3588
S. M. Fiuza et al. / Bioorg. Med. Chem. 12 (2004) 3581–3589
2
þ
reconstituted in balanced salt solution without Ca or
þ
2. Leu, T. H.; Maa, M. C. Curr. Med. Chem. Anti-Canc.
Agents 2002, 2, 357.
2
Mg ).
3
. Tapiero, H.; Tew, K. D.; Ba, G. N.; Mathe, G. Biomed.
Pharmacother. 2002, 56, 200.
4
. Mahmoud, N. N.; Carothers, A. M.; Grunberger, D.;
Bilinski, R. T.; Churchill, M. R.; Martucci, C.; Newmark,
H. L.; Bertagnolli, M. M. Carcinogenesis 2000, 21, 921.
. Nagaoka, T.; Banskota, A. H.; Tezuka, Y.; Saiki, I.;
Kadota, S. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2002, 10, 3351.
4
.9. Toxicity and cell growth inhibition evaluation
Cytotoxicity and cell density evaluation after drug
ꢂ5
5
exposure––for drug concentrations between 2.5 · 10 to
ꢂ4
1
.0 · 10 M––was assessed with use of standard assays.
6. Nomura, M.; Kaji, A.; Ma, W.; Miyamoto, K.; Dong, Z.
Mol. Carcinog. 2001, 31, 83.
7. Etzenhouser, B.; Hansch, C.; Kapur, S.; Selassie, C. D.
Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2001, 9, 199.
5
Cells were plated at 5 · 10 cell/mL. Twenty four hours
after seeding, drug solutions were added to the medium
and the cultures were incubated at 37 ꢁC. Cells were
harvested and analysed (both in controls and in drug-
treated cultures) every 24 h, for a total period of 3 days.
Reversibility of the drug effect was tested by removing
the drug and adding fresh culture medium in the last day
of incubation with the drug, and assessing the cell via-
bility following three to four more days of incubation.
Cell density and viability were determined by Trypan
blue exclusion on single-cell suspensions obtained from
the monolayer cultures. Cell viability was further as-
sessed by mitochondrial dehydrogenase activity––MTT
8
. Masak, H.; Okamoto, N.; Sakaki, S.; Sakurai, H. Biol.
Pharm. Bull. 1997, 20, 304.
. Klein, E.; Weber, N. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2001, 49, 1224.
9
1
1
0. Murase, T.; Kume, N.; Hase, T.; Shibuya, Y.; Nishizawa,
Y.; Tokimitsu, I.; Kita, T. Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc.
Biol. 1999, 19, 1412.
1. Serrano, A.; Palacios, C.; Roy, G.; Cespon, C.; Villar, M.
L.; Nocito, M.; Gonzalez-Porque, P. Arch. Biochem.
Biophys. 1998, 350, 49.
12. Inoue, M.; Suzuki, R.; Koide, T.; Sakaguchi, N.; Ogihara,
Y.; Yabu, Y. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 1994, 204,
898.
44–47
assay.
Measurements were carried out each 24 h and
1
1
1
3. Inoue, M.; Sakaguchi, N.; Isuzugawa, K.; Tani, H.;
Ogihara, Y. Biol. Pharm. Bull. 2000, 23, 1153.
4. Isuzugawa, K.; Ogihara, Y.; Inoue, M. Biol. Pharm. Bull.
the results expressed as a percentage of the control (non-
treated) cells, which was always taken as 100%. All
experiments were performed in triplicate.
2
001, 24, 249.
5. Palacios, C.; Cespon, C.; Martin de la Vega, C.; Roy, G.;
Serrano, A.; Salinas, M.; Gonzalez-Porque, P. J. Enzyme.
Inhib. 2001, 16, 527.
The 50% inhibitory concentration (concentration of
drug required to inhibit cell growth by 50%, IC ) was
5
0
calculated, for each compound tested, from dose-
response curves (for an incubation period of 48 h).
16. Van Besien, E.; Marques, M. P. M. J. Molec. Struct.
(Theochem) 2003, 625, 265.
1
7. Fiuza, S. M.; Van Besien, E.; Milhazes, N.; Borges, F.;
Marques, M. P. M. J. Molec. Struct. 2004, 693(1–3), 103.
8. Jeffrey, G. A.; Yeon, Y. Acta Cryst. 1990, B46, 519.
9. Okabe, N.; Kyoyama, H. Acta Cryst. 2002, E58, 245.
0. Okabe, N.; Kyoyama, H. Acta Cryst. 2002, E58, 442.
1. M ꢀa saki, H.; Okamato, N.; Sakaki, S.; Sakurai, H. Biol.
Pharm. Bull. 1997, 20, 304.
1
1
2
2
4
.10. Statistical analysis
All experiments were performed in triplicate. The results
are expressed as mean values ±SD, (the corresponding
error bars being displayed in the graphical plots). Sta-
tistical analysis were performed using ANOVA, fol-
lowed by post hoc test of Fisher’s Protected Least
Significant Difference. Statistical comparison between
the data was based on the Pearson correlation coeffi-
cient, values less than 0.05 being considered as signifi-
cant.
2
2. Nam, N.; You, Y.; Kim, Y.; Hong, D.; Kim, H.; Ahn, B.
Z. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2001, 11, 1173.
23. Abe, I.; Kashiwagi, Y.; Noguchi, H. Bioorg. Med. Chem.
Lett. 2000, 10, 2525.
2
2
2
4. Huang, M. T.; Ma, W.; Yen, P.; Xie, J. G.; Han, J.;
Frenkel, K.; Grunberger, D.; Conney, A. H. Carcinogen-
esis 1996, 17, 761.
5. Gomes, C. A.; Gir ~a o da Cruz, M. T.; Andrade, J. L.;
Milhazes, N.; Borges, F.; Marques, M. P. M. J. Med.
Chem. 2003, 46, 5395.
6. Gunckel, S.; Santander, P.; Cordano, G.; Ferreira, J.;
Munoz, S.; Nunes-Vergara, L. J.; Squella, J. A. Chem.
Biol. Interact. 1998, 114, 45.
Acknowledgements
L.J.T. acknowledges financial support from FCT––PhD
fellowship SFRH/BD/8580/2002. The authors thank the
Centre of Experimental Medicine and Surgery of the
University General Hospital Gregorio Mara n~ on, Ma-
drid, Spain (in the person of Dr. Maria Concepci oꢀ n
Guisasola Zululeta), for the kind offer of the L-132 cell
line.
2
2
7. Borges, M. F. M.; Pinto, M. M. M. J. Liq. Chromatogr.
1
994, 17, 1125.
8. Silva, F. A. M.; Borges, F.; Guimaraes, C.; Lima, J. L. F.
C.; Matos, C.; Reis, S. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2000, 48,
2122.
~
29. Frisch, M. J.; Trucks, G. W.; Schlegel, H. B.; Scuseria, G.
E.; Robb, M. A.; Cheeseman, J. R.; Zakrzewski, V. G.;
Montgomery, J. A. Jr.; Stratmann, R. E.; Burant, J. C.;
Dapprich, S.; Millam, J. M.; Daniels, A. D.; Kudin, K. N.;
Strain, M. C.; Farkas, O.; Tomasi, J.; Barone, V.; Cossi,
M.; Cammi, R.; Mennucci, B.; Pomelli, C.; Adamo, C.;
Clifford, S.; Ochterski, J.; Petersson, G. A.; Ayala, P. Y.;
Cui, Q.; Morokuma, K.; Malick, D. K.; Rabuck, A. D.;
Raghavachari, K.; Foresman, J. B.; Cioslowski, J.; Ortiz,
J. V.; Baboul, A. G.; Stefanov, B. B.; Liu, G.; Liashenko,
References and notes
1
. Rao, C. V.; Desai, D.; Rivenson, A.; Simi, B.; Amin, S.;
Reddy, B. S. Cancer Res. 1995, 55, 2310.