Synthesis and biological evaluation of novel thiazolyl-coumarin derivatives as potent histone deacetylase inhibitors with antifibrotic activity

Article abstract of DOI:10.3390/molecules24040739

New histone deacetylases (HDAC) inhibitors with low toxicity to non-cancerous cells, are a prevalent issue at present because these enzymes are actively involved in fibrotic diseases. We designed and synthesized a novel series of thiazolyl-coumarins, substituted at position 6 (R = H, Br, OCH₃), linked to classic zinc binding groups, such as hydroxamic and carboxylic acid moieties and alternative zinc binding groups such as disulfide and catechol. Their in vitro inhibitory activities against HDACs were evaluated. Disulfide and hydroxamic acid derivatives were the most potent ones. Assays with neonatal rat cardiac fibroblasts demonstrated low cytotoxic effects for all compounds. Regarding the parameters associated to cardiac fibrosis development, the compounds showed antiproliferative effects, and triggered a strong decrease on the expression levels of both α-SMA and procollagen I. In conclusion, the new thiazolyl-coumarin derivatives inhibit HDAC activity and decrease profibrotic effects on cardiac fibroblasts.

Full text of DOI:10.3390/molecules24040739

molecules
Article
Synthesis and Biological Evaluation of Novel
Thiazolyl-Coumarin Derivatives as Potent Histone
Deacetylase Inhibitors with Antifibrotic Activity
Viviana Pardo-Jiménez 1,2,*, Patricio Navarrete-Encina 1 and Guillermo Díaz-Araya 2,3,
*
1
Laboratory of Advanced Organic Chemistry, Department of Organic Chemistry and Physical Chemistry,
Faculty of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Sciences; University of Chile, Santiago 8380000, Chile;
pnavarre@ciq.uchile.cl
Laboratory of Molecular Pharmacology, Department of Pharmacological & Toxicological Chemistry,
Faculty of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Sciences; University of Chile, Santiago 8380000, Chile
Advanced Center of Chronic Diseases (ACCDiS), Faculty of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Sciences,
University of Chile, Santiago 8380000, Chile
2
3
*
Correspondence: vivianapardo@ug.uchile.cl (V.P.-J.); gadiaz@ciq.uchile.cl (G.D.-A.);
Tel.: +56-2-2-978-2873 (V.P.-J.); +56-2-2-978-2975 (G.D.-A.)
ꢀꢁꢂꢀꢃꢄꢅꢆꢇ
Academic Editor: Josef Jampilek
Received: 31 December 2018; Accepted: 14 February 2019; Published: 19 February 2019
ꢀꢁꢂꢃꢄꢅꢆ
Abstract: New histone deacetylases (HDAC) inhibitors with low toxicity to non-cancerous cells,
are a prevalent issue at present because these enzymes are actively involved in fibrotic diseases.
We designed and synthesized a novel series of thiazolyl-coumarins, substituted at position 6 (R = H,
Br, OCH3), linked to classic zinc binding groups, such as hydroxamic and carboxylic acid moieties
and alternative zinc binding groups such as disulfide and catechol. Their in vitro inhibitory activities
against HDACs were evaluated. Disulfide and hydroxamic acid derivatives were the most potent ones.
Assays with neonatal rat cardiac fibroblasts demonstrated low cytotoxic effects for all compounds.
Regarding the parameters associated to cardiac fibrosis development, the compounds showed
antiproliferative effects, and triggered a strong decrease on the expression levels of both α-SMA
and procollagen I. In conclusion, the new thiazolyl-coumarin derivatives inhibit HDAC activity and
decrease profibrotic effects on cardiac fibroblasts.
Keywords: thiazolyl-coumarin; HDACs inhibitor; cardiac fibroblasts; antifibrotic
1. Introduction
Cardiac fibrosis is characterized by the excessive deposition of collagens and extracellular matrix
(ECM) proteins that lead to impaired organ function, and is the major factor in the progression of
myocardial infarction and heart failure [
maintenance of ECM and healing after injury [
(TGF– 1) they are differentiated to cardiac myofibroblasts (CMFs), which are cells characterized by
increased collagen synthesis, expression and assembly in stress fiber of the –smooth muscle actin
–SMA), a contractile protein and marker of CMFs [ ]. Recent investigations have shown that the
1
]. Cardiac fibroblasts (CFs) play a key role in the homeostatic
2]. By the use of transforming growth factor beta1
β
α
(α
2
expression and activity of distinct histone deacetylases (HDACs) are strongly correlated to the cardiac
fibrosis development. The pattern expression analysis of HDAC1 and HDAC2 in hearts showed that
HDAC1 is expressed mainly by fibroblasts/interstitial cells, whereas HDAC2 is more prominent in
cardiomyocytes with low levels of expression in fibroblasts/interstitial cells. Moreover, in hearts
with heart failure, both HDAC1 and HDAC2 showed strong expression in CFs, although HDAC2
maintained its expression in cardiomyocytes. Together, these data suggest that HDAC1 and HDAC2
are mainly associated with the regulation of the biology of CFs in the heart [3–5].
Molecules 2019, 24, 739; doi:10.3390/molecules24040739
www.mdpi.com/journal/molecules

Molecules 2019, 24, 739
2 of 23
HDACs are enzymes that remove acetyl groups from an
and restore the positive charge to lysine residues [
transcription factors (e.g., p53, FOXP3), Hsp90, tubulin and other cytoplasmic proteins that play a role
in regulatory processes can also be deacetylated by HDACs [ ]. HDACs are a family of 18 enzymes
ε
–N–acetyllysine amino acid on a histone
6
]. Additionally, non-histone proteins such as
7–9
categorized into four classes: class I (HDAC1, 2, 3 and 8); class II (HDAC4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10); class III
(SIRT1–7), also known as sirtuins; and class IV (HDAC11). Classes I, II and IV are zinc dependent
enzymes, and class III are NAD+ dependent [10].
HDAC inhibitors (iHDACs) block the access to the active site of HDACs and thus produce
hyperacetylation of histones and non-histone proteins. Their effects vary according to cell type and
stimulus [11
antifibrotic action on the heart and, more recently, selective inhibitors of the HDAC class I isoform
have been shown to block cardiac fibrosis [13 16]. In the heart, iHDACs have been shown to reduce
,12]. Hydroxamic acid-based HDAC pan-inhibitors have long been recognized for their
–
interstitial cardiac fibrosis by multiple mechanisms, including inhibition of proliferation and/or
migration of CFs, induction of genes that suppress ECM protein synthesis of fibroblast, deletion of
proinflammatory signals for fibrosis, and blockade of the endothelial-mesenchymal transition [13
iHDACs are compounds either of natural origin or obtained by synthesis and they constitute a
very diverse group in terms of structure, biological activity and specificity [17 18]. iHDACs known
–16].
,
at present are classified according to their chemical structure in the following groups: hydroxamic
acid derivatives, aliphatic acids, benzamides, epoxides, cyclic peptides and sulfonamides containing
peptide structures. There are three common characteristics present in these inhibitors: a zinc binding
group (ZBG) to coordinate the catalytic metal ion, a hydrophobic spacer that normally has a chain
of 5 to 6 methylenes and a surface recognition group (CAP, see Figure 1), which interacts with the
outer surface of the enzyme [18,19]. The searching for novel iHDAC compounds with high affinity for
these enzymes, but of less structural complexity, low toxicity and easier syntheses remains a challenge
for researchers.
Coumarins and their analogues are an important class of compounds of natural and synthetic
origin [20]. These compounds belong to the lactone family and are composed of benzene rings
condensed onto an
α–pyrone ring. In recent years the use of the coumarin ring as a scaffold
molecule has occupied an important place in the investigation of new drugs possessing different
pharmacological activities such as antibacterial, antiviral, anticancer, anticoagulant, anti-inflammatory,
antioxidant and analgesic effects [21
been used successfully as CAP in new iHDACs synthesis [23
,
22]. Moreover, coumarin–based benzamides and osthole have
24]. Coumarin derivatives having various
,
substituted thiazole rings at C-3 exhibit promising biological activities [25]. Recently, syntheses of some
new thiazolyl–coumarin derivatives with good anticonvulsivante [26], antimicrobial [27], analgesic
and anti-inflammatory activities [28] were also reported. Some thiazolyl–coumarin analogues are
found to bepotential anticancer and antimicrobial agents [29], with selective cytotoxicity towards
tumor cell lines but not on normal cells [30,31], making them interesting for their evaluation as iHDACs
in non-cancer cells.
Another important aspect to consider is that compounds with antifibrotic activity are scarce and
nowadays the use of iHDACs has attracted the interest of medicinal chemists due to their participation
on avoiding fibrotic disorders [32,33]. This study reports the synthesis, characterization, in vitro
inhibitory activity of HDACs and antifibrotic activities of new 3-(2-amino-thiazol-4-yl)-coumarin
(CTz) derivatives.
2. Results and Discussion
2.1. Chemistry
To mimic the structural features of the natural compound trichostatin A (TSA) and the
three characteristic sites of the enzyme, i.e., the edge, the tubular pocket and the active site that

Molecules 2019, 24, 739
3 of 23
contains the Zn2+
[
18,
19], the final synthesized compounds are made up of four components:
a3-(4-thiazolyl)coumaringroup (CAP), hydrophobic spacer and a ZBG (Figure 1).
Figure 1. General schematic assembly of the derivatives showing the CAP, spacer and a disulfide ZBG.
2.1.1. Scaffold CAP Synthesis
The CTz ensemble establishes a scaffold that allows us to obtain derivatives easily by substitutions
in the coumarin benzene ring and also allow us to form amide bonds with the amino group at position 2
of the thiazole to subsequently incorporate the spacer. The general structure of the scaffold CAP is
shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Structure of the CTz derivative scaffold CAP (4a, R= H; 4b,R= Br; 4c, R= OCH3).
Starting from 5-substituted-salicylaldehydes 1a
steps (Scheme 1).
–
c, compounds 4a
–
c
were synthesized in three
◦
Scheme 1. Reagents and conditions: (a) ethyl acetoacetate, piperidine (drops), 50 C, 0.5–2 h (depending
on R) (2a, yield= 85%;2b,yield= 84%;2c, yield= 88%)(b) Br2, CHCl3/CH3COOH, 40–60 ◦C, 3 h;
(
3a
,
yield= 80%; 3b, yield= 86%; 3c, yield= 66%) (c) (c.1)SC(NH2)2, EtOH, 78 ◦C (reflux), 15 min,(c.2)
◦
CH3COONa, H2O, 50 C (4a, yield= 91%; 4b, yield= 73%;4c, yield= 82%).
The first step corresponding to the synthesis of the substituted acetylcoumarin, was carried out by
means of a Knoevenagel-type condensation between the corresponding salicylaldehyde (R = H, OCH3
and Br) and ethyl acetoacetate in the presence of piperidine as a catalyst. After bromination of the
coumarin acetyl group, the last stage of the CAP synthesis was accomplished by using the Hantzsch
thiazole synthesis [34]. Fast and easy condensation of bromoacetylcoumarins with thiourea led to the
synthesis of derivatives 4a–c.
2.1.2. Adding the Spacer and the ZBG
In this manuscript we study the use of CTz derivatives linked to a spacer which in turn has a
ZBG group chosen for its recognized zinc chelating ability. Four different ZBG groups were tested:
disulfide, carboxylic acid, catechol and hydroxamic acid. Synthesis of the final derivatives obtained
are described in Scheme 2.

Molecules 2019, 24, 739
4 of 23
R = H, OCH3, Br
S
S
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
N
O
O
R
S
R
S
DMF, 10 °C
S
S
N
4a-c
COCl
NH
NH2
O
1.
, DMF/TEA, 10 °C
O
5a-c
OAc
OAc
Cl
COOMe
CH3CN, TEA, Δ, 5h
O
O
OH
OH
2. HCl 10 %, 25 °C
O
O
N
R
S
N
COOMe
6a-c
R
HN
S
O
HN
7a´-c´
O
DMSO, HCl conc.
70 °C, 45 m
NH2OH, MeO-
MeOH, 45 °C, 3h
O
O
R
COOH
S
N
O
O
N
7a-c
HN
O
R
O
S
OH
N
H
8a-c
HN
O
Scheme 2. General scheme of the reactions leading to the final derivatives.
α
–Lipoic acid (ALA, 5-(1,2-dithiolan-3-yl) pentanoic acid), has a fivecarbon chain and a disulfide
ZBG group. Studies in vitro and in vivo have shown that ALA is able to chelate Zn2+, Cu2+ and
Fe3+ ions [35
properties [35
–
38]. The biological effects of ALA are primarily associated with their antioxidant
,36] although it also exhibits antimutagenic, anticarcinogenic activities [37] and produces
an increase in normal cell survival [39,40].
3,4–Dihydroxybenzoic acid, is a polyphenol broadly distributed in Nature, forming part of the
secondary metabolites of a wide variety of plants and fruits [41]. These phenols are strong transition
metal chelating agents for Fe3+ and Cu2+, also forming complexes with Zn2+ through their hydroxyl
groups [42,43]. Polyphenols are also recognized for their antioxidant activity in addition to exhibiting
antimicrobial and anticancer properties [41,44].
Valproic and butyric acids are known iHDACs. The inhibitory potency of these compounds is in
the low mM range, compared with compounds such as suberoylanilide hydroxamic acid (SAHA) and
trapoxin, among others. In most HDAC inhibitory activity studies, short alkyl chain acid derivatives
are used [45] and the experimental facts highlight the importance of a voluminous substituent group
which must interact with the external surface of the enzyme [18,45]. Therefore, the presence of the CTz
as group head could increase the inhibitory potency of the proposed compounds.
The compounds that contain the hydroxamic acid group as a ligand for Zn2+, are those that
show the highest inhibitory potency of HDACs [15,45]. This functional group has been widely
used in the synthetic strategy of compound inhibitors of matrix metalloproteinases, exhibiting
inhibitory concentrations (in vitro) in the nM range [35] but hydroxamic acid derivatives have poor oral
bioavailability and are rapidly metabolized in vivo to the corresponding carboxylic acid group [44
In Table 1 we show a summary of the final synthesized and tested compounds.
,46].

Molecules 2019, 24, 739
5 of 23
Table 1. Summary of the synthesized and tested compounds (CTz derivatives).
O
O
N
S
R
NHR1
Compound
R1
R
Yield (%)
80.6
S
S
5a
H
Br
O
S
S
5b
70.5
O
S
S
5c
6a
6b
6c
OCH3
72.5
71.0
82.0
78.0
O
OH
OH
O
H
Br
OH
OH
O
OH
OH
O
OCH3
O
H
H
H
O
O
O
7a
7b
7c
8a
8b
8c
H
Br
81.0
85.0
77.0
64.0
57.0
68.0
O
O
O
O
O
OCH3
H
O
OH
OH
OH
N
H
O
O
N
H
Br
O
O
N
H
OCH3
O
2.2. HDACs Enzyme Inhibition
The assays of the HDAC inhibitory activity of each of the CTz derivatives were carried out using
HeLa cell nuclear extract, HDAC1 and HDAC6 human recombinant as HDAC source. We evaluated
the ability of the CTz derivatives, each one in a broad concentration range (10–5000 nM), to inhibit
HDACs activity using TSA as positive control. Results were expressed as IC50 values and tabulated in
Table 2. All compounds showed inhibitory activities against HDACs. Among them, the derivatives
5a
and HDAC6 isoforms. Among the 5a
activity with IC50 values of 50.0 nM for HeLa cells nuclear HDACs and 39.7 nM for HDAC1, while for
–
c
and 8a
–
c
were the most active inhibitory compounds of HDACs nuclear HeLa cells, HDAC1
–
c
derivatives, compound 5c exhibited the highest inhibitory

Molecules 2019, 24, 739
6 of 23
HDAC6 IC50 value increases to 84.1 nM. In general, compounds belonging to series 1 displayed modest
selectivity towards HDAC1 with a 2.3–fold preference for HDAC1 versus HDAC6. It should be noted
that the HeLa cells nuclear extract as well as the isoforms HDACs 1 and 6 used in the assay do not
present enzymes that can reduce the disulfide to the corresponding thiol; therefore, we suppose that
the disulfide acts per se as ZBG. This behavior has been also observed in diallyl disulfide derivatives
which have HDAC inhibitory activity without being previously reduced to thiol [47].
Table 2. Half maximal inhibitory concentration of HDACs activity.
Class I
Class II
Nuclear HeLa Cells Extract
IC50 (nM)
Compounds
HDAC1 IC50 (nM) HDAC6 IC50 (nM)
5a
5b
5c
6a
6b
6c
7a
7b
7c
8a
8b
8c
66.7 ± 2.9
62.1 ± 2.5
50.0 ± 1.7
573.5 ± 24.4
508.7 ± 23.3
476.7 ± 27.5
6100 ± 390
5400 ± 400
4700 ± 310
66.9 ± 1.8
57.1 ± 4.5
41.5 ± 2.7
5.0 ± 0.12
60.4 ± 1.7
47.6 ± 2.3
39.7 ± 1.3
422.8 ± 30.2
612.7 ± 32.8
504.4 ± 31.4
7689 ± 328
4666 ± 362
3382 ± 302
50.6 ± 2.1
45.4 ± 2.6
46.5 ± 2.2
2.1 ± 0.06
153.4 ± 5.3
122.8 ± 5.1
84.1 ± 2.9
276.1 ± 20.9
449.5 ± 20.7
580.5 ± 27.5
5589 ± 184
6336 ± 466
2427 ± 157
98.3 ± 3.5
80.2 ± 3.7
62.6 ± 2.3
TSA
48.0 ± 4.4
Among the derivatives 8a–c, compound 8c exhibited the highest inhibitory activity with IC50
values of 41.5 nM for HeLa cells nuclear HDACs and 46.5 nM for HDAC1, while for HDAC6 the IC50
value increases to 62.6 nM. Same tendency was observed for compounds 8a and 8b. In comparison
with the derivatives of series 5 (5a–c), those of series 8 (8a–c) showed less selectivity towards HDAC
class I. This result agrees with the literature, since the selectivity of hydroxamic acid group is often
questioned in the drug design, because of its high binding affinity to the zinc and other ions [48].
Compounds 6a
the compounds of series
to 5 to 6 methylenes as described in the literature for optimal interaction with the enzyme [18
also observed that the compounds of this series are not selective in the inhibition of class I and class
–c
possessing a catechol as ZBG, have lower potency in HDACs inhibition than
and , probably because they do not have the spacer length corresponding
19]. It is
5
8
,
II HADCs. With respect to the compounds 7a–c having a carboxylic acid as ZBG, a weak HDACs
inhibitory activity was observed.
These results demonstrated that CTz group is an effective surface recognition CAP for HDACs
inhibition. Since the IC50 values of the acid derivatives (4.7–6.1 M) are higher than the values of short
chain fatty acid, such as valproic acid (140 M) and phenylbutyric acid (620 M) [49], is indicative
µ
µ
µ
that the inclusion of a 6–carbon spacer and CTz is responsible of the improvement in the inhibitory
activity.The same is observed with the catecholic derivatives (IC50= 477–574 nM) which are more
potent inhibitors than catecholic derivatives such as chlorogenic acid (IC50= 375 µM) and caffeic acid
(2.54 mM) [50]. However, the CTz capping group did not have a significant impact on the selectivity of
the HDAC inhibitors for class I and class II.
2.3. Cellular Assays
2.3.1. Cytotoxicity Assay
CFs were treated for 48 h with all the new CTz derivatives in a broad concentration range
(100 µM
−1 mM), and their cytotoxicity was then evaluated. In Table 3 cytotoxic concentration 50 (CC50)
values for each of the synthesized compounds are shown. The data show that all the derivatives
have a cytotoxic effect of the same order of magnitude. In each series, the Br derivatives were the

Molecules 2019, 24, 739
7 of 23
ones that caused an increasein cell death, being 8b the most cytotoxic compound (CC50= 72.4 µM).
The non-substituted derivatives caused less cell death, being compound 5a the less cytotoxic one
(CC50= 200.9 M). When comparing the different ZBG the series 5 is the least cytotoxic for CFs, while
µ
series 8 was the most cytotoxic.
It has been described that HDACs activity has a key role on viability on cancer cells [18,19]. In this
study we found no correlation between the HDACs inhibitory activity and cytotoxicity for each series of
compounds. These results have also been seen in other studies where iHDACs have been synthesized
with alternative ZBG to the hydroxamate, such as mercaptoacetamide and ortho-aminoanilides with
higher selectivity towards class I HDACs and less cytotoxic [51].
Table 3. Half maximal inhibitory concentration cytotoxic.(CC50) of new CTz derivatives.
Compound
CC50 (µM)
5a
5b
5c
6a
6b
6c
7a
7b
7c
8a
8b
8c
200.9 ± 20.3
127.2 ± 19.2
170.7 ± 6.1
140.2 ± 11.7
102.2 ± 10.3
124.5 ± 12.8
111.4 ± 4.4
80.0 ± 23.6
99.5 ±6.3
90.5 ± 5.1
72.5 ± 11.6
86.5 ± 5.9
2.3.2. Cell Proliferation
CFs were treated for 48 h with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS), to induce CFs proliferation in
presence/absence of each new CTz derivatives in a concentration range of 1–10 M. In Table 4,
µ
the inhibition percentage of cell proliferation for each concentration of the synthesized compounds are
shown. All derivatives inhibited CFs proliferation induce by serum.
Table 4. Inhibition percentage of cell proliferation.
Compound
1 µM
5 µM
10 µM
5a
5b
5c
6a
6b
6c
7a
7b
7c
8a
8b
8c
57.3 ± 6.7 70.7 ± 7.1
71.5 ± 3.8 89.1 ± 9.5
67.0 ± 8.3 83.2 ± 6.8
92.8 ± 6.4
96.4 ± 4.7
91.2 ± 3.2
60.6 ± 1.9
64.1 ± 1.7
64.9 ± 2.3
45.0 ± 5.1
48.0 ± 4.8
48.8 ± 5.2
94.4 ± 3.8
3.0 ± 3.9
35.0 ± 1.9
15.8 ± 3.6 40.0± 1.8
10.9 ± 3.6 42.2 ± 1.8
0.5 ± 0.1
2.4 ± 1.1
6.0 ± 0.4
26.8 ± 5.9
36.1 ± 5.4
33.0 ± 4.1
59.4 ± 6.1 79.9 ± 9.7
72.7 ± 3.9 94.4 ± 7.0 104.0 ± 2.8
69.7 ± 9.1 81.8 ± 5.5 97.7 ± 4.7
The derivatives 5a
50% at a concentration of 1
derivatives 6a and 7a shows a slight inhibition of proliferation at concentrations 1 and 5
results agree with the results obtained from HDACs inhibitory activity. The derivatives 5a
8a shows the highest HDAC inhibitory activity, maintaining the trend of greater activity for these
–
c
and 8a
M, the most powerful in inhibition being compounds 5b and 8b. While
M. These
and
–c already has a proliferation inhibition percentage of more than
µ
–c
–
c
µ
–
c
–c
two series in inhibiting the proliferation of CFs. The results also show that at concentrations where
serum-induced proliferation is inhibited by more than 50%, these compounds are not cytotoxic.

Molecules 2019, 24, 739
8 of 23
It is important to highlight that CF proliferation playsa key role in cardiac fibrosis
development [48]. Therefore, inhibition of CF proliferation by novel CTz derivatives could be important
to prevent cardiac fibrosis. Our results showed that at lower concentration, derivatives 5a
prevent FBS-induced CFs proliferation. Other iHDACs have been shown to inhibit the proliferation
of CFs at similar concentrations found for our derivatives, mocetinostat (1 M), SAHA (10 M) and
apicidin (3 M) [ 15]. From these results we can conclude that CTz derivatives (5a and 8a ) at
–c and 8a–c
µ
µ
µ
3,
–
c
–c
lower concentration could have important effect on cardiac fibrosis by inhibiting CFs proliferation, a
key step in active fibrotic disorders.
2.3.3. Cardiac Fibroblast HDACs Inhibition
Our next step was to demonstrate the inhibitory effect on histone deacetylase activity in CFs.
For this purpose, CFs of neonatal rats were incubated in the presence/absence of the 5a, 6a, 7a and
8a derivatives, and the expression of histone H4–acetylated was measured using the western blot
technique. Inhibition of HDACs was studied at non-cytotoxic concentrations and TSA was used
as a control and also for comparative purposes. In the upper panel of Figure 3, a representative
image of the expression of histone H4–acetylated is exhibited, whereas in the lower panel we show
the corresponding graphical analysis. The results demonstrate that at anuclear level, CFs expresses
detectable levels of H4–acetylated protein. Also, we observed that the 5a, 6a and 8a derivatives increase
in a statistically significant manner the histone H4–acetylated expression, while the derivative 7a had
no effect.
Figure 3. CTz non–substituted derivatives inhibit histone H4 acetylation. CFs were exposed to 5a, 7a,
6a and 8a at 5
µM for 8 h. TSA at 0.1µM was used as positive control. Nuclear extracts were isolated
and histone H4 acetylation expression levels were measured by western blot. Histone H4 was used as
control load. The results are showed as Mean +/
and *p < 0.05 vs. control.
−
SD for three independent experiments. **p < 0.01
Derivatives 5a and 8a showed higher histone H4-acetylated expression levels. These results were
complementary and coincident within vitro HDAC inhibition and show that the derivatives increased
histone H4–acetylated expression levels, indicative of HDACs inhibition in CFs. These results are quite
significant, since no cytotoxic effects were observed at working concentration.
2.3.4. Cardiac Fibroblast α-SMA Expression Levels
It has been indicated that HDACs are important in CFs–to–CMFs differentiation, an important
features of cardiac fibrosis development. Thus our objective was to demonstrate that in the CFs the

Molecules 2019, 24, 739
9 of 23
CTz derivatives reduce
α
–SMA expression levels and prevent those induced by TGF–
β1, therefore
inhibiting the differentiation process.
For this purpose, a fixed concentration of 5a
of TGF–β1 (a strong inducer of CFs–to–CMFs differentiation), was studied, and α
,
6a
,
7a and 8a derivatives in the presence/absence
–SMA expression
levels were measured by using the western blot technique. TSA was used as a control and also for
comparative purposes. In the upper panels of Figure 4 (A and B), representative photographs of -SMA
α
expression level and glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase(GAPDH) (used as charge control)
are exhibited, while in the lower panel the graphic analyses are shown. In Figure 4A, the results show
significant
levels with respect to control levels. In absence of TGF–
statistically significant manner -SMA expression levels being 5a and 8a derivatives the compounds
that strongly decreased -SMA expression levels, while compound 7a had no effect. In Figure 4B it
can be seen that TGF- 1 significantly increased the expression levels of -SMA with respect to control
levels. Pretreatment of CFs with 5a 6a 8a and TSA produce a decrease close to control levels on
α-SMA expression levels induced by TGF–β1.
α
–SMA expression levels in CFs, and TGF–
β1 significantly increased
α-SMA expression
β
1, 5a 6a and 8a derivatives decreased in a
,
α
α
β
α
,
,
Figure 4. CTz non–substituted inhibit
to 5a 6a 7a and 8a at 5 M for 48 h. TSA (0.1
) CFs were exposed to 5a 6a 7a and 8a at 5
expression levels were measured by western blot. GAPDH was used as control load. The results are
showed as Mean +/ SD for three independent experiments. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 and ***p < 0.001 vs.
α
-SMA expression in cardiac fibroblasts. (
M) and TGF– 1 (5 g/mL) were used as positive control.
M for 48 h in presence of TGF– 1 (5 g/mL). -SMA
A) CFs were exposed
,
,
µ
µ
β
µ
(
B
,
,
µ
β
µ
α
−
control, #p < 0.05 and ##p < 0.01 vs. TGF-β1.
2.3.5. Cardiac Fibroblast Procollagen Type I Expression Levels
In CFs collagen type I secretion is a hallmark of cardiac fibrosis development, which is regulated
by HDACs. Thus our objective was to demonstrate that in CFs the CTz derivatives reduce procollagen

Molecules 2019, 24, 739
10 of 23
type I expression levels and prevent those induced by TGF–β1. For this purpose, a fixed concentration
of 5a, 6a, 7a and 8a derivatives in presence/absence of TGF-β1 were studied, and procollagen type I
expression levels were measured by using the western blot technique. TSA was used as control and
also for comparative purposes. In Figure 5 (A and B), in the upper panel representative photographs
of procollagen type I expression level and GAPDH (used as charge control) are shown, whereas in the
lower panel the graphic analyses are observed. In Figure 5A, it can be seen that there is significant
procollagen type I expression levels in CFs, and TGF–
β1 significantly increased procollagen type I
expression levels with respect to control. In absence of TGF–
β
1, 5a 6a, and 8a derivatives decreased in
,
a statistically significant manner procollagen type I expression levels with respect to control, being
5a derivative the most potent compound, while compound 7a had no effect. In Figure 5B, the results
show that TGF–β1 significantly increased procollagen type I expression levels with respect to control
levels. Pretreatment of CFs with 5a, 6a, and 8a derivatives and TSA decreased, close to control levels,
procollagen type I expression levels induced by TGF–β1.
(A)
(B)
Figure 5. CTz non–substituted inhibit procollagen type I expression levels in cardiac fibroblasts.
(
A
) CFs were exposed to 5a
,
6a,
7a and 8a at 5
µM for 48 h.TSA (0.1µM) and TGF–β1 (5 µg/mL) were
used as positive control. (
B
) CFs were exposed to 5a
,
6a 7a and 8a at 5 µ
,
M for 48 h in presence of
TGF–
β1. Procollagen type I expression levels were measured by western blot. GAPDH was used as
control load. The results are showed as mean +/
and **p < 0.01 vs. control, #p < 0.05 vs. TGF–β1.
−
SD for three independent experiments. *p < 0.05
α
–SMA is a protein marker of CFs–to–CMF differentiation, a key process in cardiac fibrosis
development, whereas collagen type I is the main extracellular matrix protein secreted by CFs, and

Molecules 2019, 24, 739
11 of 23
it is the main ECM protein involved in cardiac fibrosis development. TGF–β1 is the main growth
factor responsible for this differentiation process, and also for collagen synthesis and secretion. Our
results showed that 5a 6a and 8a derivatives decreased both –SMA and procollagen type I expression
levels, either under basal conditions (not stimulated) or under TGF– 1 stimulation, being 5a and 8a
,
α
β
the most potent inhibitors. These results are consistent with our previous results in which we showed
that 5a and 8a derivatives were the best HDAC activity inhibitors and those that mostly increased
the histone H4-acetylated expression levels. In general terms, our results are consistent with those
reported in cardiac and lung fibroblasts where TSA and SAHA inhibit the expression of contractile
protein
α
–SMA [52] as well as, those found in cultured rat CFs, in which TSA blocks TGF–
β1–induced
collagen synthesis [52
,53]. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that our CTz compounds as
iHDACs prevent α–SMA and procollagen expression levels through additional mechanisms [54].
Collectively, our results highlight the importance of the disulfide–derivatives and hydroxamic
acid ones as the most potent iHDACs. The disadvantages of hydroxamic acids are the biological
limitations associated with poor HDACs selectivity and cytotoxicity.
2.4. ADMET Analysis
We cannot ignore the influence of the physicochemical characteristics of each synthesized
compounds on the results obtained in the assays carried out in CFs, for this reason a theoretical
analysis of the absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion and toxicity (ADMET) parameters of
each CTz was carried out.
The ADMET parameters of CTz derivatives were measured using QikProp software (Table 5).
Compounds of the series 5,6 and 8 have partition coefficient (QplogPo/w) values in the permeable
range 1.8–5.0. The Caco-2 cell permeability (QPPCaco) was in the permissible range of 29–1177.
The percentage human oral absorption for the series 1 compounds is 100%, while for the others
compounds ranged from 58 to 79%. Compounds belonging to series 7 are out of range of acceptable
partition coefficient values. In consequence this may explain the poor effects obtained on CFs assays.
Parameters of the compounds belonging to series 5,6 and 8 were all within the acceptable range
defined for human use and therefore these compounds may exhibit significant pharmacokinetic and
drug likeness properties.
Table 5. ADMET parameters prediction for the thiazolyl–coumarin compounds using QikProp.
Percent Human
Compounds QlogPo/w a QPPCaco b QPlogBB c
QPlogKp e #metab f
Oral Absorption d
5a
5b
5c
6a
6b
6c
7a
7b
7c
8a
8b
8c
4.4
5.0
4.5
1.8
2.4
1.9
0.3
0.8
0.4
2.3
2.9
2.4
1177
1173
1171
134
134
129
38
37
38
29
29
−0.5
−0.4
−0.6
−1.5
−1.4
−1.6
−2.1
−2.0
−2.2
−1.8
−1.7
−1.9
100
100
100
75
78
76
57
60
58
66
−1.8
−2.0
−1.9
−3.4
−3.6
−3.6
−4.1
−4.3
−4.2
−3.8
−4.0
−3.9
2
2
3
3
3
4
3
3
4
3
3
4
70
67
29
Predicted octanol/water partition coefficient (acceptable range: 2.0–6.5).b Predicted Caco-2 cell permeability in
a
nm/s (acceptable range: <25 is poor, >500 is great).c Predicted brain/blood partition coefficient (Concern value
is
−
3.0 to
−
1.2).d Predicted human oral absorption on 0–100% scale (acceptable range: <25% is poor, >80% is
high).e Predicted skin permeability, log Kp (acceptable range:
(acceptable range: 1–8).
−
8.0 to
−
1.0).f Number of likely metabolic reactions

Molecules 2019, 24, 739
12 of 23
3. Experimental Section
3.1. Chemistry
3.1.1. General Information
Nuclear magnetic spectra (1H-NMR, 300 MHz and 13C-NMR, 75.47MHz) were recorded on an
Avance DRX 300 spectrometer (Bruker, Billerica, MA, USA) at ambient temperature. Fourier-transform
infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) spectra were recorded with a Bruker IFS 55 spectrophotometer in the
600–4000 cm−1 range. Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization mass spectrometry (MALDI-MS)
mass spectra were recorded on a MALDI-time of flight (MALDI-TOF) Microflexsystem (Bruker
Daltonics GmbH, Leipzig, Germany) in positive ion mode. Electrospray ionization mass spectra
(ESI-MS) were obtained on an electrospray-ion trap type ESI-IT Esquire 4000 mass spectrometer (Bruker
Daltonik GmbH, Leipzig, Germany). Melting points were measured on a Electrothermal IA9000 Series
Digital Melting Point Apparatus (Rochford, UK) and are uncorrected. Silica gel 60 (0.040–0.063 mm)
for column chromatography (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) was employed. All solvents were purified
by routine techniques prior to use.
2-Hydroxybenzaldehyde p.a., ethyl acetoacetate (AcOEt) p.a., acetone p.a., glacial acetic acid p.a.,
98% sulfuric acid, sodium acetate p.a., acetic anhydride p.a., chloroform p.a., dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO)
p.a., ethanol p.a., sodium hydroxide p.a., sodium sulfate p.a., toluene p.a., were purchased from Merck.
5-methoxy-salicylaldehyde p.a., 5-bromo-salicylaldehyde p.a., 99.9% acetone d6, 3,4-dihydroxybenzoic
acid., methyl adipoyl chloride p.a., 99.9% chloroform d6, 99.9% dimethylsulfoxide d6, were from
Sigma-Aldrich (St Louis, MO, USA). Methanol p.a., N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF), p.a., 37%
hydrochloric acid p.a., were from J.T.Baker (Phillipsburg, NJ, USA). Nitrogen 99.995% extra pure
was purchased from Linde Gas (Santiago, R.M. Chile).
3.1.2. General Synthesis of 6-substituted-3-acetylcoumarins 2a–c
These derivatives were synthesized in accordance with the Knoevenagel procedure [55]. In a
100 mL Erlenmeyer flask, 82 mmol of the corresponding salicylaldehyde 1a–c, 82 mmol of ethyl
acetoacetate and three drops of piperidine as catalyst were added. The solution is stirred at 50 ◦C.
After 15 min the appearance of a yellow precipitate was observed and heating was continued
for another 30 min. The reaction conditions varied depending on the substituent, with the
5-methoxy-salicylaldehyde the reaction was carried out at room temperature for 1 h, while using the
5-bromo-salicylaldehyde the reaction was refluxed with ethanol for 2 h. The products of the reactions
were monitored by thin layer chromatography (silica gel 60 F254), using EtOAc/hexane 1:2 mixtures as
the mobile phase. All pure coumarins were obtained by recrystallization from ethanol. The compounds
were characterized by their melting points, 1H-NMR, 13C-NMR and FTIR.
3.1.3. General Synthesis of 3-bromoacetylcoumarins 3a–c
6-Substituted-3-acetylcoumarins 2a–c (15.9 mmol) were dissolved in chloroform (40 mL) and
glacial acetic acid (10 mL), then Br2 (15.9 mmol) was carefully added dropwise while stirring the
solution at room temperature. Once the addition of Br2 was finished, the mixture was heated between
◦
40–60 C thus facilitating the emission of hydrobromic acid fumes. After 3 h of reaction, precipitation of
3-bromoacetylcoumarin was observed. The solution was allowed to cool to room temperature, filtered
and the precipitate washed with three 10 mL portions of cold ethanol. All brominated derivatives were
recrystallized from an 80:20 ethanol/chloroform mixture and characterized by their melting points,
1H-NMR, 13C-NMR, and FTIR [56,57].
3.1.4. General Synthesis of 6-substituted-3-(2-amino-thiazol-4-yl)-coumarins 4a–c
◦
To an ethanol solution (150 mL) of 6-substituted-3-bromoacetilcoumarin 3a
–c
(6.3 mmol) at 50 C
an equimolar amount of thiourea was added with vigorous stirring and maintained at 70 ◦C. Ten min

Molecules 2019, 24, 739
13 of 23
after the addition of thiourea, the mixture turned to an intense orange-yellow color and further
precipitation of a yellow solid was observed. After evaporation of the solvent to 50% of the initial
volume, the mixture was cooled, the solid filtered out and washed with cold ethanol. The yellow
solid was dissolved in 200 mL of a hot solution of 10% ammonium acetate in water, stirred for
10 min and then allowed to cool to room temperature. The solids corresponding to 4a–c were filtered.
All compounds were recrystallized from ethanol and characterized by their melting points, 1H-NMR,
13C-NMR and FTIR.
3.1.5. Synthesis of N-hydroxysuccinimide (NHS)-lipoate (9)
Lipoic acid (1.0 g, 5 mmol) was dissolved in dry DMF (10 mL) in a 50 mL Erlenmayer flask,
the solution was cooled to 10 ◦C in an ice bath and NHS (0.6 g, 5 mmol) was added. The mixture was
stirred for 15 min and dicyclohexylcarbodiimide (DCC, 1.0 g, 5 mmol) was added. The solution was
stirred for 3 h in an ice bath and further maintained for 9 h at room temperature. The white solid
dicyclohexylurea (DCU) was filtered off. The solution was cooled to 8 ◦C for 5 h and the remaining
DCU precipitate was filtered again. The procedure was repeated until no DCU crystals were observed.
The solution in DMF containing the activated lipoic (Figure 6) acid was used directly in the formation
of compounds 5a–c.
Figure 6. Synthesis of N-hydroxysuccinimide (NHS)-lipoate.
3.1.6. General Synthesis of 6-substituted-5-[1,2]-dithiolan-3-yl-pentanoic acid
[4-(2-oxo-2H-chromen-3-yl)-thiazol-2-yl]-amides 5a–c
Compounds 4a–c (4.80 mmol) were added to compound 9 (4.35 mmol) dissolved in dry DMF
(25 mL) at 10 ◦C. The mixture was stirred for 12 h at room temperature (Figure 7). The DMF solution
was slowly poured into 100 mL H2O/ice. A pale yellow solid precipitated. The solid was filtered
off and washed with H2O and then added to a cold concentrated HCl (37%) solution to dissolve
the unreacted 4a–c. The remaining solid was filtered and neutralized with a 10% aqueous sodium
bicarbonate solution. The obtained precipitate was purified by using a Merck 60 silica gel column
(70–230mesh) and EtOAc/chloroform 1:1 as mobile phase. The yellow color solids were characterized
by their melting point, 1H-NMR, 13C-NMR, FTIR and mass spectrometry.
Figure 7. General synthesis of 6-substituted-5-[1,2]-dithiolan-3-yl-pentanoic acid [4-(2-oxo-2H-chromen-
3-yl)-thiazol-2-yl]-amides.
3.1.7. General Synthesis of 6-substituted-N-[4-(2-oxo-2H-chromen-3-yl)-thiazol-2-yl]-3,4-dihydroxy-
acetylbenzamide Coumarins 6a0–c0
3,4-Diacetylbenzoic acid chloride (1.2 mmol) was dissolved in dry DMF (10 mL), cooled to 10 ◦C
and 1a–c (R = H, OCH3 and Br, 1.7 mmol) dissolved in dry DMF (6 mL) was added dropwise. After

Molecules 2019, 24, 739
14 of 23
20 min of stirring, triethylamine (Et3N, 1 mL) was added, and the mixture stirred for 16 h from 10 ◦C
to room temperature (Figure 8). The formed salt was filtered off and the DMF solution was slowly
poured into 50 mL H2O/ice forming a yellow colored precipitate. The solid was filtered and washed
with H2O, then it was added to aqueous cold HCl (37%) to dissolve the compounds 4a–c that did
not react, the remaining solid was filtered and neutralized with a solution of sodium bicarbonate.
The precipitate obtained was purified by using a Merck 60 silica gel column (70–230 mesh), using the
mobile phase EtOAc/dichloromethane 2:1 obtaining a yellow-brown solid which was characterized by
their melting point, 1H-NMR, 13C-NMR, FTIR and mass spectrometry.
Figure 8. General synthesis of 6-substituted N-[4-(2-oxo-2H-chromen-3-yl)-thiazol-2-yl]-3,4-dihydroxy-
acetylbenzamide coumarins.
3.1.8. General Synthesis of 6-substituted N-[4-(2-oxo-2H-chromen-3-yl)-thiazol-2-yl]-3,4-dihydroxy-
benzamide Coumarins 6a–c
Each derivative 6a0 c0 (1.2 mmol) was dissolved in DMF (10 mL) and added to 20% HCl (10 mL).
–
The mixture was stirred at room temperature for 30 min. The formed precipitate was washed with 10%
sodium bicarbonate solution and purified using a Merck 60 silica gel column (70–230mesh), using as
mobile phase EtOAc/dichloromethane 2:1. Yellow-brown solids corresponding to compounds 6a–c,
were obtained, recrystallized in ethanol and characterized by their melting points, 1H-NMR, 13C-NMR
and FTIR.
3.1.9. General Synthesis of 6-substituted methyl 5-[4-(2-oxo-2H-chromen-3-yl)-thiazol-2-yl-carbamoyl]-
pentanoate Coumarins 7a0–c0
In a 100 mL round bottom flask each compound 4a–c (6 mmol) was dissolved in dry acetonitrile
(30 mL), adipoyl acid monomethyl ester chloride (6 mmol) and Et3N (1 mL) were added and the
mixture was stirred at reflux for 5 h (Figure 9). A pale yellow solid precipitated, was filtered off and
washed with cold acetonitrile and further purified by recrystallization from glacial acetic acid and
column chromatography using silica gel Merck 60 (70–230 mesh) and EtOAc/dichloromethane 1:1 as
mobile phase. The solid obtained was characterized by their melting point, 1H-NMR, 13C-NMR, FTIR
and mass spectrometry. Mild hydrolysis of the methyl esters yields the corresponding pentanoic acid
derivatives 7a–c.
Figure 9. General synthesis of 6-substituted methyl 5-[4-(2-oxo-2H-chromen-3-yl)-thiazol-2-yl-carbamoyl]-
pentanoate coumarins.
3.1.10. General synthesis of 6-substituted5-[4-(2-oxo-2H-chromen-3-yl)-thiazol-2-yl-carbamoyl]-
pentanoicacidcoumarins 7a–c
Each compound 7a0 c0 (2.6 mmol) was dissolved in DMSO (10 mL) and slowly added to a
–
solution of 37% HCl (20 mL). The mixture was heated to 70 ◦C with stirring for 45 min. Subsequently
the solution was cooled to form a precipitate, which was filtered off and washed with cold water.

Molecules 2019, 24, 739
15 of 23
The products were purified by using Merck 60 silica gel column (70–230mesh), using the mobile phase
EtOAc/dichloromethane 1:3. The whitish yellow solids were characterized by their melting point,
FTIR and 1H-NMR. Due to its insolubility it was not possible to characterize these acid derivatives by
13C-NMR or MS.
3.1.11. General synthesis of 6-substituted-5-[4-(2-oxo-2H-chromen-3-yl)-thiazol-2-yl-carbamoyl]
–pentanoate hydroxamic acid derivatives 8a–c
Each compound 7a0
–
c0 (3.9 mmol) was added to a solution with hydroxylamine (3.9 mmol) in 10%
◦
sodium methoxide in methanol (100 mL). The mixture was heated to 45 C for 3 h (Figure 10). Methanol
was removed using a rotavapor at room temperature. The residue was neutralized with a cold solution
of 10% HCl in methanol. The NaCl formed was filtered off and the methanol was removed again
with a rotary evaporator, forming a waxy yellow precipitate. The products were purified by using
Merck 60 silica gel column (70–230 mesh), using the mobile phase methanol/dichloromethane 1:3.
The yellow solids obtained were characterized by their melting point, 1H-NMR, 13C-NMR, FTIR and
mass spectrometry.
Figure 10. General synthesis of 6-substituted-5-[4-(2-oxo-2H-chromen-3-yl)-thiazol-2-yl-carbamoyl]–
pentanoate hydroxamic acid derivatives.
3.1.12. Physical Characterization of the Main Precursors and Final Synthesized Compounds
3-(2-Aminothiazol-4-yl)-coumarin (4a). Yellow crystals, m.p.: 228–230 ◦C. Yield: 91%. FTIR (cm−1): 3311
1
(-NH2); 3148 (aromatic); 1700 (O-C=O, lactone); 1643 (-C=N-); 1602 (-C=C-). H-NMR (
δ
, DMSO-d6):
5.00 (s, 2H, -NH-); 7.20–7.70 (m, 4H, -ArH); 7.85 (s, 1H, -CH=, thiazole); 8.72 (s, 1H, -CH =, coumarin).
13C-NMR (δ, DMSO-d6):112.0; 115.8; 117.5; 124.6; 125.0; 127.1; 133.2; 137.4; 145.3; 154.4; 157.3; 170.2.
◦
3-(2-Aminothiazol-4-yl)-6-bromocoumarin (4b). Yellow-pale crystals, m.p.: 224 C. Yield: 73%. FTIR
1
(cm−1): 3341 (-NH2); 3157 (aromatic); 1710 (O-C=O, lactone). H-NMR (
δ
, DMSO-d6): 5.10 (s, 1 H,
-NH-); 7.20 (d, 1H, J = 8.4 Hz, -ArH); 7.80 (d, 1H, J = 8.47 Hz, -ArH); 7.95 (s, 1H, -ArH); 7.85 (s, 1H,
-CH=, thiazole); 8.92 (s, 1H, -CH=, coumarin). 13C-NMR (
128.4; 135.3; 138.6; 146.1; 155.8; 158.7; 172.2.
δ, DMSO-d6): 112.5; 115.9; 118.0; 121.2; 125.3;
3-(2-Aminothiazol-4-yl)-6-methoxycoumarin (4c). Yellow-orange crystals, m.p.: 201–203 ◦C. Yield: 82%.
1
FTIR (cm−1): 3300 (-NH2); 3133 (aromatic); 1705 (O-C=O, lactone). H-NMR (
δ, DMSO-d6): 3.74 (s, 3H,
-OCH3); 5.00 (s, 1H, -NH-); 7.08 (s, 1H, -ArH5); 7.4 (d, 1H, J = 8.5 Hz, -ArH); 7.7 (d, 1H, J = 8.5Hz, -ArH);
7.80 (s, 1H, -CH=, thiazole); 8.7 (s, 1H, -CH=, coumarin). 13C-NMR (
115.0; 115.8; 117.9; 128.5; 133.2; 135.3; 143.2; 152.0; 154.8; 168.9.
δ, DMSO-d6): 56.3; 108.5; 113. 6;
5-[1,2]-Dithiolan-3-yl-N-[4-(2-oxo-2H-chromen-3-yl)-thiazol-2-yl]-pentanamide (5a). Pale yellow solid, m.p.:
91–92 ◦C. Yield: 80.6%. FTIR (cm−1): 3155 (aromatic); 2931 (-CH-); 1726 (O-C = O, lactone); 1648 (-C=
1
N-); 1540 (-C=C-). H-NMR (
δ, DMSO-d6): 1.60 (m, 4H, -CH2-); 1.94 (m, 2H, -CH2-); 2.42 (m, 4H, -CH2-);
2.67 (m, 2H, -CH2-); 3.65 (m, 1H, -CH=); 7.3–7.8 (m, 4H, -ArH); 7.5 (s, 1H, -CH=, thiazole); 8.55 (s, 1H,
-CH=, coumarin). 13C-NMR (
, DMSO-d6): 25.5; 27.0; 33.2; 37.6; 39.3; 40.2; 55.1; 107.0; 117.3; 118.1;
122.4; 124.2; 127.5; 133.7; 139.3; 148.2; 154.5; 157.6; 160.4; 175.1. MALDI-MS theoretical m/z: 433.0714;
m/z experimental: 433.0694; error (ppm):
4.6. ESI-MS: m/z: 433.0 [M + H]+; 431.0 [M H]−. 306
[M-H2O + C3H6S2 + H]+; 245 [M-CO-C4H7-C3H5S2 + H]+; 225 [M-H2O + CO + C4H9-C3H5S2 + H]+;
δ
−
−
207 n.d. 397 [M-H2S
432.0636 g/mol
−
H]−. Molecular formula: C20H20O3N2S3. Molecular weight (monoisotopic):

Molecules 2019, 24, 739
16 of 23
5-[1,2]-Dithiolan-3-yl-N-[4-(6-bromo-2-oxo-2H-chromen-3-yl)-thiazol-2-yl]-pentanamide (5b). Pale yellow
◦
solid, m.p.: 150–153 C. Yield: 70.5%. FTIR (cm−1): 3197 (aromatic); 2945 (-CH-); 1697 (O-C = O,
1
lactone); 1625 (-C = N-); 1538 (-C = C-). H-NMR (
δ, DMSO-d6):1.56 (m, 4 H, -CH2 -); 1.88 (m, 2H,
-CH2-); 2.42 (m, 4H, -CH2-); 2.67 (m, 2H, -CH2-); 3.62 (m, 1H, -CH=); 7.15 (s, 1H, -NH-); 7.20–7.62 (m, 3H,
-ArH); 7.53 (s, 1H, -CH=, thiazole); 8.49 (s, 1H, -CH=, coumarin). 13C-NMR(
,DMSO-d6): 25.7; 27.3; 33.0;
δ
36.9; 38.7; 40.8; 56.1; 107.8; 117.6; 119.0; 122.6; 124.7; 128.5; 134.2; 140.2; 149.5; 155.5; 158.4; 160.9; 176.3.
MALDI-MS: theoretical m/z: 510.9819; m/zexperimental: 510.9796; error (ppm): -4.5. ESI-MS: m/z: 513.0
[M + H]+; 511.0 [M + H]+; 511 [M
−
H]−. 397 [M-HBr + H2S + H]+; 325 [M-CO-C4H7-C3H5S2 + H]+;
306 [M-HBr + H2O + C3H6S2 + H]+; 189 [M-Br-C9H4O2-C3HNS-NH2 + H]+. 498 n.d; 396 [M-HBr−+
H2S + H]+; 323 [M-CO-C4H7-C3H5S2 + H]+; 189 [M-Br-C9H4O2-C3HNS-NH2+H]+. 477 [M-H2S
Molecular Formula: C20H19O3N2S3Br. Molecular weight (monoisotopic): 509.9741 g/mol.
−
H] .
5-[1,2]-Dithiolan-3-yl-N-[4-(6-methoxy-2-oxo-2H-chromen-3-yl)-thiazol-2-yl]-pentanamide (5c). Yellow solid,
m.p.: 83–84 C. Yield: 70.5%. FTIR (cm−1): 3083 (aromatic); 2922 (-CH-); 1702 (O-C = O, lactone);
◦
1640 (-C = N-); 1556 (-C=C-). 1H-NMR (
δ, DMSO-d6): 1.55 (m, 4H, -CH2-); 1.88 (m, 2H, -CH2-);
2.41 (m, 4H, -CH2-); 2.68 (m, 2H, -CH2-); 3.62 (m, 1H, -CH=); 7.15 (s, 1H, -NH-); 7.4 (d, 1H, J = 8.5
Hz, -ArH) 7.55 (s, 1H, -CH=, thiazole); 7.7 (d, 1H, J = 8.5 Hz, -ArH); 8.1 (s, 1H, -ArH); 8.45 (s, 1H,
-CH=, coumarin). 13C-NMR (
δ, DMSO-d6): 25.3; 27.15; 31.7; 36.3; 39.5; 40.9; 54.3 55.1; 108.2; 110.5;
117.1; 117.4; 117.7; 119.1; 139.7; 146.3; 146.4; 153.3; 154.5; 158.2; 177.1. MALDI-MS theoretical m/z:
463.0820; m/zexperimental: 463.0797; error (ppm):
−
5.0. ESI-MS: m/z: 463.0 [M + H]+; n.d [M
−
H]−.
398 [M-C3OH + H2S2 + H]+; 275 [M-CO-C4H7-C3H5S2 + H]+. Molecular formula: C21H22O4N2S3.
Molecular weight (monoisotopic): 462.0742 g/mol.
N-[4-(2-Oxo-2 H-chromen-3-yl) -thiazol-2-yl]-3,4-dihydroxyacetyl-benzamide (6a0). Pale yellow solid, m.p.:
◦
175–177 C. Yield: 75%. FTIR (cm−1): 3064 (aromatic); 2926 (-CH-); 1707 (O-C=O, lactone); 1609 (-C=N-);
1
1485 (-C=C-). H-NMR (
(m, 7H, -ArH); 7.85 (s, 1H, -CH=, thiazole); 8.73 (s, 1H, -CH=, coumarin). 13C-NMR (
δ, DMSO-d6):3.00 (s, 3H, -CH3); 3.17 (s, 3H, -CH3); 7.18 (s, 1H, -NH); 7.30–7.98
δ, DMSO-d6):
25.3 (d); 109.2; 113.9; 116.3; 119.7 (d); 121.0; 125.2; 129.2; 131.9; 132.0; 138.5; 139.3; 137.4; 143.7; 144.5;
152.6; 152.8; 157.3; 159.4 (d); 167.9; 173.6. MALDI-MS theoretical m/z: 465.0756; m/z experimental:
465.0737; error (ppm):
−
4.0. ESI-MS: m/z: 465.0 [M + H]+; n.d [M
−
H]−. 424 [M-CH3CHO +H]+;
387 [M-H2O + HO-COCH3 + H]+; 258 n.d; 136 [M-H-C9H4O2-C3H-NS-NH-CO + CO-CH2O + H]+.
Molecular Formula: C23H16O7N2S. Molecular weight (monoisotopic): 464.0678 g/mol.
N-[4-(6-Bromo-2-oxo-2H-chromen-3-yl)-thiazol-2-yl]-3,4-dihydroxyacetyl-benzamide (6b0). Pale yellow solid,
◦
m.p.: 214–217 C. Yield: 70%. FTIR (cm−1): 3068 (aromatic); 2931 (-CH-); 1727 (O-C=O, lactone);
1
1631 (-C=N-); 1504 (-C=C-). H-NMR (
δ, DMSO-d6):3.05 (s, 3H, -CH3); 3.19 (s, 3H, -CH3); 7.18 (s, 1H,
-NH); 7.35-8.00 (m, 6H, -ArH); 7.92 (s, 1H, -CH=, thiazole); 8.91 (s, 1H, -CH=, coumarin). 13C-NMR
, DMSO-d6):26.4 (d); 109.5; 114.0; 116.5; 119.8; 119.4121.0; 126.6; 130.0; 133.2; 133.4; 139.0; 140.3; 144.1;
144.8; 153.4; 154.1; 157.9; 162.4 (d); 169.8; 177.3. MALDI-MS theoretical m/z: 542.9862; experimental
m/z: 542.9839; error (ppm): H]. Due to the low intensity
4.2. ESI-MS: m/z: n.d. [M + H]+; n.d. [M
(δ
−
−
of the signals, fragmentation characterization at low resolution could not be performed. Molecular
Formula: C23H15O7N2SBr. Molecular weight (monoisotopic): 541.9783 g/mol.
N-[4-(6-Methoxy-2-oxo-2H-chromen-3-yl)-thiazol-2-yl]-3,4-dihydroxyacetyl-benzamide (6c0). Yellow solid,
m.p.: 118–120 ◦C. Yield: 68.2%.FTIR (cm-1): 3116 (aromatic); 2927 (-CH-); 1714 (O-C=O, lactone); 1611
(-C=N-); 1572 (-C=C-).1H-NMR (
δ
, DMSO-d6):3.00 (s, 3H, -CH3); 3.16 (s, 3H, -CH3); 3.83 (s, 3H, -OCH3);
7.00–8.10 (m, 6H, -ArH); 7.80 (s, 1H, -CH =, thiazole); 8.41 (s, 1H, -NH); 8.72 (s, 1H, -CH=, coumarin).
13C-NMR (
, DMSO-d6):25.3 (d); 58.8; 108.1; 112.7; 115.3; 118.6; 120.9; 124.5; 128.7; 130.8; 131.7; 137.5;
138.3; 142.5; 144.3; 151.3; 152.0; 156.1; 158.5 (d); 166.6; 172.8. MALDI-MS theoretical m/z: 495.0862;
experimental m/z: 495.0840; error (ppm):
4.4. ESI-MS: m/z: 495.0 [M + H]+; 493.0 [M H]−. 450
[M-CH3 CHO + H]+; 401 [M-H2O + CO2 + CH3OH + H]+; 372 [M-H2O + HO-COCH3 + CH3CHO
δ
−
−

Molecules 2019, 24, 739
17 of 23
+ H]+; 270 [M-CH2O + C6H4-(O-CO-CH3)2]+; 452 [M-CH2CO
formula: C24H18O8N2S. Molecular weight (monoisotopic): 494.0784 g/mol.
−
H]−; 479 [M-CH3
−
H]−. Molecular
5-[4-(2-Oxo-2H-chromen-3-yl)-thiazol-2-yl-carbamoyl]-pentanoic acid methyl ester (7a0). Pale yellow solid,
◦
m.p.: 165–166 C. Yield: 75%. FTIR (cm−1): 3185 (aromatic); 2981 (-CH-); 1687 (O-C = O, lactone);
1643 (-C= N-); 1539 (-C=C-). 1H-NMR (
, DMSO-d6):1.60 (m, 4H, -CH2-); 2.35 (t, 2H, -CH2-); 2.49
(t, 2H, -CH2-) 3.59 (s, 3H, -OCH3); 7.05–7.47 (m, 4H, Ar-H); 7.51 (s, 1H, -CH=, thiazole); 8.2 (s, 1H,
-NH); 8.48 (s, 1H, -CH=, coumarin). 13C-NMR (
, DMSO-d6):24.7; 25.7; 32.2; 33.7; 49.9; 109.1; 116.3;
119.5; 120.4; 125.0; 129.1; 132.2; 138.7; 152.7; 154.1; 159.2; 168.2; 169.8; 173.0. MALDI-MS theoretical
m/z: 387.1015; experimental m/z: 387.0996; error (ppm):
4.9. ESI-MS: m/z: 387.0 [M + H]+; 385.0
[M
H]−. 355 [M-CH3OH + H]+; 311 [M-H2O + COOCH2 + H]+; 271 [M-C4H9-COOCH3 + H]+;
245 [M-CO-C4H7-COOCH3 + H]+. 353 [M-CH3OH H]−; 310 [M-H2O + COOCH2 H]−; 243
H]−. Molecular formula: C19H18O5N2S. Molecular weight (monoisotopic):
δ
δ
−
−
−
−
[M-CO-C4H7-COOCH3
386.0936 g/mol.
−
5-[4-(6-Bromo-2-oxo-2H-chromen-3-yl)-thiazol-2-yl-carbamoyl]-pentanoic acid methyl ester (7b0). Yellow
◦
solid, m.p.: 182–185 C. Yield: 61.4%. FTIR (cm−1): 3067 (aromatic); 2943 (-CH-); 1704 (O-C=O, lactone);
1
1639 (-C= N-); 1536 (-C= C-). H-NMR (
δ, DMSO-d6):1.70 (m, 4H, -CH2-); 2.38 (t, 2H, -CH2-); 2.56 (t, 2H,
-CH2-); 3.61 (s, 3H, -OCH3); 7.30 (d, 1H, J = 8.4 Hz, Ar-H); 7.80 (d, 1H, J = 8.4 Hz, Ar-H); 7.83 (s, 1H,
Ar-H); 8.00 (s, 1H-CH=, thiazole); 8.92 (s, 1H, -CH =, coumarin). 13C-NMR (
, DMSO-d6):24.9; 25.8;
32.9; 34.5; 51.8; 110.0; 119.7; 120.3; 121.4; 125.5; 129.8; 135.2; 140.6; 153.7; 155.6; 160.0; 170.3; 173.1; 173.9.
MALDI-MS theoretical m/z: 465.0120; experimental m/z: 465.0103; error (ppm): 3.7. ESI-MS: m/z:
H]−. 435 [M-CH3OH + H]+; 325 [M-CO-C4H7-COOCH3
δ
−
467.0 [M + H]+; 465.0 [M
−
H]+; 463.0 [M
−
+ H]+; 433 [M-CH3OH + H]+−; 409 n.d; 323 [M-CO-C4H7-COOCH3 + H]+; 431 [M-CH3OH-H]−; 321
[M-CO-C4H7-COOCH3
464. 0042 g/mol.
−
H] . Molecular formula: C19H17O5N2SBr. Molecular weight (monoisotopic):
5-[4-(6-Methoxy-2-oxo-2H-chromen-3-yl)-thiazol-2-yl-carbamoyl]-pentanoic acid methyl ester (7c0). Yellow
solid, m.p.: 163–164 ◦C. Yield: 64%. FTIR (cm−1): 3188 (aromatic); 2935 (-CH-); 1705 (O-C=O, lactone);
1
1614 (-C = N-); 1540 (-C=C-). H-NMR (
δ
, DMSO-d6):1.75 (m, 4H, -CH2-); 2.36 (m, 2H, -CH2-); 2.50 (m,
2H, -CH2-); 3.68 (s, 3H, -OCH3); 6.96 (s, 1H, -NH); 7.06 (d, 1H, J = 8.5 Hz -ArH); 7.30 (d, 1H, J = 8.5
Hz -ArH); 7.75 (s, 1H, -CH =, thiazole); 8.23 (s, 1H, -ArH); 8.44 (s, 1H, -CH =, coumarin). 13C-NMR
(δ, DMSO-d6):24.5; 25.3; 33.1; 35.0; 49.3; 55.1; 109.0; 116.0; 116.4; 117.0; 119.5; 124.0; 138.5; 151.1; 152.5;
158.6; 166.3; 169.8; 173.0. MALDI-MS theoretical m/z: 417.1120; experimental m/z: 417.1102; error (ppm):
−
−
4.3. ESI-MS: m/z: 417.0 [M + H]+; 415.0 [M
−
H] . 385 [M-CH3OH + H]+; 341 [M-H2O + COOCH2 +
H]+; 301 [M-C4H9-COOCH3 + H]+; 275 [M-CO-C4H7-COOCH3 + H]+. 383 [M-CH3OH
−
H]−; 273
[M-CO-C4H7-COOCH3
416.1042 g/mol.
−
H]−. Molecular formula: C20H20O6N2S. Molecular weight (monoisotopic):
5-[4-(2-Oxo-2H-chromen-3-yl)-thiazol-2-yl-carbamoyl]-N-hydroxypentanamide (8a). Pale yellow solid,
◦
m.p.: 150–152 C (d). Yield: 64%. FTIR (cm−1): 3057 (aromatic); 2925 (-CH-); 1699 (O-C=O,
lactone); 1640 (-C=N-); 1539 (-C=C-).1H-NMR (
, DMSO-d6): 1.50 (m, 4 H, -CH2-); 2.02 (m,
4H, -CH2-); 5.50 (s, 1H, -CONH-); 6.50-7.30 (m, 4H, Ar-H); 7.97 (s, 1H, -CH =, thiazole); 8.50
(s, 1H, -CONHOH); 8.60 (s, 1H, -CH=, coumarin). 13C-NMR (
, DMSO-d6):24.7; 25.7; 32.2;
33.7; 49.9; 109.1; 116.3; 119.5; 120.4; 125.0; 129.1; 132.2; 138.7; 152.7; 154.1; 159.2; 168.2; 169.8;
173.0. MALDI-MS theoretical m/z: 388.0967; experimental m/z: 388.0953; error (ppm): 3.6.
ESI-MS: m/z: 388.0 [M + H]+; 386.0 [M H]−. 370 [M-H2O + H]+; 355 [M-NH2OH + H]+; 271
δ
δ
−
−
[M-C4H9-CONHOH + H]+; 245 [M-CO-C4H7-CONHOH + H]+. 353 [M-NH2OH
−
H]−; 259
n.d.; 243 [M- CO-C4H7-CONHOH − H]−; 141 [M-H-C9H4O2-C3HNSNH2− H]−. Molecular Formula:
C18H17O5N3S. Molecular weight (monoisotopic): 387.0889 g/mol.
5-[4-(6-Bromo-2-oxo-2◦H-chromen-3-yl)-thiazol-2-yl-carbamoyl]-N-hydroxypentanamide (8b). Pale yellow
solid, m.p.: 106–110 C (d). Yield: 57%. FTIR (cm−1): 3032 (aromatic); 2951 (-CH-); 1698 (O-C=O,

Molecules 2019, 24, 739
18 of 23
1
lactone); 1648 (-C=N-); 1537 (-C=C-). H-NMR (
δ, DMSO-d6):1.50 (m, 4H, -CH2-); 2.50 (m, 4H, -CH2-);
7.24 (s, 1H, -CONH-); 7.52 (s, 1H, -CH=, thiazole); 7.39 (d, 1H, J = 9.0 Hz, ArH); 7.40 (s, 1H, ArH); 7.73
(d, 1H, J = 9.0 Hz, ArH); 8.10 (s, 1H, -CONHOH); 8.50 (s, 1H, -CH= coumarin). 13C-NMR (
δ, DMSO-d6):
31.5; 32.4; 34.4 (d); 110.1; 116.8; 118.5; 121.7; 121.8; 131.3; 134.1; 131.0; 134.1; 137.1; 143.5; 151.5; 158.7;
168.0. Due to the insolubility of the compound it was not possible to perform mass spectrometry
analysis. Molecular Formula: C18H16O7N2SBr.
5-[4-(6-Methoxy-2-oxo-2H-chromen-3-yl)-thiazol-2-yl-carbamoyl]-N-hydroxypentanamide (8c). Pale yellow
◦
solid, m.p.: 125–127 C (d). Yield: 68%.FTIR (cm-1): 3136 (aromatic); 2916 (-CH-); 1721 (O-C=O, lactone);
1631 (-C=N-); 1555 (-C=C-).1H-NMR (
-OCH3); 7.20 (d, 1H, J = 9.0 Hz, ArH); 7.53 (s, 1H, ArH); 7.34 (s, 1H, -CONH-); 7.38 (d, 1H, J = 9.0 Hz,
ArH); 7.98 (s, 1H, -CH =, thiazole); 8.50 (s, 1H, -CONHOH); 8.53 (s, 1H, -CH= coumarin). 13C-NMR (
δ, DMSO-d6):1.56 (m, 4H, -CH2-); 1.97 (m, 4H, -CH2-); 3.82 (s, 3H,
δ,
DMSO-d6): 24.8; 25.2; 32.6; 35.2; 56.3; 109.4; 111.1; 111.5; 117.4; 119.7; 120.1; 121.0; 139.0; 147.0; 155.3;
159.2; 168.3; 169.3; 172.1. MALDI-MS theoretical m/z: 418.1073; m/z experimental: 418.1053; error
−
(ppm):
−
4.8. ESI-MS: m/z: 418.0 [M + H]+; 416.0 [M
−
H] . 400 [M-H2O + H]+; 385 [M-CH3OH + H]+;
301 [M-C4H9-CONHOH + H]+; 275 [M-CO-C4H7-CONHOH + H]+. 383 [M-CH3OH
−
H]−; 288
n.d.; 273 [M-CO-C4H7-CONHOH
−
H]−; 141 [M-H-CH3O-C9H4O2-C3HNS-NH2 H]−. Molecular
−
Formula: C19H19O6N3S. Molecular weight (monoisotopic): 417.0995 g/mol.
3.2. Biology
3.2.1. Reagents
Fetal bovine serum (FBS), trypsin/ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), molecular weight
standard and organic and inorganic compounds were purchased from Merck (Darmstadt, Germany).
Reagents for enhanced chemiluminescence (ECL) were purchased from PerkinElmer Life Sciences
(Boston, MA, USA). Sterile plastic material was obtained from Corning Inc. (Corning, NY, USA).
Primary anti-histone H4–acetylated antibody and total histone H4 were purchased from R & D
Systems (Minneapolis, MN, USA). Primary anti–collagen type I and anti–α–SMA were purchased
from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA). Primary anti–GAPDH antibody and secondary antibodies
conjugated to horseradish peroxidase (HRP) were obtained at Santa Cruz Biotechnology (Dallas, TX,
USA). Alamar Blue® from Invitrogen was purchased to Thermo Fisher (Waltham, MA, USA).
3.2.2. Cell Culture.
Sprague Dawley rats were obtained from the Animal Breeding Facility of the School of Chemical
and Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of Chile. All studies followed the Guide for the Care
and Use of Laboratory Animals published by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH Publication
8th, 2011), and experimental protocols were approved by the University of Chile Institutional Ethics
Review Committee. CF were isolated from of 2 or 3–day–old Sprague-Dawley rats and cultured as
described previously [58]. Briefly, the neonatal rats were decapitated and their hearts were extracted
under aseptic environment. Atria were removed and ventricles were cut into small pieces (~1–2 mm)
for posterior colagenase II digestion. The digestion yield was separated by 10 min centrifugation at
89
×
g. The pellet was resuspended in 10 mL of Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle’s Medium/Nutrient F-12
g/mL streptomycin and 100 units/mL
(DMEM-F12) supplemented with 10% FBS and antibiotics (100
µ
penicillin) and cultured in a humid atmosphere of 5% CO2 and 95% O2 at 37◦C until confluence
(5 days). The purity of the CFs population was assessed through the expression of several markers.
CFs had positive staining against vimentin (Santa Cruz Biotechnology), while being negative against
sarcomeric actin and desmin (Sigma-Aldrich). Experiments were performed on cells at passage 1. Cells
were cultured in 35-mm well plates and serum starved for 24 h prior to stimulation.

Molecules 2019, 24, 739
19 of 23
3.2.3. Cytotoxicity and Cell Proliferation Assay
To evaluate cytotoxicity, CFs were seeded in 12 microwell plates at a ratio of 2
×
104 cell/cm2,
cultured in DMEM–F12 medium + 10% FBS, which was subsequently replaced by DMEM–F12. After
24 h of serum starvation derivatives were applied at proper times and concentrations in accordance
to experimental procedures. Cell viability assays were carried out using Alamar Blue®, a nontoxic,
cell permeable non fluorescent compound that is blue in color. Viable cells reduce resazurin to
resorufin, which produces very bright red fluorescence which is used as a quantitative cell viability
measure. 10 µ
L of 0.2 mg/mL Alamar Blue® was added into each well followed by incubation for
24 h. The fluorescence of Alamar Blue® was read using microplate reader at 570 excitation and
emission to 595 nm. Cell survival was expressed as percentage over the untreated cells. To evaluate
CFs proliferation assay, cells were seeded as mentioned before, and after serum starvation, they
were stimulated by 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS), in presence/absence of CTz derivatives for 24 h,
at concentrations according to experiment. Cell proliferation was quantified by Alamar Blue®,
according to protocol mentioned before. Cell proliferation was expressed as percentage over the
control FBS treated cells.
3.2.4. HDACs Inhibitory Activity Assay
The inhibitory activity of the synthesized compounds against HDACs Hela cells nuclear extract,
HDAC1 (class I) and HDAC6 (class II) were measured utilizing the Fluorometric Drug Discovery
Assay Kit BML-AK500-0001 (HeLa cells nuclear extract), BML-AK511 (HDAC1), and BML-AK516
(HDAC6) (Enzo Life Science, Farmingdale, NY, USA). The HDACs fluorometric substrate and assay
buffer were added to HeLa nuclear extracts and also to HDACs 1 and 2 substrates in a 96–wellplate and
incubated at 37 ◦C for 30 min. TSA at 5 nM served as the positive control. The fluorophore produced
was detected in a plate spectrofluorimeter, with an excitation of 360 nm and an emission of 460 nm.
The assay was performed according to the manufacturer’s instructions, at various concentrations of
the synthesized compounds.
3.2.5. Preparation of the Cell Lysate
For the analysis of the protein expression of histone H4–acetylated (ac–H4) and total H4 histone,
a number of 1
inhibitory compounds at a concentration of 10
×
106 of CFs seeded in 60 mm plates was used, which were incubated with the
µM, in the absence/presence of TGF–β1(5ng/mL) for
4 h. Subsequently, total histones were extracted by the technique of saline precipitation (high salt
extraction). Briefly, CFs were scraped from the plates with 1 mL of cold PBS transferring their contents
to Eppendorf tubes to be centrifuged for 60 s at 1500 rpm at 4 ◦C and re–suspended in 400
µL of cold
buffer A (10 mM 4-(2-hydroxyethyl)-1-piperazineethanesulfonic acid-KOH (HEPES-KOH) adjusted to
pH 7.9, 1.5 mM MgCl2, 10 mM KCl, 0.5 mM dithiothreitol and 0.2 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride
(PMSF). The suspension is left on ice for 10 min and then placed in the vortex for 10 s. The samples
were centrifuged for 60 s, subsequently discarding the supernatant fraction. The obtained pellet was
re-suspended in 60 µL of cold C buffer (20 mM HEPES-KOH adjusted to pH 7.9, 25% glycerol, 420 mM
NaCl, 1.5 mM MgCl2, 0.2 mM EDTA, dithiothreitol 0.5 mM and 0.2 mM PMSF) and placed on ice
for 20 min for saline precipitation. Cell debris is removed by centrifugation for 120 s at 1500 rpm
at 4 ◦C and the supernatant fraction, which contains the DNA binding proteins, is stored at minus
◦
20 C. For the analysis of
α
–SMA and procollagen type I expression levels, 3
×
105 CFs seeded in
M, in the
1 (5 ng/mL) for 48 h. To obtain the total proteins, the CFs were washed
three times with cold PBS, then scraped and lysed with 50 L of radio inmuno-precipitation assay
(RIPA) lysis buffer (10 mM Tris–HCl pH 7.2, 5 mM EDTA, 150 mM NaCl, Triton X–100 1%, sodium
dodecyl sulfate (SDS) 0.1%, deoxycholate 1%, leupeptin 2 g/mL, aprotinin 10mM, PMSF 1mM and
Na3VO4 100
M). The solution was centrifuged for 15 min at 10,000 rpm and at 4 ◦C. The supernatant
35 mm plates were used, which were incubated together with inhibitor compounds at a 5
absence/presence of TGF–
µ
β
µ
µ
µ

Molecules 2019, 24, 739
20 of 23
◦
fraction containing the total proteins was stored at minus 20 C. The concentration of proteins obtained
was determined by spectrophotometry at 570 nm, using the Bradford method (Bio-Rad, Hercules,
CA, USA).
3.2.6. Western Blot Analysis
CFs proteins (25
µg), were subjected to 10% sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel
electrophoresis and finally transferred onto a nitrocellulose membrane (Millipore, Billerica, MA,
USA). The membrane was washed twice with tris–buffered saline solution containing 0.1% Tween
20 (TBST). After being blocked with TBST containing 5% nonfat milk for 40 min, the membrane was
incubated with primary antibodies in TBST/1% nonfat milk at 4 ◦C overnight. The membrane was
washed three times with TBST for a total of 15 min and then incubated with primary antibodies (ac–H4,
H4 total, α-SMA, procollagen type I and GAPDH). Then the membrane was incubated with goat
anti–rabbit or anti-mouse IgG antibodies conjugated with horseradish (diluted 1:1000) for 1 h at room
temperature. Signals were developed with ECL reagents and exposure to photographic film.
3.2.7. Prediction of ADMET Properties
The ADMET properties of the thiazolyl–coumarin derivatives as drug candidate were predicted
using the software QikProp (Schrödinger Release2018-4: QikProp, Schrödinger, LLC, New York, NY,
USA, 2018).
4. Conclusions
Synthesis and evaluation of different ZBGs linked to thiazolyl–coumarin moieties shows that the
series
5 and series 8 derivatives are potent HDAC inhibitors. All derivatives inhibit HDAC enzymatic
activity (to a greater or lesser degree), suggesting that the thiazolyl–coumarin group is an effective
surface recognition CAP. All compounds at lower concentration display diminished cytotoxicity.
Regarding the parameters associated to cardiac fibrosis development, compounds 5a and 8a show
significant inhibition on CFs proliferation at 1
µM and also showed better decrease of procollagen type
I and α–SMA expression levels.
These results confirm that series 5 and 8 derivatives could be considered as leads to develop drugs
with strong antifibrotic activity and are consistent with published reports where HDAC inhibitors
could be useful pharmacological tools to prevent cardiac fibrosis development. Finally, the advantage
of thiazolyl–coumarin disulfide over hydroxamic acid derivatives is their low cytotoxicity and better
ADMET parameters.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, V.P.-J., P.N.-E. and G.D.-A.; methodology, V.P.-J., P.N.-E. and G.D.-A.;
software, V.P.-J.; validation, V.P.-J. and P.N.-E.; formal analysis, V.P.-J., P.N.-E. and G.D.-A.; investigation,
V.P.-J., P.N.-E. and G.D.-A.; resources, V.P.-J., P.N.-E. and G.D.-A.; data curation, V.P.-J., P.N.-E. and G.D.-A.;
writing—original draft preparation, V.P.-J., P.N.-E. and G.D.-A.; writing—review and editing, V.P.-J., P.N.-E. and
G.D.-A.; visualization, V.P.-J., P.N.-E. and G.D.-A.; supervision, V.P.-J., P.N.-E. and G.D.-A.; project administration,
V.P.-J., P.N.-E. and G.D.-A.; funding acquisition, V.P.-J. and G.D.-A.
Funding: This work◦was supported◦by CONICYT fellowship N◦ 21140371 to Viviana Pardo Jiménez and
FONDECYT Grant N 1130300 and N 1170425 to Guillermo Díaz Araya.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
2.
3.
Weber, K.T.; Sun, Y.; Díez, J. Fibrosis: A living tissue and the infarcted heart. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2008, 52,
2029–2031. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Gourdie, R.G.; Dimmeler, S.; Kohl, P. Novel therapeutic strategies targeting fibroblasts and fibrosis in heart
disease. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2016, 15, 620–638. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Schuetze, K.B.; McKinsey, T.A.; Long, C.S. Targeting cardiac fibroblasts to treat fibrosis of the heart: Focus on
HDACs. J. Mol. Cell. Cardiol. 2014, 70, 100–107. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Molecules 2019, 24, 739
21 of 23
4.
5.
6.
Tao, H.; Shi, K.H.; Yang, J.J.; Huang, C.; Zhan, H.Y.; Li, J. Histone deacetylases in cardiac fibrosis: Current
perspectives for therapy. Cell. Signal. 2014, 26, 521–527. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Xie, M.; Hill, J.A. HDAC-dependent ventricular remodeling. Trends Cardiovasc. Med. 2013, 23, 229–235.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Thiagalingam, S.; Cheng, K.H.; Lee, H.J.; Mineva, N.; Thiagalingam, A.; Ponte, J.F. Histone deacetylases:
Unique players in shaping the epigenetic histone code. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2003, 983, 84–100. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
7.
8.
9.
Sadoul, K.; Boyault, C.; Pabion, M.; Khochbin, S. Regulation of protein turnover by acetyltransferases and
deacetylases. Biochimie 2008, 90, 306–312. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Bolden, J.E.; Peart, M.J.; Johnstone, R.W. Anticancer activities of histone deacetylase inhibitors. Nat. Rev.
Drug Discov. 2006, 5, 769–784. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Spange, S.; Wagner, T.; Heinzel, T.; Krame, O.H. Acetylation of non-histone proteins modulates cellular
signaling at multiple levels. Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 2009, 41, 185–198. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10. McKinsey, T.A. Isoform-selective HDAC inhibitors: Closing in on translational medicine for the heart. J. Mol.
Cell. Cardiol. 2011, 51, 491–496. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. McKinsey, T.A. Therapeutic potential for HDAC inhibitors in the heart. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 2012
52, 303–319. [CrossRef]
,
12. Tang, J.; Yan, H.; Zhuang, S. Histone deacetylases as targets for treatment of multiple diseases. Clin. Sci.
2013, 124, 651–662. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Bush, E.W.; McKinsey, T.A. Protein acetylation in the cardiorenal axis: The promise of histone deacetylase
inhibitors. Circ. Res. 2010, 106, 272–284. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Nural-Guvener, H.F.; Zakharova, L.; Nimlos, J.; Popovic, S.; Mastroeni, D.; Gaballa, M.A. HDAC class I
inhibitor, Mocetinostat, reverses cardiac fibrosis in heart failure and diminishes CD90+ cardiac myofibroblast
activation. Fibrogenesis Tissue Repair 2014, 7, 10. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Williams, S.M.; Golden-Mason, L.; Ferguson, B.S.; Schuetze, K.B.; Cavasin, M.A.; Demos-Davies, K.;
Yeager, M.E.; Stenmark, K.R.; McKinsey, T.A. Class I HDACs regulate angiotensin II-dependent cardiac
fibrosis via fibroblasts and circulating fibrocytes. J. Mol. Cell. Cardiol. 2014, 67, 112–125. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Stratton, M.S.; McKinsey, T.A. Epigenetic regulation of cardiac fibrosis. J. Mol. Cell. Cardiol. 2016, 92, 206–213.
[CrossRef]
17. Roche, J.; Bertrand, P. Inside HDACs with more selective HDAC inhibitors. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2016, 121,
451–483. [CrossRef]
18. Monneret, C. Histone deacetylase inhibitors. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2005, 40, 1–13. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Bertrand, P. Inside HDAC with HDAC inhibitors. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2010, 45, 2095–2116. [CrossRef]
20. DellaGreca, M.; Fiorentino, A.; Isidori, M.; Previtera, L.; Temussi, F.; Zarrelli, A. Benzocoumarins from the
rhizomes of Juncus acutus. Tetrahedron 2003, 59, 4821–4825. [CrossRef]
21. Iaroshenko, V.O.; Ali, S.; Babar, T.M.; Dudkin, S.; Mkrtchyan, S.; Rama, N.H.; Villinger, A.; Langer, P.
4-Chloro-3-(trifluoroacetyl)coumarin as a novel building block for the synthesis of 7-(trifluoromethyl)-6H-
chromeno[4,3-b]quinolin-6-ones. Tetrahedron Lett. 2011, 52, 3373–3376. [CrossRef]
22. Temitope Olomola, O.; Klein, R.; Kevin Lobb, A.; Sayed, Y.; Kaye Perry, T. Towards the synthesis of coumarin
derivatives as potential dual-action HIV-1 protease and reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Tetrahedron Lett.
2010, 51, 6325–6328. [CrossRef]
23. Huang, W.J.; Chen, C.C.; Chao, S.W.; Yu, C.C.; Yang, C.Y.; Guh, J.H.; Lin, Y.C.; Kuo, C.I.; Yang, P.; Chang, C.I.
Synthesis and evaluation of aliphatic-chain hydroxamates capped with osthole derivatives as histone
deacetylase inhibitors. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2011, 46, 4042–4049. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Abdizadeh, T.; Kalani, M.R.; Abnous, K.; Tayarani-Najaran, Z.; Khashyarmanesh, B.Z.; Abdizadeh, R.;
Ghodsi, R.; Hadizadeh, F. Design, synthesis and biological evaluation of novel coumarin-based benzamides
as potent histone deacetylase inhibitors and anticancer agents. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2017, 132, 42–62. [CrossRef]
25. Kumar, P.V.; Reddy, K.M.; Rao, V.R. Synthesis of Some 7-Methyl3-(2-oxo-2H-chromen-3-yl)-5H-[1,3]thiazolo-
[3,2-a]pyrimidin-5-ones. Indian, J. Chem. Sect. B 2008, 47, 759–763. [CrossRef]
26. Siddiqui, N.; Arshad, M.; Khan, S.A. Synthesis of some new coumarin incorporated thiazolylsemicarbazones
as anticonvulsants. Acta Pol. Pharm. Drug Res. 2009, 66, 161–167.

Molecules 2019, 24, 739
22 of 23
27. Arshad, A.; Osman, H.; Bagley, M.C.; Lam, C.K.; Mohamad, S.; Zahariluddin, A.S. Synthesis and
antimicrobial properties of some new thiazolyl-coumarin derivatives. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2011, 46, 3788–3794.
[CrossRef]
28. Kalkhambkar, R.; Kulkarni, G.; Shivkumar, H.; Rao, R. Synthesis of novel tri heterocyclic thiazoles as
anti-inflammatory and analgesic agents. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2007, 42, 1272–1276. [CrossRef]
29. Kamal, A.; Adil, S.; Tamboli, J.; Siddardha, B.; Murthy, U. Synthesis of coumarin linked naphthalimide
conjugates as potential anticancer and antimicrobial agents. Lett. Drug Des. Discov. 2009, 6, 201–209.
[CrossRef]
30. Suhaily, F.; Rahman, A.; Yusufzai, S.K.; Osman, H.; Mohamad, D. Synthesis, Characterisation and Cytotoxicity
Activity of Thiazole Substitution of Coumarin Derivatives. J. Phys. Sci. 2016, 27, 77–87.
31. Mohareb, R.M.; Megally Abdo, N.Y. Synthesis and Cytotoxic Evaluation of Pyran, Dihydropyridine and
Thiophene Derivatives of 3-Acetylcoumarin. Chem. Pharm. Bull. 2015, 63, 678–687. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Pang, M.; Zhuang, S. Histone Deacetylase: A Potential Therapeutic Target for Fibrotic Disorders. J. Pharmacol.
Exp. Ther. 2010, 335, 266–272. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
33. Bulow, R.; Fitzner, B.; Sparmann, G.; Emmrich, J.; Liebe, S.; Jaster, R. Antifibrogenic effects of histone
deacetylase inhibitors on pancreatic stellate cells. Biochem. Pharmacol. 2007, 74, 1747–1757. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
34. Hantzsch, A.; Weber, J.H. Ueber Verbindungen des Thiazols (Pyridins der Thiophenreihe). Ber. Dtsch.
Chem. Ges. 1887, 20, 3118–3132. [CrossRef]
35. Nichols, T.W. alpha-lipoic acid: Biological effects and Clinical Implications. Alt. Med. Rev. 1997, 2, 177–183.
36. Islam, M.T. Antioxidant activities of dithiol alpha-lipoic acid. Bangladesh J. Med. Sci. 2009, 8, 46–51. [CrossRef]
37. Goraca, A.; Huk-Kolega, H.; Piechota, A.; Kleniewska, P.; Skibska, B. Lipoic acid—Biological activity and
therapeutic potential. Pharmacol. Rep. 2011, 63, 849–858. [CrossRef]
38. Jia, L.; Zhang, Z.; Zhai, L.; Bai, Y. Prottective effect of lipoic acid against acrolein-induced cytotoxicity in
IMR-90 human fibroblast. J. Nutr. Sci. Vitaminol. 2009, 55, 126–130. [CrossRef]
39. Leppert, U.; Gillespie, A.; Orphal, M.; Böhme, K.; Plum, C.; Nagorsen, K.; Berkholz, J.; Kreutz, R.;
Eisenreich, A. The impact of
α-Lipoic acid on cell viability and expression of nephrin and ZNF580 in
normal human podocytes. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2017, 810, 1–8. [CrossRef]
40. Shay, K.P.; Moreau, R.F.; Smith, E.J.; Hagen, T.M. Alpha-lipoic acid as a dietary supplement: Molecular
mechanisms and therapeutic potential. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2009, 1790, 1149–1160. [CrossRef]
41. Li, X.; Wang, X.; Chen, D.; Chen, S. Antioxidant Activity and Mechanism of Protocatechuic Acid in vitro
.
Funct. Foods Health Dis. 2011, 7, 232–244. [CrossRef]
42. Masoud, M.S.; Hagagg, S.S.; Ali, A.E.; Nasr, N.M. Synthesis and spectroscopic characterization of gallic acid
and some of its azo complexes. J. Mol. Struct. 2012, 1014, 17–25. [CrossRef]
43. Schweigert, N.; Zehnder, A.J.; Eggen, R.I. Chemical properties of catechols and their molecular modes
of toxic action in cells, from microorganisms to mammals. Environ. Microbiol. 2001, 3, 81–91. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
44. Jacobsen, F.E.; Lewis, J.A.; Cohen, S.M. The Design of Inhibitors for Medicinally Relevant Metalloproteins.
Chem. Med. Chem. 2007, 2, 152–171. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45. Miller, T.A.; Witter, D.J.; Belvedere, S. Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors. J. Med. Chem. 2003, 46, 5097–5116.
[CrossRef]
46. Elaut, G.; Laus, G.; Alexandre, E.; Richert, L.; Bachellier, P.; Tourwe, D.; Rogiers, V.; Vanhaecke, T. A Metabolic
Screening Study of Trichostatin A (TSA) and TSA Like Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors in Rat and Human
Primary Hepatocyte Cultures. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 2007, 321, 400–408. [CrossRef]
47. Tan, S.; Liu, Z.P. Natural products as zinc-dependent histone deacetylase inhibitors. Chem. Med. Chem. 2015
10, 441–450. [CrossRef]
,
48. Shen, S.; Kozikowski, A.P. Why Hydroxamates May Not Be the Best Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors–What
Some May Have Forgotten or Would Rather Forget? Chem. Med. Chem. 2016, 11, 15–21. [CrossRef]
49. Suzuki, T.; Miyata, N. Non-hydroxamate histone deacetylase inhibitors. Curr. Med. Chem. 2005, 12, 2867–2880.
[CrossRef]
50. Bora-Tatar, G.; Dayangaç-Erden, D.; Demir, A.S.; Dalkara, S.; Yelekçi, K.; Erdem-Yurter, H. Molecular
modifications on carboxylic acid derivatives as potent histone deacetylase inhibitors: Activity and docking
studies. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2009, 17, 5219–5228. [CrossRef]

Molecules 2019, 24, 739
23 of 23
51. Zhang, L.; Zhang, J.; Jiang, Q.; Zhang, L.; Song, W. Zinc binding groups for histone deacetylase inhibitors.
J. Enzyme Inhib. Med. Chem. 2018, 33, 714–721. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
52. Kong, Y.; Tannous, P.; Lu, G.; Berenji, K.; Rothermel, B.A.; Olson, E.N.; Hill, J.A. Suppression of class I
and II histone deacetylases blunts pressure-overload cardiac hypertrophy. Circulation 2006, 113, 2579–2588.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
53. Rombouts, K.; Niki, T.; Greenwel, P.; Vandermonde, A.; Wielant, A.; Hellemans, K.; De Bleser, P.; Yoshida, M.;
Schuppan, D.; Rojkind, M.; et al. Trichostatin A, a histone deacetylase inhibitor, suppresses collagen
synthesis and prevents TGF-beta(1)-induced fibrogenesis in skin fibroblasts. Exp. Cell. Res. 2002, 278,
184–197. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
54. Liu, N.; He, S.; Ma, L.; Ponnusamy, M.; Tang, J.; Tolbert, E.; Bayliss, G.; Zhao, T.C.; Yan, H.; Zhuang, S.
Blocking the class I histone deacetylase ameliorates renal fibrosis and inhibits renal fibroblast activation via
modulating TGF-beta and EGFR signaling. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e54001. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
55. Brufola, G.; Fringuelli, F.; Piermatti, O.; Pizzo, F. Simple and Efficient One-Pot Preparation of 3-Substituted
Coumarins in Water. Heterocycles 1996, 43, 1257–1266. [CrossRef]
56. Zhuravel, I.O.; Kovalenko, M.S.; Vlasov, S.V.; Chernykh, P.V. Solution-phase Synthesis of a Combinatorial
Library of 3-[4-(Coumarin-3-yl)-1,3-thiazol-2-ylcarbamoyl]propanoic acid Amides. Molecules 2005, 10,
444–456. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
57. Parameshwar, R.; Sri Ranganath, Y.; HarinadhaBabu, V.; Sandeep, G. Synthesis and Antifungal Screening of
Some Novel Coumarin Linked Imidazole Derivatives. Res. J. Pharm. Biol. Chem. Sci. 2011, 2, 514–520.
58. Boza, P.; Ayala, P.; Vivar, R.; Humeres, C.; Cáceres, F.T.; Muñoz, C.; García, L.; Hermoso, M.A.; Díaz-Araya, G.
Expression and function of toll-like receptor 4 and inflammasomes in cardiac fibroblasts and myofibroblasts:
IL-1β synthesis, secretion, and degradation. Mol. Immunol. 2016, 74, 96–105. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sample Availability: Samples of the compounds are not available from the authors.
©
2019 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/).