Discovery of unsymmetrical aromatic disulfides as novel inhibitors of SARS-CoV main protease: Chemical synthesis, biological evaluation, molecular docking and 3D-QSAR study

Article abstract of DOI:10.1016/j.ejmech.2017.05.045

The worldwide outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003 had caused a high rate of mortality. Main protease (M^pro) of SARS-associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV) is an important target to discover pharmaceutical compounds for the t

Full text of DOI:10.1016/j.ejmech.2017.05.045

Accepted Manuscript
Discovery of unsymmetrical aromatic disulfides as novel inhibitors of SARS-CoV main
protease: Chemical synthesis, biological evaluation, molecular docking and 3D-QSAR
study
Li Wang, Bo-Bo Bao, Guo-Qing Song, Cheng Chen, Xu-Meng Zhang, Wei Lu, Zefang
Wang, Yan Cai, Shuang Li, Sheng Fu, Fu-Hang Song, Haitao Yang, Jian-Guo Wang
PII:
S0223-5234(17)30406-3
10.1016/j.ejmech.2017.05.045
EJMECH 9475
DOI:
Reference:
To appear in: European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
Received Date: 27 February 2017
Revised Date: 17 May 2017
Accepted Date: 21 May 2017
Please cite this article as: L. Wang, B.-B. Bao, G.-Q. Song, C. Chen, X.-M. Zhang, W. Lu, Z. Wang,
Y. Cai, S. Li, S. Fu, F.-H. Song, H. Yang, J.-G. Wang, Discovery of unsymmetrical aromatic disulfides
as novel inhibitors of SARS-CoV main protease: Chemical synthesis, biological evaluation, molecular
docking and 3D-QSAR study, European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry (2017), doi: 10.1016/
j.ejmech.2017.05.045.
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Discovery of unsymmetrical aromatic disulfides as novel inhibitors of SARS-CoV main protease: Chemical synthesis, biological evaluation, molecular docking and
3D-QSAR study.
Li Wanga,1 Bo-Bo Baob,c,1 Guo-Qing Songa, Cheng Chenb,c,**, Xu-Meng Zhanga, Wei Lua, Zefang Wangb,c, Yan Caib,c, Shuang Lib,c, Sheng Fub,c, Fu-Hang Songd,
Haitao Yangb,c, Jian-Guo Wanga,*

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1
2
Discovery of unsymmetrical aromatic disulfides as novel inhibitors of SARS-CoV main protease:
Chemical synthesis, biological evaluation, molecular docking and 3D-QSAR study.
3
4
Li Wanga,1 Bo-Bo Baob,c,1 Guo-Qing Songa, Cheng Chenb,c,**, Xu-Meng Zhanga, Wei Lua, Zefang
Wangb,c, Yan Caib,c, Shuang Lib,c, Sheng Fub,c, Fu-Hang Songd, Haitao Yangb,c, Jian-Guo Wanga,*
5
6
7
a. State-Key Laboratory and Research Institute of Elemento-Organic Chemistry, National
Pesticide Engineering Research Center, College of Chemistry, Nankai University, Tianjin 300071,
China
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
b. School of Life Sciences, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China.
c. Tianjin International Joint Academy of Biotechnology and Medicine, Tianjin 300457, China.
d. CAS Key Laboratory of Pathogenic Microbiology and Immunology, Institute of Microbiology,
Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
1 These two authors contributed equally to this work.
*corresponding author. E-mail address: nkwjg@nankai.edu.cn (J.-G. Wang)
** corresponding author. E-mail address: chengchen@tju.edu.cn (C. Chen)
Abstract: The worldwide outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003 had
caused a high rate of mortality. Main protease (Mpro) of SARS-associated coronavirus
(SARS-CoV) is an important target to discover pharmaceutical compounds for the therapy of this
life-threatening disease. During the course of screening new anti-SARS agents, we have identified
that a series of unsymmetrical aromatic disulfides inhibited SARS-CoV Mpro significantly for the
first time. Herein, 40 novel unsymmetrical aromatic disulfides were synthesized chemically and
their biological activities were evaluated in vitro against SARS-CoV Mpro. These novel
compounds displayed excellent IC50 data in the range of 0.516~5.954 µM. Preliminary studies
indicated that these disulfides are reversible and mpetitive inhibitors. A possible binding mode
was generated via molecular docking simulation and a comparative field analysis (CoMFA) model
was constructed to understand the structure-activity relationships. The present research therefore
has provided some meaningful guidance to design and identify anti-SARS drugs with totally new
chemical structures.
Keywords: SARS-CoV Mpro, aromatic disulfide, molecular docking, in vitro activity
1. Introduction
Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is a highly infective respiratory disease caused by
SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV). Its sudden emergence and rapid outbreak during 2002-2003 had
1

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
resulted in ~800 deaths among >8,000 reported individual cases worldwide [1]. Although the
SARS epidemic had been under control for years, reemergence of this threatening illness is still a
possible risk and potentially new strains of SARS can be more dangerous than the previous ones.
A number of important targets have been recognized to take part in the biological events critical to
SARS-CoV replication, among which a papain-like protease (PLpro) and a chymotrypsin-like
protease (3CLpro) are of significant importance to design anti-SARS inhibitors [2]. The 3CLpro,
also known as the main protease (Mpro), has attracted much attention, which could be revealed
from numerous publications about novel inhibitor discovery. Crystal structures of SARS-CoV
Mpro either free enzyme alone or in complex with an inhibitor, had been determined to facilitate
,
the structural and functional investigation of this protease [3, 4]. The active site of SARS-CoV
Mpro contains Cys145 and His41 to constitute a catalytic dyad, in which cysteine functions as the
common nucleophile in the proteolytic process.
Biological active inhibitors against SARS-CoV Mpro have been reported mainly from two different
approaches: one is screening large library to identify new active compounds using
high-throughput technique, the other is novel inhibitor design based on the substrate structure or
active site properties rationally [5]. The inhibitory activities of these compounds were then
validated by in vitro protease assays. In most cases the kinetic study indicated that the inhibitor is
involved in an irreversible process by forming a covalent bond with Cys145, while in some other
cases the inhibition is actually a reversible behavior. The reported SARS-CoV Mpro inhibitors
covered a variety of different chemical scaffolds, which contain peptidomimetic compounds,
3-quinoline carboxylic acid derivatives, thiophene-2-carboxylate derivatives, zinc-conjugated
compounds, cinanserin, calmodulin, keto-glutamine analogues, anilide, bifunctional boronic acid
compounds, isatin derivatives, etacrynic acid derivatives, serine derivatives, trifluoromethyl
ketones, acetamides, pyrazolone and quercertins [5-12]. It is a pity that research on drugs and
vaccines towards SARS or SARS-like coronavirus has not brought any candidate for clinical use.
Hence there still exists an urgent need to discover and identify new SARS-CoV Mpro agents,
especially those compounds from totally new chemical families, to develop effective therapy
against this fatal viral infection.
Disulfide bonds play essential roles for bioactive proteins to keep correct folding [13]. There are a
few cases that simple disulfides such as diallyl disulfide and dimethyl disulfide exhibit
hypochlorous acid scavenging activity and tyrosinase inhibitory activity (Fig. 1A) [14, 15] . The
unsymmetrical disulfide compounds are useful tools in the research of dynamic combinatorial
chemistry [16]. These compounds have also been reported to display a variety of biological
activities. For examples, Turos et al. reported that some unsymmetrical aryl-alkyl disulfides were
inhibitors of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Bacillus anthracis (Fig. 1B) [17],
while Khosla and co-workers published some unsymmetrical disulfides that could selectively
2

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
77
78
inhibit extracellular thioredoxin (Fig. 1C) [18]. Yoon et al. showed that some unsymmetrical
disulfide compounds were inhibitors of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Haemophilus influenzae,
by interfering with acetohydroxyacid synthase (AHAS), a key enzyme in the biosynthesis pathway
of branched chain amino-acids (Fig. 1D) [19, 20]. In the past of our research, we found that some
unsymmetrical aromatic disulfides could inhibit plant AHAS and was useful for herbicide research
(Fig. 1E) [21, 22].
79
80
81
82
83
84
There are indeed a few reports that some aromatic disulfides exhibit antiviral activity. The
virucidal activity of NSC4492 was due to targeting of arenavirus RNA synthesis (Fig. 1F) [23],
while 5,5’-dithiobis-2-nitrobenzoic acid (DTNB) had antiviral propierties against T-tropic human
immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) (Fig. 1G) [24]. An antiviral disulfide NSC20625
compound could block interaction between arenavirus Z protein and cellular promyelocytic
leukemia protein (Fig. 1H) [25]. However, the antiviral activities against arenavirus might be
different from that against coronavirus. There is no evidence that the reported antiviral activities
of aromatic disulfides have any direct relationships with SARS-CoV Mpro inhibition.
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
In an effort to discover novel inhibitors of SARS-CoV Mpro, we have synthesized a series of novel
unsymmetrical aromatic disulfides and evaluated their biological activities in this study. The target
compounds could inhibit main protease of SARS-CoV remarkably, with the best IC50 value of
0.516 µM. Subsequent enzymatic kinetics study indicated that the aromatic disulfides acted as
reversible and non-competitive inhibitors. Therefore we have demonstrated that unsymmetrical
disulfide compounds with aromatic rings are novel inhibitors of SARS-CoV Mpro from a totally
new chemical family, which will provide helpful information for further drug discovery.
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
2. Results and discussion
2.1. Chemistry of the target compounds
The target unsymmetrical disulfides were synthesized by the reaction of various substituted
2-mercapto-[1,3,4]oxadiazole, substituted 2-mercapto-thiazole, substituted 2-mercapto-
1H-imidazole or substituted 2-mercapto-pyrimidine with substituted arenesulfenyl chloride in
ethyl ether under very mild condition as reported previously [21, 22]. It is a quite straightforward
nucleophilic substitution, in which the thiol group in the mercapto compound serves as a
nucleophilic reagent and attacks the sulfur atom in the arenesulfenyl chloride. Most yields for the
reactions were satisfactory, showing that this is a simple and easy procedure to produce
unsymmetrical aromatic disulfides, superior to the synthetic route developed by Hahn et al [26]. In
Hahn’s paper, moist tetrahydrofuran gave better yields than dried benzene as the solvent for the
reaction, so the authors added 5−10 M equivalent of water to the reaction mixture and observed
satisfactory yields. Thus, the presence of water was thought to be preferable for the reaction by
3

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
Hahn et al [26]. In our synthesis experiment, only ethyl ether was used as the solvent and no
additional water was added to the reaction, nevertheless, we observed very high yields for most of
the target compounds.
The -S-S- bond had been confirmed in our previous paper [21]. Compound 3-4, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9,
3-10 and 3-11 were further acetylated from corresponding parent compounds that had been
published by us [21]. The molecular structures of the compounds are listed in Table 1. The title
1
compounds were fully characterized by H NMR, 13C NMR and HRMS (Part 1 of the
supplementary data for the original figures).
2.2. In vitro inhibitory activity of SARS-CoV Mpro
All the synthesized unsymmetrical aromatic disulfides were subjected to the in vitro assay of
SARS-CoV Mpro. The results are also illustrated in Table 1, expressed by IC50 values. It could be
seen that the target compounds exhibited encouraging biological potency, with excellent IC50
values ranging from 0.516 µM to 5.954 µM (The inhibition curves of all target compounds can be
found in part 2 of the supplementary data). This was surprising due to the fact that not any
research group had ever identified the disulfide compounds as inhibitors of SARS-CoV Mpro, not
to mention such strong inhibition.
Inhibition type of the disulfides was determined by means of enzymatic kinetic study, for which
3-31 and 3-39 were used. From Fig. 2 it can be seen that in the plot of enzyme concentration
versus reaction velocity, the lines represent different inhibitor concentrations intersect at a same
point, suggesting that the inhibition is actually a reversible action. We then measured the
enzymatic velocity of SARS-CoV Mpro versus substrate concentrations in the presence of either
3-31 or 3-39 (Part 3 of the supplementary data). The lines displayed in reciprocal plots intersect at
a same point, indicating that both inhibitors serve as a non-competitive inhibitor with α<1 (Part 3
of the supplementary data) [27]. On this basis, the kinetic parameters (αKi = 0.20 µM, Ki = 0.24
µM) of 3-31 were determined [28] (Fig. 3), which clearly proved that, the non-competitive
inhibitor 3-31 is characterized by smaller equilibrium-binding constant compared to some known
inhibitors such as N3 (Ki = 9.0 µM) and N9 (Ki = 6.7 µM) [3].
Since there is a cysteine in the active site of SARS-CoV Mpro (Cys145), which plays an essential
role for the biological activity of this protease, it is possible that the disulfide compound reacts
with Cys145 to form a new -S-S- bond and results in a loss of enzyme activity. It is known that, if
a disulfide reacts with another thiol to give a new disulfide, the thiols that are parts of the old
disulfide can also react directly with this thiol to form the same new disulfide [29]. We tested the
biological activities of different aryl thiols derived from our disulfides, and no inhibition of
SARS-CoV Mpro could be detected for any of them even at very high concentration. Accordingly it
4

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
seemed unlikely that Cys145 formed a -S-S- bond by reacting with the target disulfide compounds.
Another method to rule out this possibility is to determine the change of the molecular weight of
the protein before and after inhibition [30, 31]. If the disulfide compound reacts with Cys145, the
molecular weight would have a shift after SARS-CoV Mpro is inhibited, and this is approximately
the mass of half moiety of the unsymmetrical disulfide. Bearing this in mind, we measured the
molecular weight of protease before and after inhibition by three disulfide compounds with
significant structure difference (3-8, 3-31 and 3-39, data shown in part 4 of the supplementary
data). However, no such assumed shift in the molecular weight was observed to support this idea.
For another possibility, Khosla et al. had reported selective inhibition of extracellular thioredoxin
by unsymmetrical disulfides [18], in which two cysteine residues in a close distance form an
intramolecular disulfide bond. After careful analysis of the SARS-CoV Mpro crystal structure (pdb
entry 2AMD) [3], no other cysteine residue was found to be in a nearby space of Cys145. In fact
not any two cysteine residues are in a reasonable distance to form possible intramolecular
disulfide bond. Thus we also denied this probable inhibitory mechanism.
2.3. Molecular docking and three dimensional structure-activity relationships
Since the unsymmetrical aromatic disulfides do not react with the residues of the SARS-CoV Mpro,
it means that these compounds act as intact molecules when inhibiting this protease. Therefore, in
silico molecular docking technique was utilized to predict possible binding modes of the disulfide
compounds with SARS-CoV Mpro. In our previous study, we had docked a small library of isatin
compounds to the active site of AHAS and probable binding modes were predicted by FlexX
[32-37]. Here similar strategy was adopted to carry out database docking. After investigation of
the resulting docked conformations, nineteen compounds were found to overlay one another quite
well (Part 5 of the supplementary data), while all the other twenty-one compounds were in
unreasonable binding space, and they failed to overlay well with one another. Thus, the docked
conformations of the nineteen compounds were thought to be the possible binding conformations
in this study. Compound 3-31 was chosen to depict the binding mode of the disulfide inhibitors.
Fig. 4 is a two-dimensional illustration of the interactions between the inhibitor and the
surrounding residues of SARS-CoV Mpro drawn by LIGPLOT [38]. The location of 3-31 has some
overlap with the inhibitor N9, the inhibitor in the original pdb file. The compound binds with
SARS-CoV Mpro via multiple hydrogen bonding contacts and hydrophobic contacts. Phe140,
Leu141, His163, Met165, Glu166 and His172 form hydrophobic interactions with the small
molecule, while Asn142, Gly143 and Cys145 form intermolecular H-bond with the inhibitor. The
predicted binding mode therefore provides a useful clue to understand the possible molecular basis
of these inhibitors.
Comparative field analysis (CoMFA) is a tool to generate 3D contour models to quantitatively
5

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
analyze the structure-activity relationships of bioactive compounds by steric and electrostatic
contributions [39-41]. On the basis of the docked conformation, the molecules in the database
were aligned to construct a CoMFA model. Compounds 3-8, 3-23 and 3-40 were excluded from
the database because they were statistical outliers in the training set, that is, the inclusion of any of
these molecules did not yield a satisfactory leave-one-out q2. The training set without the outliers
gave a leave-one-out q2 of 0.681 when the optimum components was 6, and the
non-crossvalidated r2 was 0.916, with a standard error of estimate of 0.088 and F values of 37.968.
The steric and electrostatic contributions were 43.6% and 56.4%, respectively.
Compound 3-31 was used to illustrate the steric and electrostatic contour maps, together with the
neighboring residues in the docked binding pocket (Fig. 5). For the steric contour map, a bulky
group is favorable for better inhibition in the green contour region and such a group is likely to
decrease the activity in the yellow contour space. The green maps are mostly in three bulks: one
formed by Ser1and Leu141, one formed by Asn142 and Gly143 and the last one formed by
Ser144 and Cys145; whereas the yellow maps are just located in a space nearby Gly143. For the
electrostatic contour map, in the blue contour region, an increase in the positive charge will lead to
an increase of activity, yet in the red contour region, negative charge is favorable to enhance the
activity. The blue map is in a region surrounded by Leu27, Cly143, Ser144 and Cys145, whereas
the red maps are in three cavities: one formed by Leu141 and Asn142, one formed by Ser144,
Cys145 and Met165 and the last one formed by Asn142 and Gly143. The 3D CoMFA maps have
afforded important structural features of the unsymmetrical aromatic disulfides from steric and
electrostatic views, which is valuable for further design and discovery of more potent inhibitors.
3. Conclusion
The lack of effective anti-SARS agents makes it a possible danger when SARS breaks out
sometime in the future, numerous people will be killed again. Therefore it is still an urgent
demand to discover novel anti-SARS inhibitors to combat this deadly disease. SARS CoV Mpro is
an important target for the design of therapeutically useful drugs. In the present study, in an effort
to develop non-peptidic anti-SARS inhibitors, we have identified for the first time, that some
unsymmetrical aromatic disulfides are excellent inhibitors of SARS CoV Mpro, the mechanism of
which seems distinct as they are reversible and mpetitive inhibitors. This suggests that the
unsymmetrical disulfides are promising lead compounds identification and development of a new
family of biologically active anti-SARS agents. A possible binding model of the disulfide inhibitor
was built by molecular docking, and a CoMFA model was constructed subsequently to point out
the structural features of these novel inhibitors of SARS CoV Mpro. Based on this information,
further structural modifications are ongoing for better pharmaceutical compounds. The Lipinski
rules will also be utilized to help to develop compounds with a final in vivo activity [42]. We are
also trying to co-crystallize the protease and the best inhibitor, to gain insight into a real binding
6

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
mode and explain the molecular basis of these compounds.
4. Experimental section
4.1. General synthesis and instruments
Various heterocyclic aromatic thiols 1 were commercial procured from 5A Pharmatech (China),
Apichemical (China), Aldrich and ACES pharma, which were all >95% purity grade. All solvents
and liquid reagents were dried in advance using standard methods and distilled before use.
Substituted arenesulfenyl chlorides 2 were synthesized as described in our previous publications
[21, 22]. Synthetic methods for compounds 3’ had been reported and these parent compounds for
3-4, 3-6. 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-10 and 3-11 had also been fully characterized before [21]. Melting points
1
13
were determined using an X-4 melting apparatus and were uncorrected. H NMR spectra and C
NMR were obtained using a 400 MHz Varian Mercury Plus 400 spectrometer. The chemical shift
values (d) for the NMR spectra were reported as parts per million (ppm), using deuterated
chloroform (CDCl3) or dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO-d6) as the solvent and tetramethylsilane (TMS)
as an internal reference standard. Mass spectra were recorded on a Thermo Finnigan LCQ
Advantage LC/mass detector instrument.
4.2. Synthesis of the target compounds (Scheme 1.)
Heterocyclic aromatic thiols (1, 5mmol) was added to a solution of freshly prepared arenesulfenyl
chlorides (2, 5 mmol) in 25 mL of anhydrous ethyl ether at room temperature. The mixture was
then stirred for 5 h at the same temperature, after that the solvent was removed under reduced
pressure. Products 3 (3’ for 3-4, 3-6. 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-10 and 3-11) were purified by column
chromatography in 75-95% yields.
4.3. Synthesis of the compounds 3-4, 3-6. 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-10 and 3-11 (Scheme 2.)
Unsymmetrical aromatic disulfide (3’, 5mmol) was added to 10 mL of acetic anhydride. The
reaction mixture was stirred for 0.5h at 60 and then 200 mL water was added to the mixture.
The pH value was adjusted by sodium bicarbonate to 7~8. The product was extracted by ethyl
acetate and the solvent was removed under reduced pressure. The target compounds were finally
purified by column chromatography in 87-95% yields.
4.4. Characterization of the target compounds
4.4.1. 2-((4-chlorophenyl)disulfanyl)thiazole (3-1)
Yield 89%; m.p.: 114-116 ; yellow solid; 1H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 7.62 (d, J = 8.5 Hz,
2H, ArH), 7.47 (d, J = 8.5 Hz, 2H, ArH), 7.31 (s, 1H, NCH), 6.99 (d, J = 4.3 Hz, 1H, SCH); 13C
NMR (101 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 134.8, 132.2, 129.3, 121.9, 114.20, 99.7; HRMS(MALDI) m/z:
calculated for C9H6ClNS3 259.9423, found 259.9420 [M + H] +.
7

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
4.4.2. N-(2-(p-tolyldisulfanyl)thiazol-5-yl)acetamide (3-2)
Yield 91%; m.p.: 113-115 ; yellow solid; 1H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 11.70 (s, 1H, NH),
7.50 (d, J = 6.5 Hz, 2H, ArH), 7.47 (s, 1H, CH), 7.26 (d, J = 7.8 Hz, 2H, ArH), 2.32 (s, 3H, CH3),
2.10 (s, 3H, CH3); 13C NMR (101 MHz, DMSO-d6), 167.6, 154.1, 138.9, 132.3, 130.6, 130.0,
128.4, 22.6, 21.1; HRMS(MALDI) m/z: calculated for C12H12N2OS3 297.0185, found 297.0185
[M + H] +.
4.4.3. ethyl 2-((4-chlorophenyl)disulfanyl)-1H-imidazole-4-carboxylate (3-3)
1
Yield 87%; m.p.: 100-102 ; yellow solid; H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 7.98 (s, 1H), 7.64
(d, J = 8.6 Hz, 2H, ArH), 7.49 (d, J = 8.6 Hz, 2H, ArH), 4.24 (q, J = 7.0 Hz, 2H, CH2CH3), 1.27 (t,
13
J = 7.1 Hz, 3H, CH2CH3); C NMR (101 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 161.1, 132.9, 131.7, 128.7, 117.1,
116.9, 60.5, 14.7; HRMS(MALDI) m/z: calculated for C12H11ClN2O2S2 315.0022, found 315.0021
[M + H] +.
4.4.4. 1-(5-methyl-3-((2-nitrophenyl)disulfanyl)-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl)ethanone (3-4)
Yield 90%; m.p.: 157-159 ; yellow solid; 1H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 8.31 (d, J = 8.2 Hz,
1H), 8.24 (d, J = 8.2 Hz, 1H), 7.91 (t, J = 7.7 Hz, 1H), 7.58 (t, J = 7.8 Hz, 1H), 2.59 (s, 3H), 2.55
(s, 3H); 13C NMR (101 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 169.3, 157.8, 157.3, 144.9, 135.6, 134.3, 127.9, 126.6,
23.5, 15.6; HRMS(MALDI) m/z: calculated for C11H10N4O3S2 311.0273, found 311.0261 [M + H]
+
.
4.4.5. N-(2-(phenyldisulfanyl)thiazol-5-yl)acetamide (3-5)
Yield 89%; m.p.: 108-110 ; yellow solid; 1H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 11.79 (s, 1H, NH),
7.64 (t, J = 8.6 Hz, 2H, ArH), 7.53 (d, J = 8.5 Hz, 1H, ArH), 7.51 – 7.42 (m, 2H, ArH), 7.39 (d, J
= 7.1 Hz, 1H, ArH), 2.10 (s, 3H, CH3); 13C NMR (101 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 167.6, 139.4, 137.2,
130.8, 130.0, 129.9, 129.0, 128.8, 128.42, 22.6; HRMS(MALDI) m/z: calculated for C11H10N2OS3
283.0029, found 283.0031 [M + H] +.
4.4.6. 1-(5-phenyl-3-(p-tolyldisulfanyl)-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl)ethanone (3-6)
Yield 92%; m.p.: 112-114 ; white solid; 1H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 8.35 (d, J = 17.6 Hz,
1H), 8.00 (d, J = 8.1 Hz, 2H), 7.79 (d, J = 7.6 Hz, 3H), 7.56 (t, J = 7.6 Hz, 1H), 7.27 (s, 2H), 2.72
(s, 3H), 2.33 (s, 3H); 13C NMR (101 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 135.4, 129.4, 128.9, 128.1, 126.2, 125.8,
129.5, 22.2, 20.8; HRMS(MALDI) m/z: calculated for C17H15N3OS2 342.0729, found 342.0734
[M+ H]+.
4.4.7. 1-(3-((4-methoxyphenyl)disulfanyl)-5-phenyl-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl)ethanone (3-7)
Yield 91%; m.p.: 133-135 ; white solid; 1H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 8.11 (s, 2H), 7.70 (d,
8

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
13
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
J = 7.3 Hz, 2H), 7.38 (s, 3), 6.73 (d, J = 7.2 Hz, 2H), 3.65 (s, 3H), 2.58 (s, 3H); C NMR (101
MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 169.3, 161.9, 161.2, 158.9, 134.8, 129.9, 129.3, 128.5, 127.1, 124.8, 115.0,
55.2, 22.5; HRMS(MALDI) m/z: calculated for C17H15N3O2S2 358.0683, found 358.0685 [M+H]+.
4.4.8. 1-(3-((2-nitrophenyl)disulfanyl)-5-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl)ethanone (3-8)
1
Yield 89%; m.p.: 186-188 ; yellow solid; H NMR (400 MHz, CDCl3), δ 8.64 (d, J = 4.6 Hz,
1H), 7.95 (d, J = 4.8 Hz, 1H), 7.70 – 7.42 (m, 1H), 7.33 (d, J = 8.4 Hz, 2H), 7.21 (d, J = 8.7 Hz,
3H), 3.06 (s, 3H); 13C NMR (101 MHz, CDCl3), δ 174.9, 150.1, 135.3, 129.9, 129.5, 129.3, 127.5,
120.7, 46.0, 29.7; HRMS(MALDI) m/z: calculated for C15H11N5O3S2 374.0381, found 374.0380
[M+H]+.
4.4.9. ethyl 2-((1-acetyl-5-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-1,2,4-triazol-3-yl)disulfanyl)benzoate（3-9)
Yield 92%; m.p.: 128-130 ; white solid; 1H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 9.10 (s,1H), 8.66 (s,
1H), 8.26 (d, J = 7.8 Hz, 2H), 8.00 (d, J = 7.5 Hz, 1H), 7.75 (s, 1H), 7.57 (d, J = 7.2 Hz, 1H), 7.41
(s, 1H), 4.22 (q, 2H), 2.50 (s, 3H), 1.33 (t, J = 7.1 Hz, 3H); 13C NMR (101 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ
150.1, 135.1, 133.6, 130.9, 129.5, 129.3, 120.7, 45.9, 29.7, 22.5, 8.7; HRMS(MALDI) m/z:
calculated for C18H16N4O3S2 401.0736, found 401.0746 [M + H] +.
4.4.10. ethyl 2-((1-acetyl-5-(pyridin-4-yl)-1H-1,2,4-triazol-3-yl)disulfanyl)benzoate (3-10)
1
Yield 95%; m.p.: 130-132 ; white solid; H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 9.10 (s, 1H), 8.66
(s,1H), 8.26 (d, J = 7.8 Hz, 2H), 8.00 (d, J = 7.5 Hz,1H), 7.75 (t, J = 7.6 Hz,1H), 7.54 (s, 1H), 7.41
(t, J = 7.2 Hz, 1H), 4.34 (q, J = 7.1 Hz, 2H), 2.50 (s, 3H), 1.33 (t, J = 7.1 Hz, 3H); 13C NMR (101
MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 167.9, 150.1, 135.1, 133.6, 130.9, 129.5, 129.3, 120.7, 45.9, 29.7, 8.6;
HRMS(MALDI) m/z: calculated for C18H16N4O3S2 401.0737, found 401.0746 [M + H] +.
4.4.11. 1-(3-((4-methoxyphenyl)disulfanyl)-5-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl)ethanone (3-11)
Yield 87%; m.p.: 113-115 ; white solid; 1H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 9.32 (d, J = 37.6 Hz,
1H), 8.53 (d, J = 5.9 Hz, 2H), 7.72 (d, J = 8.5 Hz, 1H), 7.54 – 7.27 (m, 2H), 6.76 (d, J = 8.8 Hz,
2H), 3.70 (s, 3H), 2.64 (s, 3H); 13C NMR (101 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 161.0, 160.3, 150.9, 148.3,
135.8, 134.0, 123.7, 115.0, 114.7, 55.4, 29.7; HRMS(MALDI) m/z: calculated for C16H14N4O2S2
359.0630, found 359.0639 [M + H] +.
4.4.12. N-(2-((4-chlorophenyl)disulfanyl)thiazol-5-yl)acetamide (3-12)
Yield 94%; m.p.: 127-129 ; yellow solid; 1H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 11.73 (s, 1H, NH),
7.65 (d, J = 8.6 Hz, 2H, ArH), 7.52 (d, J = 8.5 Hz, 2H, ArH), 7.48 (s, 1H, CH), 2.10 (s, 3H, CH3);
13C NMR (101 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 167.6, 153.1, 152.0, 139.3, 134.4, 133.6, 130.8, 129.9, 128.5,
22.6; HRMS(MALDI) m/z: calculated for C11H9ClN2OS3 316.9639, found 316.9641 [M + H] +.
9

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
4.4.13. N-(2-((4-bromophenyl)disulfanyl)thiazol-5-yl)acetamide (3-13)
Yield 93%; m.p.: 123-125 ; yellow solid; 1H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 11.72 (s, 1H, NH),
7.65 (d, J = 8.6 Hz, 2H, ArH), 7.58 (d, J = 8.6 Hz, 2H, ArH), 7.48 (s, 1H, CH), 2.10 (s, 3H, CH3);
13C NMR (101 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 167.5, 167.0, 152.0, 139.6, 132.4, 130.5, 128.0, 121.6, 22.2;
HRMS(MALDI) m/z: calculated for C11H9BrN2OS3 360.9132, found 360.9128 [M + H] +.
4.4.14. methyl 2-((2-nitrophenyl)disulfanyl)-1H-imidazole-4-carboxylate (3-14)
Yield 88%; m.p.: 160-163 ; yellow solid; 1H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 8.51 (d, J = 8.2 Hz,
1H, ArH), 8.31 (dd, J = 8.2, 1.1 Hz, 1H, ArH), 7.98 (s, 1H), 7.96 (s, 1H, NHCH), 7.58 (dd, J =
11.4, 4.1 Hz, 1H, ArH), 3.74 (s, 3H, OCH3); 13C NMR (101 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 158.9, 151.1,
139.8, 137.7, 131.2, 130.5, 129.4, 125.2, 124.4, 122.2, 53.0; HRMS(MALDI) m/z: calculated for
C11H9N3O4S2 312.0107, found 312.0112 [M + H] +.
4.4.15. methyl 2-((2-(ethoxycarbonyl)phenyl)disulfanyl)-1H-imidazole-4-carboxylate (3-15)
1
Yield 92%; m.p.: 93-95 ; yellow solid; H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 8.34 (d, J = 8.2 Hz,
1H, ArH), 8.03 – 7.96 (m, 1H, ArH), 7.96 (s, 1H, NHCH), 7.79 – 7.66 (m, 1H, ArH), 7.41 (t, J =
7.5 Hz, 1H, ArH), 4.32 (q, J = 7.1 Hz, 2H, CH2CH3), 3.74 (s, 3H, OCH3), 1.32 (t, J = 7.1 Hz, 3H,
CH2CH3); 13C NMR (101 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 166.1, 161.8, 157.8, 141.0, 139.9, 134.1, 131.5,
126.9, 126.8, 126.5, 121.9, 61.9, 51.8, 14.5; HRMS(MALDI) m/z: calculated for C14H14N2O4S2
339.0468, found 339.0475 [M + H] +.
4.4.16. methyl 2-((2-(methoxycarbonyl)phenyl)disulfanyl)-1H-imidazole-4-carboxylate (3-16)
Yield 89%; m.p.: 114-116 ; yellow solid; 1H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 8.35 (d, J = 8.2 Hz,
1H, ArH), 8.00 (d, J = 7.8 Hz, 1H, ArH), 7.95 (s, 1H, NHCH), 7.76 (t, J = 7.8 Hz, 1H, ArH), 7.41
(t, J = 7.5 Hz, 1H, ArH), 3.87 (s, 3H, OCH3), 3.74 (s, 3H, OCH3); 13C NMR (101 MHz,
DMSO-d6), δ 158.9, 137.8, 134.2, 131.9, 129.6, 128.9, 127.8, 126.9, 125.2, 124.4, 53.2, 52.4;
HRMS(MALDI) m/z: calculated for C13H12N2O4S2 325.0311, found 325.0314 [M + H] +.
4.4.17. methyl 2-((4-chlorophenyl)disulfanyl)-1H-imidazole-4-carboxylate (3-17)
1
Yield 89%; m.p.: 138-140 ; yellow solid; H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 8.00 (s, 1H,
NHCH), 7.64 (d, J = 8.6 Hz, 2H, ArH), 7.49 (d, J = 8.7 Hz, 2H, ArH), 3.76 (s, 3H, OCH3); 13C
NMR (101 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 158.7, 147.5, 137.8, 133.5, 129.9, 128.2, 127.9, 125.2, 124.4, 53.2;
HRMS(MALDI) m/z: calculated for C11H9ClN2O2S2 300.9867, found 300.9894 [M + H] +.
4.4.18. N-(2-((4-fluorophenyl)disulfanyl)thiazol-5-yl)acetamide (3-18)
Yield 95%; m.p.: 119-122 ; yellow solid; 1H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 11.78 (s, 1H, NH),
7.68 (d, J = 8.6 Hz 2H, ArH), 7.50 (s, 1H, CH), 7.32 (t, J = 8.3 Hz, 2H, ArH), 2.11 (s, 3H, CH3);
13C NMR (101 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 167.4, 153.8, 139.4, 132.6, 132.5, 131.5, 128.5, 117.3, 117.1,
10

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
22.6; HRMS(MALDI) m/z: calculated for C11H9FN2OS3 300.9934, found 300.9934 [M + H] +.
4.4.19. N-(2-((2-nitrophenyl)disulfanyl)thiazol-5-yl)acetamide (3-19)
Yield 93%; m.p.: 130-133 ; yellow solid; 1H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 11.76 (s, 1H, NH),
8.41 (d, J = 7.9 Hz, 1H, ArH), 8.35 (d, J = 8.5 Hz, 1H, ArH), 7.96 (d, J = 7.4 Hz, 1H, ArH), 7.61 (t,
J = 7.4 Hz, 1H, ArH), 7.49 (s, 1H CH), 2.09 (s, 3H, CH3); 13C NMR (101 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ
167.6, 151.4, 145.3, 139.4, 135.8, 134.8, 128.4, 128.3, 127.8, 126.8, 22.5; HRMS(MALDI) m/z:
calculated for C11H9N3O3S3 327.9879, found 327.9876 [M + H] +.
4.4.20. 2-((2-nitrophenyl)disulfanyl)thiazole (3-20)
Yield 90%; m.p.: 105-107 ; yellow solid; 1H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 8.37 (d, J = 8.2 Hz,
1H, ArH), 8.23 (d, J = 8.2 Hz, 1H, ArH), 7.93 (t, J = 7.7 Hz, 1H, ArH), 7.87 – 7.74 (m, 2H, CH),
7.62 (t, J = 7.7 Hz, 1H, ArH); 13C NMR (101 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 163.8, 145.6, 144.9, 136.2,
133.9, 128.7, 127.6, 126.9, 124.5; HRMS(MALDI) m/z: calculated for C9H6N2O2S3 270.9664,
found 270.9663 [M+H]+.
4.4.21. 2-(p-tolyldisulfanyl)thiazole (3-21)
Yield 75%; m.p.: 60-62 ; yellow solid; 1H NMR (400 MHz, CDCl3), δ 7.80 (d, J = 6.1 Hz, 2H,
ArH), 7.53 (d, J = 7.9 Hz, 2H, ArH), 7.25 (d, J = 7.7 Hz, 2H, ArH), 2.30 (s, 3H, CH3); 13C NMR
(101 MHz, CDCl3), δ 136.5, 136.3, 130.2, 129.3, 127.6, 124.9, 21.5; HRMS(MALDI) m/z:
calculated for C10H9NS3 239.9969, found 239.9970 [M+H]+.
4.4.22. 2-((4-fluorophenyl)disulfanyl)thiazole (3-22)
1
Yield 82%; m.p.: 89-91 ; yellow solid; H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 8.37 (d, J = 8.2 Hz,
1H, ArH), 8.23 (d, J = 8.2 Hz, 1H, ArH), δ 7.66 (d, J = 8.7 Hz, 2H, ArH), 7.52 (d, J = 8.7 Hz, 2H,
13
ArH); C NMR (101 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 144.9, 132.7, 132.6, 130.6, 125.0, 123.9, 117.3, 117.1,
40.1, 39.9, 39.7; HRMS(MALDI) m/z: calculated for C9H6FNS3 243.9719, found 243.9721
[M+H]+.
4.4.23. 2-((4-bromophenyl)disulfanyl)thiazole (3-23)
Yield 80%; m.p.: 92-94 ; yellow solid; 1H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 7.61 (d, J = 8.5 Hz,
2H, ArH), 7.48 (d, J = 8.5 Hz, 2H, ArH), 7.30 (s, 1H, NCH), 6.99 (d, J = 4.3 Hz, 1H, SCH); 13C
NMR (101 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 134.9, 132.3, 129.2, 121.9, 114.2, 99.4; HRMS(MALDI) m/z:
calculated for C9H6BrNS3 303.8918, found 303.8914 [M+H]+.
4.4.24. 4-methyl-2-((2-nitrophenyl)disulfanyl)thiazole (3-24)
Yield 92%; m.p.: 61-63 ; yellow solid; 1H NMR (400 MHz, CDCl3), δ 8.36 (d, J = 8.2 Hz, 1H,
ArH), 8.20 (d, J = 8.2Hz, 1H, ArH), 8.01 – 7.84 (m, 1H, ArH), 7.64 – 7.53 (m, 1H, ArH), 7.33 (s,
11

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
1H, CH), 2.33 (s, 3H, CH3); 13C NMR (101 MHz, CDCl3), δ 162.8, 154.6, 145.7, 136.0, 133.9,
128.7, 127.6, 126.9, 118.4, 17.3; HRMS(MALDI) m/z: calculated for C10H8N2O2S3 284.9821,
found 284.9823 [M+H]+.
4.4.25. ethyl 2-((4-methylthiazol-2-yl)disulfanyl)benzoate (3-25)
Yield 91%; m.p.: 103-105 ; yellow solid; 1H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 8.09 – 8.03 (m, 1H,
ArH), 8.01 (d, J = 7.9 Hz, 1H, ArH), 7.74 (t, J = 7.7 Hz, 1H, ArH), 7.45 (t, J = 7.5 Hz, 1H, ArH),
7.28 (s, 1H), 4.41 (s, 2H, CH2CH3), 2.32 (s, 3H, CH3), 1.36 (t, J = 7.1 Hz, 3H, CH2CH3); 13C
NMR (101 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 166.2, 156.3, 154.5, 147.4, 138.4, 134.4, 131.8, 127.4, 125.9,
117.6, 62.2, 17.4, 14.5; HRMS(MALDI) m/z: calculated for C13H13NO2S3 312.0181, found
312.0188 [M+H]+.
4.4.26. methyl 2-((5-methyl-1,3,4-oxadiazol-2-yl)disulfanyl)benzoate (3-26)
Yield 93%; m.p.: 80-82 ; yellow solid; 1H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 8.14 (d, J = 7.4 Hz,
1H, ArH), 8.03 (d, J = 6.7 Hz, 1H, ArH), 7.78 (s, 1H, ArH), 7.47 (d, J = 6.3 Hz, 1H, ArH), 3.89 (s,
3H, OCH3), 2.49 (s, 3H, CH3); 13C NMR (101 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 167.3, 166.7, 161.7, 138.7,
134.4, 131.6, 127.4, 127.1, 126.5, 53.3, 11.3; HRMS(MALDI) m/z: calculated for C11H10N2O3S2
283.0206, found 283.0209 [M+H]+.
4.4.27. ethyl 2-((5-methyl-1,3,4-oxadiazol-2-yl)disulfanyl)benzoate (3-27)
Yield 88%; m.p.: 73-74 ; yellow solid; 1H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 8.14 (d, J = 8.0 Hz,
1H, ArH), 8.04 (d, J = 7.7 Hz, 1H, ArH), 7.78 (t, J = 7.8 Hz ,1H, ArH), 7.46 (t, J = 7.5 Hz, 1H,
ArH), 4.35 (q, J = 7.1 Hz, 2H, CH2CH3), 2.50 (s, 3H,CH3), 1.34 (t, J = 7.1 Hz, 3H, CH2CH3); 13C
NMR (101 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 167.3, 166.3, 161.7, 138.6, 134.3, 131.6, 127.4, 126.5, 62.2, 14.5,
11.3; HRMS(MALDI) m/z: calculated for C12H12N2O3S2 297.0362, found 297.0365 [M+H]+.
4.4.28. 2-methyl-5-((2-nitrophenyl)disulfanyl)-1,3,4-oxadiazole (3-28)
Yield 92%; m.p.: 91-93 ; yellow solid; 1H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 8.34 (d, J = 8.2 Hz,
1H, ArH), 8.30 (d, J = 8.2 Hz, 1H, ArH), 7.97 (t, J = 7.7 Hz, 1H, ArH), 7.63 (t, J = 7.7 Hz, 1H,
ArH), 2.51 (s, 3H, CH3); 13C NMR (101 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 167.5, 161.2, 145.4, 135.9, 134.0,
128.7, 128.1, 126.8, 11.3; HRMS(MALDI) m/z: calculated for C9H7N3O3S2 270.0002, found
270.0000 [M+H]+.
4.4.29. methyl 2-((1,3,4-oxadiazol-2-yl)disulfanyl)benzoate (3-29)
Yield 87%; m.p.: 99-101 ; yellow solid; 1H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 9.37 (s, 1H, CH),
8.14 (d, J = 8.2, Hz, 1H, ArH), 8.05 (d, J = 7.8, Hz, 1H, ArH), 7.87 (t, J = 7.8, Hz, 1H, ArH), 7.48
13
(t, J = 7.7, Hz, 1H, ArH), 3.91 (s, 3H, OCH3); C NMR (101 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 166.8, 162.3,
157.5, 138.5, 134.5, 131.7, 127.5, 127.2, 126.6, 53.3; HRMS(MALDI) m/z: calculated for
12

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
C10H8N2O3S2 290.9869, found 290.9868 [M+H]+.
4.4.30. methyl 2-((4-methyloxazol-2-yl)disulfanyl)benzoate (3-30)
Yield 90%; m.p.: 68-70 ; yellow solid; 1H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 8.16 (d, J = 8.0 Hz,
1H, ArH), 8.04 (d, J = 7.7, Hz, 1H, ArH), 7.97 (s, 1H, CH), 7.88(t, J = 7.2 Hz, 1H, ArH), 7.45 (t, J
= 7.2 Hz, 1H, ArH), 3.90 (s, 3H, OCH3), 2.07 (s 3H, CH3); 13C NMR (101 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ
166.7, 139.6, 139.3, 138.8, 134.3, 131.6, 127.2, 126.9, 126.4, 53.2, 11.7; HRMS(MALDI) m/z:
calculated for C12H11NO3S2 282.0253, found 282.0257 [M+H]+.
4.4.31. 2-((4-chlorophenyl)disulfanyl)-1,3,4-oxadiazole (3-31)
Yield 90%; m.p.: 69-72 ; yellow solid; 1H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 9.46 (s, 1H, CH), 7.71
(d, J = 8.5 Hz, 2H, ArH), 7.54 (d, J = 8.3 Hz, 2H, ArH); 13C NMR (101 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 157.7,
134.7, 133.8, 132.5, 131.4, 130.1; HRMS(MALDI) m/z: calculated for C8H5ClN2OS2 261.9871,
found 261.9872 [M + NH4] +.
4.4.32. 4,6-dimethyl-2-((2-nitrophenyl)disulfanyl)pyrimidine (3-32)
Yield 94%; m.p.: 151-153 ; yellow solid; 1H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 8.34 (d, 6.5 Hz, 1H,
ArH), 7.99 – 7.69 (m, 2H, ArH), 7.55 (d, J = 8.4 Hz, 1H, ArH), 7.12 (d, J = 25.8 Hz, 1H, ArH),
2.35 (s, 6H, CH3); 13C NMR (101 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 168.7, 168.3, 135.5, 128.5, 128.0, 127.4,
127.0, 126.3, 118.7, 118.1, 23.8; HRMS(MALDI) m/z: calculated for C12H11N3O2S2 294.0365,
found 294.0364 [M + H] +.
478
479
4.4.33. 2-((4-chlorophenyl)disulfanyl)-4,6-dimethylpyrimidine (3-33)
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
Yield 80%; m.p.: 84-86 ; yellow solid; 1H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 7.60 (d, J = 8.6 Hz,
2H, ArH), 7.44 (d, J = 8.6 Hz, 2H, ArH), 7.14 (s, 1H, ArH), 2.40 (s, 6H, CH3); 13C NMR (101
MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 168.6, 167.8, 135.6, 133.1, 130.9, 129.6, 118.4, 23.8; HRMS(MALDI) m/z:
calculated for C12H11ClN2S2 283.0125, found 283.0130 [M + H] +.
4.4.34. 2-((4-bromophenyl)disulfanyl)-4,6-dimethylpyrimidine (3-34)
Yield 84%; m.p.: 76-79 ; yellow solid; 1H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 7.53 (dd, J = 15.6, 7.2
Hz, 4H, ArH), 7.15 (s, 1H, ArH), 2.38 (s, 6H, CH3); 13C NMR (101 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 168.6,
167.7, 136.1, 132.5, 131.0, 121.5, 118.4, 23.8; HRMS(MALDI) m/z: calculated for C12H11BrN2S2
326.9620, found 326.9622 [M + H] +.
4.4.35. 4,6-dimethyl-2-(phenyldisulfanyl)pyrimidine (3-35)
Yield 81%; m.p.: 61-63 ; yellow solid; 1H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 7.67 (t, J = 8.0 Hz, 2H,
ArH), 7.60 – 7.31 (m, 3H, ArH), 7.22 (s, 1H, ArH), 2.48 (s, 6H, CH3); 13C NMR (101 MHz,
DMSO-d6), δ 168.6, 130.9, 129.7, 129.6, 129.2, 128.3, 118.4, 23.8; HRMS(MALDI) m/z:
calculated for C12H12N2S2 249.0515, found 249.0515 [M + H] +.
13

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
4.4.36. 4,6-dimethyl-2-(p-tolyldisulfanyl)pyrimidine (3-36)
1
Yield 84%; m.p.: 72-75 ; yellow solid; H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 7.50 (d, J = 8.2 Hz,
2H, ArH), 7.18 (d, J = 8.0 Hz, 2H, ArH), 7.12 (s, 1H, ArH), 2.40 (s, 6H, CH3), 2.28 (s, 3H, CH3);
13C NMR (101 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 168.4, 138.4, 133.1, 131.6, 130.3, 130.2, 118.2, 23.86, 21.1;
HRMS(MALDI) m/z: calculated for C13H14N2S2 263.0671, found 263.0674 [M + H] +.
4.4.37. 2-((2-nitrophenyl)disulfanyl)pyrimidine (3-37)
Yield 86%; m.p.: 130-132 ; yellow solid; 1H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 8.63 (s, 2H, ArH),
8.31 (d, J = 8.1 Hz, 2H, ArH), 7.96 (s, 1H, ArH), 7.59 (s, 1H, ArH), 7.38 (s, 1H, ArH), 7.17 (s, 1H,
13
ArH); C NMR (101 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 169.4, 158.6, 136.3, 134.3, 128.1, 126.7, 125.9, 118.9,
99.9; HRMS(MALDI) m/z: calculated for C10H7N3O2S2 265.0052 , found 266.0053 [M + H] +.
4.4.38. 2-((4-chlorophenyl)disulfanyl)pyrimidine (3-38)
Yield 80%; m.p.: 79-80 ; yellow solid; 1H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 8.66 – 8.47 (m, 2H),
7.47 (t, J = 9.0 Hz, 2H), 7.29 – 7.16 (m, 2H), 7.07 (d, J = 4.9 Hz, 1H); 13C NMR (101 MHz,
DMSO-d6), δ 158.0, 134.9, 133.8, 130.2, 129.3, 129.1, 118.3; HRMS(MALDI) m/z: calculated for
C10H7ClN2S2 254.9812, found 254.9816 [M + H] +.
514
515
516
4.4.39. 2-((4-bromophenyl)disulfanyl)pyrimidine (3-39)
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
Yield 83%; m.p.: 75-78 ; yellow solid; 1H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 8.63 (dd, J = 22.9, 4.7
Hz, 2H), 7.43 (dd, J = 20.0, 12.8 Hz, 4H), 7.10 (d, J = 4.0 Hz, 1H); 13C NMR (101 MHz,
DMSO-d6), δ 158.1, 135.5, 132.0, 130.3, 128.9, 121.8, 118.3; HRMS(MALDI) m/z: calculated for
C10H7BrN2S2 298.9307, found 298.9307 [M + H] +.
4.4.40. 2-(p-tolyldisulfanyl)pyrimidine (3-40)
1
Yield 86%; m.p.: 45-48 ; yellow solid; H NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6), δ 8.56 (d, J = 4.9 Hz,
2H), 7.44 (d, J = 8.2 Hz, 2H), 7.13 – 6.90 (m, 3H), 2.24 (s, 3H, CH3); 13C NMR (101 MHz,
DMSO-d6), δ 171.2, 157.9, 138.1, 132.9, 129.8, 129.7, 118.0, 21.1; HRMS(MALDI) m/z:
calculated for C11H10N2S2 235.0358, found 235.0361 [M + H] +.
4.5. In vitro Enzyme inhibition assay
The expression and purification of SARS CoV Mpro was described by Rao et al [42]. Basically,
the sequence of SARS-CoV Mpro cloned into the pGEX-6P-1 vector was transformed into E. coli
BL21 (DE3) cells. The GST fusion protein, GST-SARS-CoV Mpro, was purified by
GST-glutathione affinity chromatography, cleaved with PreScission protease, and the recombinant
SARS-CoV Mpro was further purified by using anion-exchange chromatography. Eventually
purified protein was of high purity (＞95%) as judged by SDSPAGE analysis and the
14

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
concentration is 0.5 µM, and the buffer contains 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.3 and 1 mM EDTA. The
fluorogenic
substrate
with
consensus
sequence
of
CoV
Mpro,
MCA-AVLQSGFR-Lys(Dnp)-Lys-NH2 (95% purity), was synthesized in Shanghai Biological
Engineering Company. The substrate was dissolved in DMSO in 0.8 mM liquid storage for use.
The inhibition assay was similar to Yang’s procedure [11]. The SARS CoV Mpro inhibition assays
were conducted by fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET). The natural substrate amino
acid sequence (AVLQSGFRKK) of SARS-CoV Mpro started with the MCA fluorescent group and
connected the Dnp fluorescence quenching group with penultimate K. The tested compounds were
dissolved by sterilized DMSO and diluted to various concentrations. The settled concentrations of
proteins, compounds and substrate were preheated at 37
and oscillated. The excitation/emission
light was 320/405 nm, and the test was carried out every 5 s for 200 times. Drawing curves, the
maximum value of the negative control curve slope is V0, and the largest compound curve slope is
V1. The inhibition ratio can be defined (1−V1/V0). And the IC50 value was calculated by equation
(1) using CraphPad Prism5:
V0/V＝1＋[I]/IC50
(1)
V0 shows the initial rate of the reaction without inhibitor, V means the initial rate of the reaction
with the inhibitor at various concentrations and [I] indicates the concentration of the inhibitor.
The determination of the inhibitor as a valent inhibitor employs the above methods as well, albeit
with two modifications. Firstly, the inhibitor concentration was set to 2 or 4µM. And for each
inhibitor concentration, we measured the enzymatic activity of Mpro whose concentration spans 0
to 2 µM. Secondly, Mpro and inhibitor were first incubated for 20 min to ensure a thorough
‘Mpro-inhibitor’ reaction and then the inhibition assay was initiated by adding substrate and
characterized by fluorescence monitoring.
The further characterization of the inhibitor as a non-competitive inhibitor employs the methods
described in earlier work [28]. Basically, the enzymatic velocity of SARS-CoV Mpro versus
substrate concentrations with presence of inhibitors is depicted by equation (2) [27], where Ki is
the dissociation constant for the SARS-CoV Mpro complexed with inhibitor 3-31; factor α reflects
the effect of inhibitor 3-31 on the affinity of the enzyme for its substrate; Vmax and Km represent
the maximum velocity and Michaelis-Menten constant, respectively.
Vmax [S]
v =




[I ]
[I]
[S] 1+
+ K 1+

m 






α
Ki
Ki
567
568
(2)
The values of Vmax and Km at different inhibitor concentrations were apparent Vmax and Km, called
app
max
app
max
V
Kapp
V
Kapp
and can be calculated by
m
569
570
and
, respectively. According to equation (2),
m
equation (3).
15

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT


[I]
K
1+
m 



Ki
[I]
Vmax
app
max
V
=
, Kmapp
=
[I]
1+
1+
α
Ki
α Ki
571
572
573
574
(3)
Kapp
, were determined by adding 1µM SARS-CoV Mpro to
m
app
max
V
The kinetic parameters of
and
20µM substrate containing varying concentrations of inhibitor 3-31 (0-3µM). The value of
α
Ki
V app
was then calculated from plots of 1/
versus 1/[I]. Similarly, the value of Ki was calculated
max
app
max
V
Kapp
versus 1/[I].
m
575
from plots of
and
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
Mass spectra were recorded on Waters Xevo G2-XS Q-TOF mass spectrometry. Mass spectra
were acquired in positive ion mode using a capillary voltage of 3 kV, a sampling cone voltage of
40 V and a source offset voltage of 80 V. The cone gas flow was set up to 50 L/h and desolvation
gas flow was 800 L/h. Desolvation temperature and source temperature were set to 400
and
100 , respectively. The mass of intact protein was obtained by deconvolution of the raw data
using MaxEnt1 tool. The samples were prepared at the similar condition with the IC50
determination, except that the concentration of the inhibitors was 20 times of the concentration of
SARS Mpro.
4.6 Molecular docking and comparative field analysis
Chemical structures of the compounds were built within Sybyl 7.3 (Tripos Inc., St Louis, MO).
All the molecules were assigned Gasteiger-Hückel charges and minimized by the Tripos force
field when convergence reached 0.001 kcal/mol/Å.
Molecular docking of the unsymmetrical aromatic disulfides to the active site of SARS-CoV Mpro
was performed by FlexX. The crystal structure of SARS-CoV Mpro in complex with inhibitor (pdb
code 2AMD) was retrieved from the pdb databank. All water molecules were removed, and
hydrogen atoms were added in the standard geometry. Any amino acid residue within 6.5 Å of the
location of the original inhibitor N9 was considered to be in the binding pocket. Cscore calculation
was enabled and set to serial mode. Database docking and subsequent scoring procedures were
performed using the default parameters in the program.
For CoMFA, The molecules were superimposed using 3-31 from the molecular docking result as
the template. All the parameters were used the default value within CoMFA module and the
column filtering was set to 2.0 kcal/mol. The “leave-one-out” (LOO) cross validation method was
applied to determine the optimum number of partial least squares (PLS) components. The
non-cross validated method was used to derive the final model to explain the quantitative
structure-activity relationship in a three dimensional manner.
16

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
605
606
Acknowledgment
607
608
609
610
This work was financially supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 21272128
and 21672114), the “111” Project of Ministry of Education of China (No. B06005) and the
National Basic Research Program of China (No. 2013CB734004). We appreciate Professor
Chuanzheng Zhou in Nankai University for his kind assistance for the mass spectrometry of SARS
CoV main protease.
611
612
613
614
615
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/XXXXXX
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
17

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
References
[1] World Health Organization. Summary of probable SARS cases with onset of illness from 1
November 2002 to 31 July 2003 Based on data as of the 31 December 2003.
http://www.who.int/csr/sars/country/table2004_04_21/en/
[2] D.H. Goetz, Y. Choe, E. Hansell, Y.T. Chen, M. McDowell, C.B. Jonsson, W.R. Roush, J.
McKerrow, C.S. Craik. Substrate specificity profiling and identification of a new class of
inhibitor for the major protease of the SARS coronavirus, Biochemistry 46 (2007)
8744-8752.
[3] H. Yang, W. Xie, X. Xue, K. Yang, J. Ma, W. Liang, Q. Zhao, Z. Zhou, D. Pei, J. Ziebuhr, R.
Hilgenfeld, K.Y. Yuen, L. Wong, G. Gao, S. Chen, Z. Chen, D. Ma, M. Bartlam, Z. Rao.
Design of wide-spectrum inhibitors targeting coronavirus main proteases, PLoS Biol. 3 (2005)
1741-1752.
[4] K. Anand, J. Ziebuhr, P. Wadhwani, J.R. Mesters, R. Hilgenfeld. Coronavirus main proteinase
(3CLpro) structure: basis for design of anti-SARS drugs. Science 300 (2003) 1763-1767.
[5] L. Zhou, Y. Liu, W. Zhang, P. Wei, C. Huang, J. Pei, Y. Yuan, L. Lai. Isatin compounds as
non-covalent SARS coronavirus 3C-like protease inhibitors. J. Med. Chem. 49 (2006)
3440-3443.
[6] L. Chen, J. Li, C. Luo, H. Liu, W. Xu, G. Chen, O.W. Liew, W. Zhu, C.M. Puah, X. Shen, H.
Jiang. Binding interaction of quercetin-3-β-galactoside and its synthetic derivatives with
SARS-CoV 3CLpro: structure-activity relationship studies reveal salient pharmacophore
features. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 14 (2006) 8295-8306.
[7] R. Ramajayam, K.P. Tan, H.G. Liu, P.H. Liang. Synthesis and evaluation of pyrazolone
compounds as SARS-coronavirus 3C-like protease inhibitors. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 18 (2010)
7849-7854.
[8] Y.M. Shao, W.B. Yang, T.H. Kuo, K.C. Tsai, C.H. Lin, A.S. Yang, P.H. Liang, C.H. Wong.
Design, synthesis, and evaluation of trifluoromethyl ketones as inhibitors of SARS-CoV 3CL
protease. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 16 (2008) 4652-4660.
[9] J. Jacobs, V. Grum-Tokars, Y. Zhou, M. Turlington, S.A. Saldanha, P. Chase, A. Eggler, E.S.
Dawson, Y.M. Baez-Santos, S. Tomar, A.M. Mielech, S.C. Baker, C.W. Lindsley, P. Hodder,
A. Mesecar, S.R. Stauffer. Discovery, synthesis, and structure-based optimization of a series
of N-(tert-butyl)-2-(N-arylamido)-2-(pyridin-3-yl) acetamides (ML188) as potent
non-covalent small molecule inhibitors of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus
(SARS-CoV) 3CL protease. J. Med. Chem. 56 (2013) 534-546.
[10] P. Thanigaimalai, S. Konno, T. Yamamoto, Y. Koiwai, A. Taguchi, K. Takayama, F. Yakushiji,
K. Akaji, S.E. Chen, A. Naser-Tavakolian, A. Schön, E. Freire, Y. Hayashi. Development of
potent dipeptide-type SARS-CoV 3CL protease inhibitors with novel P3 scaffolds: design,
synthesis, biological evaluation, and docking studies. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 68 (2013) 372-384.
[11] W. Liu, H.M. Zhu, G.J. Niu, E.Z. Shi, J. Chen, B. Sun, W.Q. Chen, H.G. Zhou, C. Yang.
18

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
Synthesis, modification and docking studies of 5-sulfonyl isatin derivatives as SARS-CoV
3C-like protease inhibitors. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 22 (2014) 292-302.
[12] P. Thanigaimalai, S. Konno, T. Yamamoto, Y. Koiwai, A. Taguchi, K. Takayama, F. Yakushiji,
K. Akaji, Y. Kiso, Y. Kawasaki, S.E. Chen, A. Naser-Tavakolian, A. Schön, E. Freire, Y.
Hayashi. Design, synthesis, and biological evaluation of novel dipeptide-type SARS-CoV
3CL protease inhibitors: structure-activity relationship study. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 65 (2013)
436-447.
[13] L. Zhang, C.P. Chou, M. Moo-Young. Disulfide bond formation and its impact on the
biological activity and stability of recombinant therapeutic proteins produced by Escherichia
coli expression system. Biotechnol. Adv. 29 (2011) 923-929.
[14] R. Argüello-García, O.N. Medina-Campos, N. Pérez-Hernández, J. Pedraza- Chaverrí, G.
Ortega-Pierres. Hypochlorous acid scavenging activities of thioallyl compounds from garlic.
J. Agric. Food Chem. 58 (2010) 11226−11233.
[15] H.L. Chu, B.S. Wang, P.D Duh. Effects of selected organosulfur compounds on melanin
formation. J. Agric. Food Chem. 57 (2009) 7072−7077.
[16] S. Otto. Dynamic molecular networks: from synthetic receptors to self-replicators. Acc.
Chem. Res. 45 (2012) 2200-2210.
[17] E. Turos, K.D. Revell, P. Ramaraju, D.A. Gergeres, K. Greenhalgh, A. Young, N.
Sathyanarayan, S. Dickey, D. Lim, M.M. Alhamadsheh, K. Reynolds. Unsymmetric
aryl-alkyl disulfide growth inhibitors of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and
Bacillus anthracis. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 16 (2008) 6501-6508.
[18] T.R. DiRaimondo, N.M. Plugis, X. Jin, C. Khosla. Selective inhibition of extracellular
thioredoxin by asymmetric disulfides. J. Med. Chem. 56 (2013) 1301-1310.
[19] K.J. Choi, Y.G. Yu, H.G. Hahn, J.D. Choi, M.Y. Yoon. Characterization of acetohydroxyacid
synthase from Mycobacterium tuberculosis and the identification of its new inhibitor from
the screening of a chemical library. FEBS Lett. 579 (2005) 4903-4910.
[20] K.J. Choi, K.M. Noh, D.E. Kim, B.H. Ha, E.E. Kim, M.Y. Yoon. Identification of the
catalytic subunit of acetohydroxyacid synthase in Haemophilus influenzae and its potent
inhibitors. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 466 (2007) 24-30.
[21] J. Shang, W.M. Wang, Y.H. Li, H.B. Song, Z.M. Li, J.G. Wang. Synthesis, crystal structure,
in vitro acetohydroxyacid synthase inhibition, in vivo herbicidal activity, and 3D-QSAR of
new asymmetric aryl disulfides. J. Agric. Food Chem. 60 (2012) 8286-8293.
[22] Z.S. Li, W.M. Wang, W. Lu, C.W. Niu, Y.H. Li, Z.M. Li, J.G. Wang. Synthesis and biological
evaluation of nonsymmetrical aromatic disulfides as novel inhibitors of acetohydroxyacid
synthase. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 23 (2013) 3723-3727.
[23] C.S. Sepúlveda, C.C. García, J.M. Levingston Macleod, N. López, E.B. Damonte. Targeting
of arenavirus RNA synthesis by a carboxamide-derivatized aromatic disulfide with virucidal
activity. PLoS One. 8 (2013) e81251.
19

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
[24] H.H. Lara, L. Ixtepan-Turrent, E.N. Garza-Treviño, S.M. Flores-Teviño, G. Borkow, C.
Rodriguez-Padilla. Antiviral propierties of 5, 5'-dithiobis-2- nitrobenzoic acid and bacitracin
against T-tropic human immunodeficiency virus type 1. Virol. J. 8 (2011) 137.
[25] C.C. García, I. Topisirovic, M. Djavani, K.L. Borden, E.B. Damonte, M.S. Salvato. An
antiviral disulfide compound blocks interaction between arenavirus Z protein and cellular
promyelocytic leukemia protein. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 393 (2010) 625-630.
[26] M. Han, J.T. Lee, H.G. Hahn, A traceless, one-pot preparation of unsymmetric disulfides
from symmetric disulfides through a repeated process involving sulfenic acid and
thiosulfinate intermediates. Tetrahedron. Lett. 52 (2011) 236-239.
[27] R. Copeland. Reversible inhibitors. In: R. Copeland, Enzymes: a practical introduction to
structure, mechanism, and data analysis. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley-VCH, Inc. (2000)
266-304.
[28] F. Wang, C. Chen, X. Liu, K. Yang, X. Xu, H. Yang. Crystal structure of feline infectious
peritonitis virus main protease in complex with synergetic dual inhibitors. J. Virol. 90 (2015)
1910-1917.
[29] P.T. Corbett, J. Leclaire, L. Vial, K.R. West, J.L. Wietor, J.K. Sanders, S. Otto. Dynamic
combinatorial chemistry. Chem. Rev. 106 (2006) 3652-3711.
[30] T. Christopeit, A. Albert, H.K. Leiros. Discovery of a novel covalent non-β-lactam inhibitor
of the metallo-β-lactamase NDM-1. Bioorg. Med. Chem.24 (2016) 2947-2953.
[31] J. Zhang, H.I. Pettersson, C. Huitema, C. Niu, J. Yin, M.N. James, L.D. Eltis, J.C. Vederas.
Design, synthesis, and evaluation of inhibitors for severe acute respiratory syndrome 3C-like
protease based on phthalhydrazide ketones or heteroaromatic esters. J. Med. Chem.50 (2007)
1850-1864.
[32] M. Rarey, B. Kramer, T. Lengauer, G. Klebe, A fast flexible docking method using an
incremental construction algorithm. J. Mol. Biol. 261 (1996) 470-489.
[33] J. Wang, H. Tan, Y. Li, Y. Ma, Z. Li, L.W. Guddat. Chemical synthesis, in vitro
acetohydroxyacid synthase (AHAS) inhibition,herbicidal activity, and computational studies
of isatin derivatives. J. Agric. Food Chem. 59 (2011) 9892-9900.
[34] G. Jug, M. Anderluh, T. Tomašič. Comparative evaluation of several docking tools for
docking small molecule ligands to DC-SIGN. J. Mol. Model. 21 (2015) 164.
[35] R.K. Mishra, J. Singh. A Structure Guided QSAR: A Rapid and Accurate technique to predict
IC50: A Case Study. Curr. Comput. Aided Drug Des. 11 (2015) 152-163.
[36] H. Liu, Q. Shen, J. Zhang, W. Fu. Evaluation of various inverse docking schemes in multiple
targets identification. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 29 (2010) 326-330.
[37] X. Hou, J. Du, J. Zhang, L. Du, H. Fang, M. Li. How to improve docking accuracy of
AutoDock4.2: a case study using different electrostatic potentials. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2013
Jan 28;53(1):188-200.
[38] A.C. Wallace, R.A. Laskowski, J.M. Thornton. LIGPLOT: a program to generate schematic
20

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
diagrams of protein-ligand interactions. Protein Eng. 8 (1995) 127-134.
[39] R.D. Cramer, D.E. Patterson, J.D. Bunce, Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA). 1.
Effect of shape on binding of steroids to carrier proteins. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 110 (1988)
5959-5967.
[40] D.P. Jiang, C.C. Zhu, X.S. Shao, J.G. Cheng, Z. Li. Bioactive conformation analysis of
anthranilic diamide insecticides: DFT-based potential energy surface scanning and 3D-QSAR
investigations. Chin. Chem. Lett. 26 (2015) 662-666.
[41] X.L. Yue, H. Li, S.S. Liu, Q.Y. Zhang, J.J. Yao, F.Y. Wang. N-Fluorinated
phenyl-N′-pyrimidyl urea derivatives: Synthesis, biological evaluation and 3D-QSAR study.
Chin. Chem. Lett. 25 (2014) 1069-1072.
[42] C.A. Lipinski, F. Lombardo, B.W. Dominy, P.J. Feeney. Experimental and computational
approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development
settings. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 46 (2001) 3-26.
[43] H. Yang, M. Yang, Y. Ding, Y. Liu, Z. Lou, Z. Zhou, L. Sun, L. Mo, S. Ye, H. Pang, G.F. Gao,
K. Anand, M. Bartlam, R. Hilgenfeld, Z. Rao. The crystal structures of severe acute
respiratory syndrome virus main protease and its complex with an inhibitor. Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. USA. 100 (2003) 13190-13195.
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
21

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 1. The novel unsymmetrical aromatic disulfide compounds and their SARS-CoV Mpro inhibitory activities (IC50)
Entry no.
3-1
Chemical structure
IC50 (µM)
Entry no.
3-21
Chemical structure
IC50(µM)
1.871±0.071
1.250±0.023
S
N
S
O
S
3-2
3-3
2.803±0.052
3.675±0.193
3-22
3-23
2.211±0.152
3.321±0.068
N
H
3-4
3-5
3.130±0.052
1.506±0.184
3-24
3-25
2.555±0.270
2.452±0.126
22

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
3-6
3-7
3-8
4.344±0.538
4.100±0.832
1.762±0.044
3-26
3-27
3-28
1.679±0.042
1.557±0.116
1.713±0.052
3-9
5.654±0.259
4.511±0.105
3-29
3-30
1.118±0.132
1.264±0.033
3-10
23

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
3-11
3-12
5.794±0.050
2.626±0.082
3-31
3-32
0.516±0.060
0.921±0.060
NO2
S
N
S
N
N
S
3-13
3-14
3-15
3-16
1.651±0.048
2.075±0.016
5.954±0.363
3.957±0.190
3-33
3-34
3-35
3-36
1.437±0.053
1.121±0.060
1.991±0.086
1.495±0.055
Cl
S
N
24

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
3-17
4.126±0.094
3-37
0.883±0.028
3-18
3-19
2.565±0.075
1.947±0.508
3-38
3-39
0.684±0.012
0.697±0.053
N
S
Br
S
N
3-20
2.029±0.488
3-40
1.522±0.214
25

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 1. Different disulfide compounds with various biological activities from literature.
26

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
A
B
Fig. 2. Plot of enzyme concentration versus reaction velocity for enzymatic kinetic study of
3-31 (A) and 3-39 (B).
27

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
A
B
Fig. 3. Secondary plots for the determination of the kinetic constants (Ki and αKi) of inhibitor
3-31 as a non-competitive inhibitor. The values of αKi (A)and Ki (B) are calculated from the x
intercept.
28