the hA₁, while the methoxy counterparts were selective for the hA₃. The most potent hA₁ ligand was compound 7 (K_i = 17.7 μM), whereas compound 4 was the most potent ligand for hA₃ (K_i = 2.49 μM). In addition, docking studies with hA₁ and hA₃ homology models were established to analyze the structure–function relationships. Results showed that the different residues located on the protein binding pocket could play an important role in ligand selectivity.

Full text of DOI:10.3390/molecules25184306

molecules
Article
Adenosine Receptor Ligands: Coumarin–Chalcone
Hybrids as Modulating Agents on the Activity
of hARs
Saleta Vazquez-Rodriguez 1,*,†, Santiago Vilar 1, Sonja Kachler 2, Karl-Norbert Klotz 2,
Eugenio Uriarte 1,3, Fernanda Borges 4 and Maria João Matos 1,4,
*
1
Departamento de Química Orgánica, Facultad de Farmacia, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela,
15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain; qosanti@yahoo.es (S.V.); eugenio.uriarte@usc.es (E.U.)
Institut für Pharmakologie und Toxikologie, Universität Würzburg, 97078 Würzburg, Germany;
sonja.kachler@toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de (S.K.); klotz@toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de (K.-N.K.)
Instituto de Ciencias Químicas Aplicadas, Universidad Autónoma de Chile, 7500912 Santiago, Chile
CIQUP/Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Faculty of Sciences, University of Porto,
Rua Campo Alegre 687, 4169-007 Porto, Portugal; mfernandamborges@gmail.com
Correspondence: saleta.vazquezrodriguez@cmd.ox.ac.uk (S.V.-R.);
2
3
4
*
mariajoao.correiapinto@usc.es or maria.matos@fc.up.pt (M.J.M.)
†
Current address SVR: Target Discovery Institute, University of Oxford, NDM Research building,
Old Road Campus, Oxford OX3 7FX, UK.
ꢀꢁꢂꢀꢃꢄꢅꢆꢇ
ꢀꢁꢂꢃꢄꢅꢆ
Academic Editor: Pascal Richomme
Received: 27 August 2020; Accepted: 18 September 2020; Published: 19 September 2020
Abstract: Adenosine receptors (ARs) play an important role in neurological and psychiatric disorders
such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy and schizophrenia. The different subtypes
of ARs and the knowledge on their densities and status are important for understanding the
mechanisms underlying the pathogenesis of diseases and for developing new therapeutics. Looking
for new scaffolds for selective AR ligands, coumarin–chalcone hybrids were synthesized (compounds
1–8) and screened in radioligand binding (hA1, hA2A and hA3) and adenylyl cyclase (hA2B) assays in
order to evaluate their affinity for the four human AR subtypes (hARs). Coumarin–chalcone hybrid
has been established as a new scaffold suitable for the development of potent and selective ligands
for hA1 or hA3 subtypes. In general, hydroxy-substituted hybrids showed some affinity for the
hA1, while the methoxy counterparts were selective for the hA3. The most potent hA1 ligand was
compound
7 (Ki = 17.7 µM), whereas compound 4 was the most potent ligand for hA3 (Ki = 2.49 µM).
In addition, docking studies with hA1 and hA3 homology models were established to analyze the
structure–function relationships. Results showed that the different residues located on the protein
binding pocket could play an important role in ligand selectivity.
Keywords: coumarin; chalcone; neurodegenerative diseases; adenosine receptors; binding affinity; docking
1. Introduction
Adenosine receptors (ARs) are cell membrane receptors, belonging to the G protein-coupled
receptor (GPCRs) superfamily. ARs comprised of four different subtypes: A1, A2A, A2B and A3 [
Adenosine is a purine nucleoside and an endogenous modulator of several physiological processes [
1
].
].
1
–4
Extracellular adenosine activates the Gi-coupled receptors of the A1 and A3 subtypes, depressing the
action of the brain, heart, kidneys, and the immune system, amongst other systems, as a consequence
of the inhibition of adenylyl cyclase [5]. The A3 subtype of AR has been cloned [6,7], making it possible
to establish its pharmacological [8–11] and regulatory features [12].
Molecules 2020, 25, 4306; doi:10.3390/molecules25184306
www.mdpi.com/journal/molecules

Molecules 2020, 25, 4306
2 of 14
Due to their widespread presence in cells, ARs proved to be promising targets in drug discovery.
During the last decade, the search for selective ligands has been raised [13 15]. Several AR antagonists
appeared as promising drug candidates for different pathological processes such as inflammation
(A3) [14], heart and renal failure (A1) [16], or neurological disorders including Parkinson [17 18] and
–
,
Alzheimer’s diseases (A2A and/or A1) [19]. ARs can work as targets for various diseases and can open
a new window for new therapeutic approaches.
In particular, A1 antagonists are effective as diuretic agents [20
activity in animal models of in vivo ischemia [22]. On the other hand, A3 antagonists are being
investigated as potential agents against renal injury [23] and also as neuroprotective agents [24 25],
,21] and also show neuroprotective
,
while A3 agonists are also under consideration for treating conditions of the central nervous system
(CNS) and peripheral nervous system [26,27].
From the arsenal of molecules presenting high potency and selectivity on ARs, the xanthine
scaffold was the first to be used to develop the so-called classical AR antagonists [28,29]. In the search
for non-xanthine AR ligands, numerous structures were discovered over the years. Flavones and
isoflavones have played a remarkable role. As an example, genistein, was described as a competitive
antagonist at A1 in FRTL (thyroid) cells [30], and galangin was found to bind to the three subtypes of
ARs displaying micromolar affinity for the A3 [31]. The affinity of flavonoids and other phytochemicals
to ARs brings about the hypothesis that probably other types of natural substances, namely those
present in the diet, can interact with this type of receptor.
Coumarins (chromone isosteres) and chalcones (a flavonoid precursor) are naturally occurring
benzopyran-related molecules presenting a variety of pharmacological activities [32–34]. Having in
mind that both the coumarin and chalcone nuclei are structurally close to flavonoids, the design of
novel AR ligands based on their scaffolds emerged as an interesting idea. Our study was also motivated
by the structural similarity between the coumarin and the chromone scaffolds, which were previously
described as AR ligands [35
,36], and by the similarities with some coumarin derivatives previously
described in our group [37 42]. In this context, we focused our attention on the 3-benzoylcoumarin
–
core, considered as a hybrid scaffold in which the chalcone is fixed in a trans conformation through
the double bond of the pyrone ring of the coumarin skeleton (Figure 1), presenting a more restricted
conformation compared to the previously described coumarin–chalcone hybrids [36].
Figure 1. Rational design of coumarin–chalcone hybrids.

Molecules 2020, 25, 4306
3 of 14
Therefore, based on the structural similarities between flavones, chalcones and coumarins,
we decided to design and synthesize a novel family of coumarin–chalcone hybrid derivatives and
study their activity on the different subtypes of human AR.
2. Results and Discussion
2.1. Chemistry
Two sets of coumarin–chalcone hybrids have been synthesized: one decorated with methoxy
substituents (1–4) and another with hydroxy substituents (5–8). An efficient and versatile Knoevenagel
reaction, treating a commercially available salicylaldehyde and the corresponding methoxylated
ethyl benzoylacetate with piperidine in ethanol (EtOH) at reflux for 2–6 h, allowed the desired
methoxy-3-benzoylcoumarins 1–4 with 85–97% yield. The hydroxy-3-benzoylcoumarins 5–8 were
obtained by hydrolysis of the corresponding methoxy derivatives, with 75–94% yield, by employing
boron tribromide (BBr3) as deprotecting reagent in dichloromethane (DCM) at 80 ◦C in a Schlenk tube
for 48 h [43]. The synthetic approach is illustrated in Scheme 1 and described in the methods and
materials section.
R1
R1
O
O
O
R2
R3
CHO
OH
R2
R3
(a)
+
EtO2C
O
OMe
OMe
R4
R4
1-4
R1, R2, R3, R4 = H, OMe
1
2
3
4
R1 = R2 = R3 = H; R4 = OMe
R1 = R3 = H; R2 = R4 = OMe
R2 = H; R1 = R3 = R4 = OMe
R2 = R4 = H; R1 = R3 = OMe
(b)
R1
O
O
R2
R3
O
OH
R4
5-8
5
6
7
8
R1 = R2 = R3 = H; R4 = OH
R1 = R3 = H; R2 = R4 = OH
R2 = H; R1 = R3 = R4 = OH
R2 = R4 = H; R1 = R3 = OH
Scheme 1. Synthetic route to obtain the coumarin-chalcone hybrids. Reagents and conditions: (
a) piperidine,
EtOH, reflux, 2–6 h; (b) BBr3, DCM, 80 ◦C, 48 h.
2.2. Pharmacology
Adenosine Receptor Binding Affinity Assays
The adenosine binding affinity of derivatives
1–8 for the human AR subtypes hA1, hA2A
and hA3, expressed in Chinese Hamster Ovary (CHO) cells, was determined in radioligand

Molecules 2020, 25, 4306
4 of 14
competition experiments [43
,
44]. In the binding affinity assay, it is measured the competition
of ligands for specific binding of [3H]CCPA (2-chloro-N6-cyclopentyladenosine) to hA1; specific
binding of [3H]NECA (50-N-ethylcarboxamidoadenosine) to hA2A; and specific binding of
[3H]HEMADO (2-(1-hexynyl)-N6-methyladenosine) to hA3. The results are expressed as Ki (dissociation
constants), which were calculated with the program SCTFIT, and given as geometric means of
at least three experiments, including 95% confidence intervals. Due to the lack of a suitable
radioligand for the hA2B receptor, the potency of antagonists at the hA2B receptor was determined
by inhibition of NECA-stimulated adenylyl cyclase activity with increasing concentrations of
antagonist [43
a concentration-dependent fashion, and Ki values were calculated from the measured IC50 values [45].
Derivatives were efficiently synthesized and their in vitro binding affinity for human
,44]. As a result, cAMP (cyclic adenosine monophosphate) production was inhibited in
1–8
AR subtypes hA1, hA2A, hA2B and hA3, expressed in CHO cells, was evaluated. In the present
communication, the studies were focused on the inspection of the effect on the binding affinity of
different number and position of methoxy or hydroxy substituents on the 3-benzoylcoumarin scaffold.
Data obtained for the binding affinity for hA1 and hA3 is summarized in Table 1. For all the tested
compounds, no significant affinity was detected for the hA2A (Ki > 100 µM) or hA2B (Ki > 10 µM).
Table 1. Binding affinity (Ki) of compounds 1–8 on hA1 and hA3 AR.
hA1
hA3
Compound
(Ki µM) a
(Ki µM) a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
>100
>100
>100
>100
>30 b
9.03 (6.28–13.0)
2.49 (2.33–2.66)
34.5 (29.7–40.1)
>60 b
>100
39.5 (25.3–61.5)
54.0 (49.8–58.5)
17.7 (16.0–19.5)
29.1 (20.4–41.5)
6.77 (4.07–11.3)
>30 b
>60 b
Theophylline
86.4 (73.6−101)
a Results are geometric means of 3 experiments and given with 95% confidence intervals (in parentheses). At higher
b
concentrations, the compounds precipitate.
The binding affinity results show that derivatives
scaffold or with a single methoxy group at the position 6 of the coumarin core, respectively, display no
detectable binding affinity for the evaluated receptors (Ki > 100 M). However, the presence of two
methoxy groups at positions 5 and 7 (compounds 3 and 4, respectively) lead to an increment on both
the potency and selectivity for the hA3. Compound , presenting three methoxy groups at positions 5,
7 and 40 proved to be hA3 selective, displaying a Ki = 9.03
M, whereas compound , presenting an extra
methoxy groups at position 30 is not only selective for hA3, but also displays a increase in potency
Ki = 2.49 µM). Compared to theophylline, classically used as a reference compound, we would like to
1 and 2, without substitutions on the coumarin
µ
3
µ
4
(
highlight that both compounds 3 and 4 are more potent and hA3 selective molecules.
Based on this data, it can be concluded that both nature and position of the substitution patterns
on the coumarin–chalcone scaffold play a key role in the interaction with the hA3. It can be highlighted
that positions 5 and 7 of the studied scaffold seem to be relevant for the observed selectivity and
potency. Analyzing the methoxylated derivatives 1–4, only the molecules presenting substituents at
these two positions (compounds 3 and 4) are hA3 active and selective ligands.
Interestingly, a similar tendency was observed for hA1 binding of the hydroxylated derivatives
(
5
–
8
), which bear hydroxy groups instead of methoxy groups at positions 5 and 7 (compounds
Derivatives and display the highest potency and selectivity of the studied series towards hA1,
but their activity towards this receptor is still low with Ki = 17.7 µM and Ki = 29.1 µM, respectively.
7 and 8).
7
8

Molecules 2020, 25, 4306
5 of 14
2.3. Theoretical Evaluation of ADME Properties
In order to explore the drug-like properties of compounds
1–
8, the lipophilicity, expressed as the
octanol/water partition coefficient and herein named clogP, as well as other theoretical calculations
such as number of hydrogen acceptors and number of hydrogen bond donors, and topological polar
surface area (TPSA), were calculated using the Molinspiration software [46]. Theoretical prediction of
absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion (ADME) properties of all derivatives is summarized
in Table 2.
Table 2. Theoretical evaluation of the ADME properties of coumarin–chalcone hybrids.a.
TPSA
(Å2)
n-OH
Acceptors
n-OHNH
Donors
Volume
(Å3)
Compound
clogP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
3.04
3.08
3.06
3.47
2.43
1.93
1.63
2.12
65.75
74.98
84.22
74.98
87.74
107.97
128.20
107.97
5
6
7
6
5
6
7
6
0
0
0
0
2
3
4
3
270.07
295.62
321.16
295.16
235.01
243.03
251.05
243.03
a
TPSA, topological polar surface area; n-OH, number of hydrogen acceptors; n-OHNH, number of hydrogen
bond donors.
Based on this theoretical data, it can be concluded that the study molecules 1–8 do not violate
any of Lipinski’s rules (namely molecular weight, clogP, number of hydrogen donors and acceptors).
In addition, TPSA, described as an indicator of membrane permeability, was favorable for the
studied compounds.
2.4. Molecular Modeling
hA1 and hA3 homology models were successfully constructed (Materials and methods section).
A selection of models obtained from Induce Fit calculations were tested based on their ability to
discriminate between known ligands, decoys and between subtype-selective compounds. The models
selected for the docking calculations showed excellent results in both tests. A dataset of 200 randomly
selected decoys from the ZINC database [47] were mixed up with 22 known ligands of each adenosine
receptor subtype [48] Glide SP precision was used to dock the database to the hA1 and hA3 models [49].
Table 3 presents the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUROC) for both
systems. To differentiate between subtype-selective ligands, a second and more challenging test
was performed. As in a previous study [48], 66 subtype-selective molecules (22 hA1, 22 hA2A and
22 hA3 compounds) were docked to the hA1 model (22 true positives vs. 44 false positives) and to
the hA3 (22 true positives vs. 44 false positives). Results corroborate those previously published by
Katritch et al. [50] and proved that the developed homology models are able to discriminate between
subtype-selective compounds (Table 3).
Table 3. Area under the ROC curve (AUROC) for the two homology models.
AUROC
hA1
hA3
test 1 a
test 2 b
0.91
0.86
0.95
0.82
a
22 hA1 or 22 hA3 ligands as true positives (TP) and 200 random decoys as false positives (FP) were considered.
For hA1, 22 hA1 selective compounds as TP and 22 hA2A + 22 hA3 compounds as FP were considered. For hA3,
b
22 hA3 compounds as TP and 22 hA2A + 22 hA1 compounds as FP were considered.

Molecules 2020, 25, 4306
6 of 14
Glide SP molecular docking simulations were run with our data using the hA1 and hA3 selected
homology models as protein structures to detect the hypothetical binding mode of the new synthesized
compounds [51]. The Prime module was used to optimize the protein structure for each binding
mode [52]. Molecular docking simulations are represented in Figure 2.
b)
a)
GLN167
LEU264
VAL169
ASN250
HIS272
c)
d)
GLN167
GLU170
THR270
VAL169
GLU172
ASN254
LEU264
ALA69
ASN250
HIS272
THR277
Figure 2.
and 3UZC (right)] with the pose of compound
carbons). Binding pockets in hA2A and hA3 were superposed. (
the hA3 after docking. Hydrogen bonds are represented in yellow color. (
mode for compound (pink carbons) in the hA3. ( ) Pose obtained through docking simulations for
(a
) Comparative study of the co-crystallized ligands (green carbons) in the hA2A [3EML (left)
extracted from the hA3 docking calculations (grey
) Pose extracted for compound inside
) Hypothetical binding
3
b
3
c
5
d
compound 7 (green carbons) in the hA1 protein pocket.
Docking calculations and the established homology models for the hA1 and hA3 identified the
hypothetical binding mode and rationalized the interaction of these derivatives with their respective
ARs binding sites.
The calculations showed a high level of variability since all the synthetized derivatives yielded
different possible binding modes inside the pockets. Selection of the hypothetical binding pose was
accomplished considering the number of similar poses extracted from the simulations and geometrical
correspondence to crystallized ligands in the hA2A (Figure 2a).
Docking results disclosed important data about the binding mode: the oxygens presented in the
benzopyrone system are oriented towards the Asn250 residue and the benzoyl moiety was buried
in the hA3 pocket. This hypothetical binding mode corroborates the conformations shown by the
co-crystallized ligands in the hA2A (PDB: 3EML and 3UZC) [48,53] (Figure 2a,b). The pose of compound
3 produced effective hydrogen bonds with Gln167, Asn250 and His272 residues.
Interestingly, when methoxy substituents were demethylated and changed into hydroxy
equivalents (compounds
of affinity for hA3 and a tendency for interaction with hA1. The only compound that discloses some
affinity for both receptors was compound (hA1 Ki = 39.5 and hA3 Ki = 34.5 M), which presents
a catechol at positions 30 and 40 and no substitutions in the coumarin fragment. The hypothetical
binding mode for compound in the hA3 pocket is represented in Figure 2c. The compound can
establish hydrogen bonds with Ala69, Asn250 and His272 residues. As observed in the hA2A crystallized
5–8) a modification in the profile of the studied derivatives was noticed: a loss
5
µ
5

Molecules 2020, 25, 4306
7 of 14
structure and previously published studies [54
,55], the corresponding Asn250 residue seems to play
an important role in ligand recognition. The compound 5 pose inside the hA1 pocket is likewise the
described pose in the hA3 one. However, the position was slightly shifted, and calculations were not
able to retrieve a hydrogen bond with the Asn250 residue. The introduction of an additional hydroxy
group at position 6 of the coumarin scaffold (compound
affinity. The most noticeable binding affinities were found for derivatives with hydroxy substitutions
at positions 5 and 7 of the coumarin core, as stated for methoxy equivalents. Thereby, compound
with the same substitution pattern as quercetin (Figure 1), that is, hydroxy groups at positions 5, 7, 30
and 40, displays hA1 selectivity, and the best binding affinity (Ki = 17.7
M). Compound , with the
same substitution pattern as genistein (Figure 1, hydroxy substituents at positions 5, 7 and 40) shows
a similar hA1 selectivity (Ki = 29.1 M). The pose obtained through docking calculations for compound
in the hA1 protein pocket showed the possibility of establishment of hydrogen bonds with Glu172,
6), resulted in a loss of measurable hA3 binding
7,
µ
8
µ
7
Asn254 and Thr277 residues (Figure 2d).
Moreover, we calculated the interaction energy contributions of the residues in hA3 and hA1
pockets with compounds 3 and 7, respectively (Figure 3). The sum of different individual contributions,
such as Coulomb, van der Waals and hydrogen bond energies, was taken into account in the calculation
of the interaction energies for each residue.
a)
0
‐2
‐4
‐6
‐8
‐10
Compound 3 in A3
b)
0
‐2
‐4
‐6
‐8
‐10
‐12
‐14
Compound 7 in A1
Figure 3. Interaction energy contribution (sum of Coulomb, van der Waals and hydrogen bond energies)
between the residues in the (
a) hA3 and (b) hA1 and the respective derivatives 3 and 7 (residues in
a distance of 3 Å from the ligand).
In addition, Figure 4 shows the molecular surface around the two residues in the hA1 and hA3
that could be responsible for the observed selectivity.
Regarding the interaction energy contributions (Figure 4), calculations showed that the molecular
surface around the two residues in the hA1 and hA3 could be responsible for the observed selectivity.
Phe168, Asn250, Ile268 and His272 are important residues in the interaction between compound
3
and
the hA3. Residues with important contributions in the stabilization of compound
7 inside the hA1 are
Phe171, Gln172, Asn254, Ile274 and Thr277.

Molecules 2020, 25, 4306
8 of 14
a)
b)
GLU172
THR270
VAL169
LEU264
Figure 4. Molecular surface showing favored interaction areas generated in the (a) hA1 and (b) hA3.
Red color represents hydrogen-bond areas, green color shows hydrophobic areas, and blue represents
mildly polar interfaces. Protein structures are viewed from the extracellular side.
There are different residues in both hA1 and hA3 with different hydrophobic/hydrophilic
characteristics, which may be important to understand the observed selectivity. Hydrophobic residues
in the hA3, such as Val169 and Leu264, could establish hydrophobic interactions and contribute towards
stabilizing the ligand when the derivatives present hydrophobic substituents, like methoxy groups
(i.e.,
Thr270. They have hydrophilic characteristics and so can stabilize the binding of derivatives with polar
substituents, such as the hybrids with hydroxy groups (compounds ). Yet, compound 5, with no
3 and 4) (Figure 4). However, in the case of hA1, the corresponding residues are Glu172 and
6–8
substituents in the coumarin ring, can be stabilized in the pocket of both proteins.
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Chemistry
3.1.1. General Methods
Starting materials and reagents were obtained from commercial suppliers and were used without
purification. Melting points (mp) were determined using a Reichert Kofler thermopan or in capillary
tubes on a Büchi 510 (Flawil, Switzerland) apparatus and were uncorrected. 1H-NMR (300 MHz) and
13C-NMR (75.4 MHz) spectra were recorded with a Bruker AMX spectrometer (Bruker Daltonics Inc.,
Fremont, CA, USA) using DMSO-d6 or CDCl3 as solvent. Chemical shifts (δ) are expressed in parts per
million (ppm) using TMS as an internal standard. Coupling constants J are expressed in hertz (Hz).
Spin multiplicities are given as s (singlet), bs (broad singlet), d (doublet), dd (doublet of doublets)
and m (multiplet). Mass spectrometry was carried out with a Kratos MS-50 or a Varian MAT-711
spectrometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). Elemental analyses were performed
by a Perkin–Elmer 240B microanalyzer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) and were
within
±
0.4% of the calculated values in all cases. The analytical results were
≥
95% purity for all
compounds. Flash Chromatography (FC) was performed on silica gel (Merck 60, 230–400 mesh,

Molecules 2020, 25, 4306
9 of 14
Kenilworth, NJ, USA) and analytical TLC on precoated silica gel plates (Merck 60 F254, Kenilworth,
NJ, USA). Organic solutions were dried over anhydrous sodium sulfate. Concentration and evaporation
of the solvent after reaction or extraction was carried out on a Büchi rotavapor (BÜCHI Labortechnik
AG, Switzerland) operating at reduced pressure. The purity of compounds was assessed by high
performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) coupled at diode array detector (DAD) on a Thermo
Quest Spectrasystem (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) equipped with a P4000 pump,
an UV6000 UV-Vis diode array detector, and a SN4000 interface to be operated via a personal computer.
The instrument software ChromQuest 5.0 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) was used for
data acquisition. Different analytical columns and mobile phases (all solvents were HPLC grade) were
tested. The mobile phase was H2O:CH3CN = 70:30 and an Eclipse xdb C18 column (5 µm particle size,
0.46 mm i.d., 25 cm length; Agilent Technologies, CA, USA) was used. The purity of the compounds
was found to be higher than 95%.
3.1.2. Synthetic Protocol to Obtain the Methoxy-3-benzoylcoumarins 1–4
To a solution of the appropriate β-ketoester (1 mmol) and the corresponding salicylaldehyde
(1 mmol) in ethanol (5 mL) piperidine in catalytic amount (0.10 mL) was added. The reaction mixture
was refluxed for 2–6 h and, after completion (followed by TLC), the reaction was cooled, and the
precipitate was filtered and washed with cold ethanol and ether. The obtained solid was recrystallized
in DCM to afford the corresponding methoxy-3-benzoylcoumarin compounds.
3.1.3. Synthetic Protocol to Obtain the Hydroxy-3-benzoylcoumarins 5–8
In a Schlenk tube, the appropriate methoxy derivative compound 1–4 (1 mmol) was dissolved in
DCM (1 mL), and BBr3 (20 mmol, 1M) was added dropwise. The tube was sealed, and the reaction
mixture was heated at 80 ◦C for 48 h. The resulting crude product was treated with MeOH and rotated
to dryness. The obtained crude solid was recrystallized in MeOH or purified by flash chromatography
using hexane/ethyl acetate mixtures as eluent, to afford the desired hydroxy derivatives.
3-(30,40-Dimethoxybenzoyl)coumarin (
CDCl3) ppm 8.01 (s, 1H, H-4), 7.71–7.52 (m, 3H, 3x Ar-H), 7.50–7.29 (m, 3H, 3x Ar-H), 6.87 (d, J = 8.4 Hz
1H, H-50), 3.95 (s, 6H, 2x OCH3); 13C-NMR (75 MHz, CDCl3)
1
): 85% yield; white solid; mp 190–191 ◦C; 1H-NMR (300 MHz,
δ
,
δ
ppm 190.3, 154.8, 154.4, 149.5, 144.6,
133.6, 129.3, 129.2, 127.8, 125.7, 125.2, 118.5, 117.2, 111.2, 110.2, 56.4, 56.3; EI-MS m/z (%): 311 ([M + 1]+,
59), 310 (M+, 100), 173 (41), 166 (25), 165 (99), 79 (22), 77 (22); Anal. Calcd. For C18H14O5: C 69.67,
H 4.55. Found: C 69.69, H 4.58.
6-Methoxy-3-(30,40-dimethoxybenzoyl)coumarin (
(300 MHz, CDCl3)
ppm 7.78 (s, 1H, H-4), 7.38 (d, J = 1.9 Hz, 1H, H-20), 7.26 (dd, J = 8.4, 2.0 Hz, 1H,
H-60), 7.16 (d, J = 9.1 Hz, 1H, H-8), 7.04 (dd, J = 9.1, 2.9 Hz, 1H, H-7), 6.82 (d, J = 2.9 Hz, 1H, H-5), 6.70
(d, J = 8.4 Hz, 1H, H-50), 3.78 (s, 6H, 2x OCH3), 3.69 (s, 3H, OCH3); 13C-NMR (75 MHz, CDCl3)
ppm
2
): 97% yield; beige solid; mp 202–203 ◦C; 1H-NMR
δ
δ
190.4, 156.6, 154.4, 149.5, 149.3, 144.4, 129.4, 128.0, 125.7, 121.6, 118.8, 118.2, 111.2, 110.8, 110.2, 56.4, 56.3,
56.1; EI-MS m/z (%): 341 ([M + 1]+, 58), 340 ([M]+, 94), 165 (100), 77 (22); Anal. Calcd. For C19H16O6:
C 67.05, H 4.74. Found: C 67.09, H 4.75.
5,7-Dimethoxy-3-(30,40-dimethoxybenzoyl)coumarin (
1H-NMR (300 MHz, CDCl3) ppm 8.19 (s, 1H, H-4), 7.34 (d, J = 1.9 Hz, 1H, H-20), 7.26 (dd, J = 8.4,
2.0 Hz, 1H, H-60), 6.70 (d, J = 8.4 Hz, 1H, H-50), 6.29 (d, J = 2.0 Hz, 1H, H-6), 6.14 (d, J = 2.0 Hz, 1H, H-8),
3.77 (bs, 6H, 2x OCH3), 3.72 (bs, 6H, 2x OCH3); 13C-NMR (75 MHz, CDCl3)
ppm 190.9, 165.8, 159.4,
3
): 91% yield; pale yellow solid; mp 210–211 ◦C;
δ
δ
158.4, 158.0, 153.9, 149.3, 141.5, 130.0, 125.4, 121.3, 111.5, 110.1, 103.9, 95.4, 93.0, 56.3; EI-MS m/z (%):
371 ([M + 1]+, 24), 370 (M+, 100), 339 (21), 233 (30), 165 (63); Anal. Calcd. For C20H18O7: C 64.86,
H 4.90. Found: C 64.88, H 4.93.
5,7-Dimethoxy-3-(40-methoxybenzoyl)coumarin (
1H-NMR (300 MHz, CDCl3) ppm 8.21 (s, 1H, H-4), 7.69 (d, J = 8.8 Hz, 2H, H-20, H-60), 6.77 (d, J = 8.8 Hz
4): 97% yield; pale yellow solid; mp 174–175 C;
◦
δ
,

Molecules 2020, 25, 4306
10 of 14
2H, H-30, H-50), 6.29 (d, J = 2.2 Hz, 1H, H-6), 6.13 (d, J = 2.2 Hz, 1H, H-8), 3.72 (2s, 3H + 3H, 2x OCH3),
3.70 (s, 3H, OCH3); 13C-NMR (75 MHz, CDCl3)
δ ppm 190.7, 165.6, 163.8, 159.1, 158.2, 157.8, 141.5,
132.1, 129.8, 121.2, 113.7, 103.8, 95.2, 92.8, 56.1, 56.0, 55.5; EI-MS m/z (%): 341 ([M + 1]+, 33), 340 (M+, 88),
325 (28) 312 (30), 309 (45), 297 (20), 233 (48), 135 (100), 92 (27), 77 (38). Anal. Calcd. For C19H16O6:
C 67.05, H 4.74. Found: C 67.08, H 4.76.
◦
5,7-Dihydroxy-3-(40-hydroxybenzoyl)coumarin (
1H-NMR (300 MHz, DMSO-d6)
ppm 11.10 (s, 1H), 10.85 (s, 1H), 10.53 (s, 1H), 8.09 (d, J = 1.4 Hz,
1H), 7.67 (d, J = 8.6 Hz, 2H), 6.80 (d, J = 8.7 Hz, 2H), 6.25 (d, J = 2.0 Hz, 1H), 6.22 (d, J = 1.8 Hz, 1H);
8): 88% yield; pale green solid; mp 290–292 C;
δ
13C-NMR (75 MHz, DMSO-d6)
δ ppm 190.4, 164.2, 162.4, 158.8, 157.5, 157.2, 141.1, 132.3, 128.3, 119.0,
115.3, 101.5, 98.5, 94.3. EI-MS m/z (%): 299 ([M + 1]+, 9), 298 (M+, 31), 283 (16), 218 (20), 121 (100),
93 (26), 65 (27). Anal. Calcd. For C16H10O6: C 64.43, H 3.38. Found: C 64.39, H 3.37.
3.2. Biological Assays
3.2.1. Binding Affinity Assays
The binding affinity for hA1, hA2A, hA3 of the synthetized compounds was evaluated using
radioligand competition experiments in CHO cells that were stably transfected with the individual
receptor subtypes [44,
45]. The radioligands used were 1 nM [3H]CCPA for hA1 (KD = 0.61 nM),
10 nM [3H]NECA for hA2A (KD = 20.1 nM), and 1 nM [3H]HEMADO for hA3 (KD = 1.2 nM) receptors.
Due to the lack of a suitable radioligand for the hA2B receptor, the potency of antagonists at the hA2B
receptor (expressed on CHO cells) was determined by inhibition of NECA-stimulated adenylyl cyclase
activity [44,45]. The IC50 for inhibition of cAMP (cyclic adenosine monophosphate) production was
determined and converted to Ki values using the Cheng and Prusoff equation [56]. For all the tested
compounds, no measurable activity for the hA2B (Ki > 10 µM) was detected.
3.2.2. Statistical Methods
Ki values (dissociation constants) were determined in radioligand competition experiments
with 7–8 different concentrations of test compound and each concentration was tested in duplicate.
Ki values are given as geometric means of three independent experiments with 95% confidence intervals.
The program Prism 6 (GraphPad Software) was used for the analysis of the competition curves.
3.3. Theoretical Evaluation of ADME Properties
cLogP was calculated by the methodology developed by Molinspiration as a sum of fragment-based
contributions and correction factors. Topological Polar Surface Area (TPSA) was calculated based
on the methodology published by Ertl et al. as a sum of fragment contributions [57]. Oxygen- and
nitrogen-centered polar fragments are considered. TPSA has been shown to be a very good descriptor
characterizing drug absorption, including intestinal absorption, bioavailability, Caco-2 permeability
and blood–brain barrier penetration. The method for calculation of molecule volume developed at
Molinspiration is based on group contributions. These have been obtained by fitting the sum of
fragment contributions to “real” 3D volume for a training set of about twelve thousand, mostly drug-like
molecules. Three-dimensional molecular geometries for a training set were fully optimized by the
semiempirical AM1 method.
3.4. Molecular Modeling
Homology modeling was carried out using the Molecular Operating Environment (MOE) suite [49].
Molecular docking simulations were performed with the Schrodinger package [51,52].

Molecules 2020, 25, 4306
11 of 14
3.4.1. Homology Models of hA1 and hA3
Homology models of the hA1 and hA3 were constructed. The crystallized structure of the hA2A
receptor (PDB: 3EML) was used as a template [48]. Protein sequence alignment of the 3 receptors
(hA1, hA2A and hA3) used to generate the homology models was performed as previously described
by Katritch et al. [50]. The alignment was made considering the highly conserved residues in the
different TM helices. MOE software was used to generate the homology models [49]. Protein geometry
was evaluated for the models taking into account Phi–Psi plots, rotamers, bond angles, bond lengths,
atom clashes, dihedrals and contact energies. The presence of different conserved disulfide bridges was
manually checked, such as the bridge between the corresponding Cys77 and Cys166 residues in the hA2A
.
Induce Fit Docking Workflow in the Schrodinger package was used to optimize the final models [58].
Selective high affinity ligands (compounds coll_11 and jaco_mre3008_f20) [50] were used to adapt the
protein pocket for the hA1 and hA3, respectively. This procedure involved three steps: 1) Glide-based
docking of the ligands using SP mode (standard-precision); 2) Protein pocket optimization using
Prime and considering the residues within 5Å from the ligand poses; 3) Glide-based docking of the
ligands in the refined pocket using XP mode (Extra-precision). As previously described [50], homology
models were tested for their capability to discriminate ligands from decoys and between known
subtype-selective compounds. ROC curves were performed, and the best models were selected for
further molecular docking studies.
3.4.2. Molecular Docking of hA1 and hA3 ARs
Molecular docking studies using the hA1 and hA3 homology models, selected in the previous step,
were carried out. Compounds were docked using Glide SP mode [52]. Ten poses for each ligand were
collected and optimized using MM-GBSA in Prime [53], taking into account a flexible protein region
defined by 5 Å from the ligand. Final binding modes were selected, taking into account the number
of similar poses extracted from the calculations and geometrical correspondence to co-crystallized
ligands in the hA2A
.
4. Conclusions
The current study was focused on the synthesis and the evaluation of binding affinity towards
the four subtypes of human ARs of a selected series of methoxy and hydroxy coumarin–chalcone
hybrids. Structure–activity relationship (SAR) studies of the new molecules highlighted that, in general,
methoxy substitutions, as in the example of compounds
and selectivity, whereas the hydroxy substitutions, as in the example of compounds
hA1 binding affinity. Substitutions at positions 5 and 7 of the coumarin scaffold proved to be essential
for the potency and selectivity in both series of compounds. Compound , a methoxy derivative,
and compound , a hydroxy derivative, proved to be the most potent compounds of the studied
series, displaying a hA3 Ki = 2.49 M and a hA1 Ki = 17.7 M, respectively. Docking calculations allow
an understanding the binding preference of the studied molecules. Finally, the theoretical values for
the ADME properties show that all the coumarin–chalcone hybrids do not break any of Lipinski’s
rules, being promising scaffolds for further compound optimization.
3
and 4, allow a superior hA3 binding affinity
5–8
, allow a modest
4
7
µ
µ
1–8
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.V.-R. and M.J.M.; methodology, S.V.-R., S.V. and S.K.; software, S.V.;
validation, K.-N.K., F.B. and E.U.; formal analysis, S.V.-R., S.K. and S.V.; investigation, S.V.-R., S.K., S.V. and M.J.M.;
resources, S.V.-R., S.K., S.V., K.-N.K., E.U., F.B. and M.J.M.; data curation, S.V.-R., S.K., S.V.; writing—original draft
preparation and editing, S.V.-R.; writing—review and editing, M.J.M.; visualization, K.-N.K.; supervision, F.B. and
E.U.; project administration, S.V.-R. and M.J.M.; funding acquisition, S.V.-R., S.K., S.V., K.-N.K., E.U., F.B. and
M.J.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Xunta de Galicia (Galician Plan of Research, Innovation and Growth
2011–2015, Plan I2C, ED481B 2014/027-0, ED481B 2014/086–0 and ED481B 2018/007), Angeles Alvariño program from
Xunta de Galicia, European Social Fund (ESF) and Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT, CEECIND/02423/2018
and UIDB/00081/2020).

Molecules 2020, 25, 4306
12 of 14
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Lourdes Santana for her scientific support. The authors
would like to thank the use of RIAIDT-USC analytical facilities.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Fredholm, B.B.; IJzerman, A.P.; Jacobson, K.A.; Linden, J.; Müller, C.E. International union of basic and clinical
pharmacology. LXXXI. Nomenclature and classification of adenosine receptors-an update. Pharmacol. Rev.
2011, 63, 1–34. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2.
3.
4.
5.
Poulsen, S.A.; Quinn, R.J. Adenosine receptors: New opportunities for future drugs. Bioorg. Med. Chem.
1998, 6, 619–641. [CrossRef]
Fredholm, B.B.; IJzerman, A.P.; Jacobson, K.A.; Klotz, K.N.; Linden, J. International union of pharmacology.
XXV. Nomenclature and classification of adenosine receptors. Pharmacol. Rev. 2001, 5, 527–552.
Fredholm, B.B.; Arslan, G.; Halldner, L.; Kull, B.; Schulte, G.; Wasserman, W. Structure and function of
adenosine receptors and their genes. Arch. Pharmacol. 2000, 362, 364–374. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Draper-Joyce, C.J.; Khoshouei, M.; Thal, D.M.; Liang, Y.-L.; Nguyen, A.T.N.; Furness, S.G.B.; Venugopal, H.;
Baltos, J.-A.; Plitzko, J.M.; Danev, R.; et al. Structure of the adenosine-bound human adenosine A1 receptor-Gi
complex. Nature 2018, 558, 559–563. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6.
7.
8.
9.
Zhou, Q.Y.; Li, C.; Olah, M.E.; Johnson, R.A.; Stiles, G.L.; Civelli, O. Molecular cloning and characterization of
an adenosine receptor: The A3 adenosine receptor. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1992, 89, 7432–7436. [CrossRef]
Salvatore, C.A.; Jacobson, M.A.; Taylor, H.E.; Linden, J.; Johnson, R.G. Molecular cloning and characterization
of the human A3 adenosine receptor. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1993, 90, 10365–10369. [CrossRef]
Ramkumar, V.; Stiles, G.L.; Beaven, M.A.; Ali, H. The A3 adenosine receptor is the unique adenosine receptor
which facilitates release of allergic mediators in mast cells. J. Biol. Chem. 1993, 268, 16887–16890.
Linden, J. Cloned adenosine A3 receptors: Pharmacological properties, species differences and receptor
functions. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 1994, 15, 298–306. [CrossRef]
10. Hannon, J.P.; Pfannkuche, H.J.; Fozard, J.R. A role for mast cells in adenosine A3 receptor-mediated
hypotension in the rat. J. Pharmacol. 1995, 115, 945–952. [CrossRef]
11. Jacobson, K.A.; Nikodijevic´, O.; Shi, D.; Gallo-Rodriguez, C.; Olah, M.E.; Stiles, G.L.; Daly, J.W. A role for
central A3-adenosine receptors. Mediation of behavioral depressant effects. FEBS Lett. 1993, 336, 57–60.
[CrossRef]
12. Vecchio, E.A.; Baltos, J.A.; Nguyen, A.T.N.; Christopoulos, A.; White, P.J.; May, L.T. New paradigms
in adenosine receptor pharmacology: Allostery, oligomerization and biased agonism. Br. J. Pharmacol.
2018, 175, 4036–4046. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Kim, Y.; de Castro, S.; Gao, Z.G.; IJzerman, A.P.; Jacobson, K.A. Novel 2- and 4-substituted 1H-imidazo
[4,5-c]quinolin-4-amine derivatives as allosteric modulators of the A3 adenosine receptor. J. Med. Chem.
2009, 52, 2098–2108. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Lopes, L.V.; Sebastião, A.M.; Ribeiro, J.A. Adenosine and related drugs in brain diseases: Present and future
in clinical trials. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 2011, 11, 1087–1101. [CrossRef]
15. Jespers, W.; Schiedel, A.C.; Heitman, L.H.; Cooke, R.M.; Kleene, L.; van Westen, G.J.P.; Gloriam, D.E.;
Müller, C.E.; Sotelo, E.; Gutiérrez-de-Terán, H. Structural mapping of adenosine receptor mutations: Ligand
binding and signaling mechanisms. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 2018, 39, 75–89. [CrossRef]
16. Shah, R.H.; Frishmanet, W.H. Adenosine1 receptor antagonism: A new therapeutic approach for the treatment
of decompensated heart failure. Cardiol. Rev. 2009, 17, 125–131. [CrossRef]
17. Shook, B.; Rassnick, S.; Wallace, N.; Crooke, J.; Ault, M.; Chakravarty, D.; Barbay, J.K.; Wang, A.; Powell, M.T.;
Leonard, K.; et al. Design and characterization of optimized adenosine A2A/A1 receptor antagonists for the
treatment of Parkinson’s disease. J. Med. Chem. 2012, 55, 1402–1417. [CrossRef]
18. Liu, Y.J.; Chen, J.; Li, X.; Zhou, X.; Hu, Y.M.; Chu, S.F.; Peng, Y.; Chen, N.H. Research progress on adenosine
in central nervous system diseases. CNS Neurosci. Ther. 2019, 25, 899–910. [CrossRef]
19. Stone, T.W.; Ceruti, S.; Abbracchio, M.P. Adenosine receptors and neurological disease: Neuroprotection and
neurodegeneration. Handb. Exp. Pharmacol. 2009, 193, 535–587.
20. Wilcox, C.S.; Welch, W.J.; Schreiner, G.F.; Belardinelli, L. Natriuretic and diuretic actions of a highly selective
adenosine receptor antagonist. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 1999, 10, 714–720.

Molecules 2020, 25, 4306
13 of 14
21. Gottlieb, S.S.; Skettino, S.L.; Wolff, A.; Beckman, E.; Fisher, M.L.; Freudenberger, R.; Gladwell, T.; Marshall, J.;
Cines, M.; Bennett, D.; et al. Effects of BG9719 (CVT-124), an A1 adenosine receptor antagonist, and Furosemide
on glomerular filtration rate and natriuresis in patients with congestive heart failure. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.
2000, 35, 56–59. [CrossRef]
22. de Mendonça, A.; Sebastião, A.M.; Ribeiro, J.A. Adenosine: Does it have a neuroprotective role after all?
Brain Res. Rev. 2000, 33, 258–274. [CrossRef]
23. Lee, H.T.; Ota-Setlik, A.; Xu, H.; D’Agati, V.D.; Jacobson, M.A.; Emala, C.W. A3 adenosine receptor knockout
mice are protected against ischemia- and myoglobinuria-induced renal failure. Am. J. Physiol. Renal Physiol.
2003, 284, 267–273. [CrossRef]
24. Kolahdouzan, M.; Hamadeh, M.J. The neuroprotective effects of caffeine in neurodegenerative diseases.
CNS Neurosci. Ther. 2017, 23, 272–290. [CrossRef]
25. Pugliese, A.M.; Coppi, E.; Spalluto, G.; Corradetti, R.; Pedata, F. A3 adenosine receptor antagonists delay
irreversible synaptic failure caused by oxygen and glucose deprivation in the rat CA1 hippocampus in vitro
.
Br. J. Pharmacol. 2006, 147, 524–532. [CrossRef]
26. Fishman, P.; Bar-Yehuda, S.; Liang, B.T.; Jacobson, K.A. Pharmacological and therapeutic effects of A3
adenosine receptor (A3AR) agonists. Drug Discov. Today 2012, 17, 359–366. [CrossRef]
27. Chen, Z.; Janes, K.; Chen, C.; Doyle, T.; Tosh, D.K.; Jacobson, K.A.; Salvemini, D. Controlling murine and rat
chronic pain through A3 adenosine receptor activation. FASEB J. 2012, 26, 1855–1865. [CrossRef]
28. Baraldi, P.G.; Tabrizi, M.A.; Gessi, S.; Borea, P.A. Adenosine receptor antagonists: Translating medicinal
chemistry and pharmacology into clinical utility. Chem. Rev. 2008, 108, 238–263. [CrossRef]
29. Moro, S.; Gao, Z.G.; Jacobson, K.A.; Spalluto, G. Progress in the pursuit of therapeutic adenosine receptor
antagonists. Med. Res. Rev. 2006, 26, 131–159. [CrossRef]
30. Okajima, F.; Akbar, M.; Abdul Majid, M.; Sho, K.; Tomura, H.; Kondo, Y. Genistein, an inhibitor of protein
tyrosine kinase, is also a competitive antagonist for P1-purinergic (adenosine) receptor in FRTL-5 thyroid
cells. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 1994, 203, 1488–1495. [CrossRef]
31. Jacobson, K.A.; Moro, S.; Manthey, J.A.; West, P.L.; Ji, X.D. Interactions of flavones and other phytochemicals
with adenosine receptors. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 2002, 505, 163–171.
32. Borges, F.; Roleira, F.; Milhazes, N.; Santana, L.; Uriarte, E. Simple coumarins and analogues in medicinal
chemistry: Occurrence, synthesis and biological activity. Curr. Med. Chem. 2005, 12, 887–916. [CrossRef]
33. Go, M.L.; Wu, X.; Liu, X.L. Chalcones: An update on cytotoxic and chemoprotective properties. Curr. Med. Chem.
2005, 12, 483–499. [CrossRef]
34. Nowakowska, Z. Areview ofanti-infective and anti-inflammatorychalcones. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2007, 42, 125–137
.
[CrossRef]
35. Langmead, C.J.; Andrews, S.P.; Congreve, M.; Errey, J.C.; Hurrell, E.; Marshall, F.H.; Mason, J.S.;
Richardson, C.M.; Robertson, N.; Zhukov, A.; et al. Identification of novel adenosine A(2A) receptor
antagonists by virtual screening. J. Med. Chem. 2012, 55, 1904–1909. [CrossRef]
36. Vazquez-Rodriguez, S.; Matos, M.J.; Santana, L.; Uriarte, E.; Borges, F.; Kachler, S.; Klotz, K.N. Chalcone-based
derivatives as new scaffolds for hA3 adenosine receptor antagonists. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 2013, 65, 607–703.
[CrossRef]
37. Gaspar, A.; Reis, J.; Matos, M.J.; Uriarte, E.; Borges, F. In search for new chemical entities as adenosine receptor
ligands: Development of agents based on benzo-γ-pyrone skeleton. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2012, 54, 914–918.
[CrossRef]
38. Matos, M.J.; Vilar, S.; Vazquez-Rodriguez, S.; Kachler, S.; Klotz, K.N.; Buccioni, M.; Delogu, G.; Santana, L.;
Uriarte, E.; Borges, F. Structure-based optimization of coumarin hA3 adenosine receptor antagonists.
J. Med. Chem. 2020, 63, 2577–2587. [CrossRef]
39. Matos, M.J.; Vilar, S.; Kachler, S.; Fonseca, A.; Santana, L.; Uriarte, E.; Borges, F.; Tatonetti, N.P.; Klotz, K.N.
Insight into the interactions between novel coumarin derivatives and human A3 adenosine receptors.
ChemMedChem 2014, 9, 2245–2253. [CrossRef]
40. Matos, M.J.; Vilar, S.; Kachler, S.; Celeiro, M.; Vazquez-Rodriguez, S.; Santana, L.; Uriarte, E.; Hripcsak, G.;
Borges, F.; Klotz, K.N. Development of novel adenosine receptor ligands based on the 3-amidocoumarin
scaffold. Bioorg. Chem. 2015, 61, 1–6. [CrossRef]

Molecules 2020, 25, 4306
14 of 14
41. Matos, M.J.; Vilar, S.; Kachler, S.; Vazquez-Rodriguez, S.; Varela, C.; Delogu, G.; Hripcsak, G.; Santana, L.;
Uriarte, E.; Klotz, K.N.; et al. Progress in the development of small molecules as new human A3 adenosine
receptor ligands based on the 3-thiophenylcoumarin core. MedChemComm 2016, 7, 845–852. [CrossRef]
42. Fonseca, A.; Matos, M.J.; Vilar, S.; Kachler, S.; Klotz, K.N.; Uriarte, E.; Borges, F. Coumarins and adenosine
receptors: New perceptions in. structure–affinity relationships. Chem. Biol. Drug Des. 2018, 91, 245–256.
[CrossRef]
43. Vazquez-Rodriguez, S.; Figueroa-Guiñez, R.; Matos, M.J.; Santana, L.; Uriarte, E.; Lapier, M.; Maya, J.D.;
Olea-Azar, C. Synthesis of coumarin–chalcone hybrids and evaluation of their antioxidant and trypanocidal
properties. Med. Chem. Commun. 2013, 4, 993–1000. [CrossRef]
44. Klotz, K.N.; Hessling, J.; Hegler, J.; Owman, C.; Kull, B.; Fredholm, B.B.; Lohse, M.J. Comparative
pharmacology of human adenosine receptor subtypes-characterization of stably transfected receptors in
CHO cells. Arch. Pharmacol. 1997, 357, 1–9. [CrossRef]
45. Klotz, K.N.; Falgner, N.; Kachler, S.; Lambertucci, C.; Vittori, S.; Volpini, R.; Cristalli, G. [3H]HEMADO–a
novel tritiated agonist selective for the human adenosine A3 receptor. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2007, 556, 14–18.
[CrossRef]
46. M cheminformatics, Bratislava, Slovak Republic. 2009. Available online: http://www.molinspiration.com/
services/properties.html (accessed on 19 September 2020).
47. Irwin, J.J.; Shoichet, B.K. ZINC–a free database of commercially available compounds for virtual screening.
J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2005, 45, 177–182. [CrossRef]
48. Jaakola, V.P.; Griffith, M.T.; Hanson, M.A.; Cherezov, V.; Chien, E.Y.; Lane, J.R.; Ijzerman, A.P.; Stevens, R.C.
The 2.6 angstrom crystal structure of a human A2A adenosine receptor bound to an antagonist. Science
2008, 322, 1211–1217. [CrossRef]
49. MOE, Version 2011.10; Chemical Computing Group, Inc.: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2011.
50. Katritch, V.; Kufareva, I.; Abagyan, R. Structure based prediction of subtype-selectivity for adenosine receptor
antagonists. Neuropharmacology 2011, 60, 108–115. [CrossRef]
51. Glide, Version 5.7; Schrödinger, LLC: New York, NY, USA, 2011.
52. Prime, Version 3.0; Schrödinger, LLC: New York, NY, USA, 2011.
53. Congreve, M.; Andrews, S.P.; Doré, A.S.; Hollenstein, K.; Hurrell, E.; Langmead, C.J.; Mason, J.S.; Ng, I.W.;
Tehan, B.; Zhukov, A.; et al. Discovery of 1,2,4-triazine derivatives as adenosine A(2A) antagonists using
structure based drug design. J. Med. Chem. 2012, 55, 1898–1903. [CrossRef]
54. Lenzi, O.; Colotta, V.; Catarzi, D.; Varano, F.; Poli, D.; Filacchioni, G.; Varani, K.; Vincenzi, F.; Borea, P.A.;
Paoletta, S.; et al. 2-Phenylpyrazolo[4,3-d]pyrimidin-7-one as a new scaffold to obtain potent and selective
human A3 adenosine receptor antagonists: New insights into the receptor-antagonist recognition. J. Med. Chem.
2009, 52, 7640–7652. [CrossRef]
55. Gaspar, A.; Reis, J.; Kachler, S.; Paoletta, S.; Uriarte, E.; Klotz, K.N.; Moro, S.; Borges, F. Discovery of novel A3
adenosine receptor ligands based on chromone scaffold. Biochem. Pharmacol. 2012, 84, 21–29. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
56. Cheng, Y.; Prusoff, W.H. Relationship between the inhibition constant (K1) and the concentration of inhibitor
which causes 50 per cent inhibition (IC50) of an enzymatic reaction. Biochem. Pharmacol. 1973, 22, 3099–3108.
[PubMed]
57. Ertl, P.; Rohde, B.; Selzer, P. Fast calculation of molecular polar surface area as a sum of fragment-based
contributions and its application to the prediction of drug transport properties. J. Med. Chem. 2000, 43, 3714–3717
.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
58. Sherman, W.; Day, T.; Jacobson, M.P.; Friesner, R.A.; Farid, R. Novel procedure for modeling ligand/receptor
induced fit effects. J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 534–553. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sample Availability: Samples of the compounds are available from the authors.
©
2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).