Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Jul 13.
Published in final edited form as: J Med Chem. 2023 Jun 29;66(13):9076–9094. doi: 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.3c00664

Table 4.

In Vitro ADMET Values for P2Y 14 R Antagonist 15 in This Study, Compared to Reference Antagonist 2b a

test 2bb 15
simulated intestinal fluid (% remaining at 120 min) 99.1 93.3
simulated gastric fluid (% remaining at 120 min) 100a 69.8
CYP1A2 (IC50, μM) >30 >30
CYP2C9 (IC50, μM) >30 >30
CYP2C19 (IC50, μM) >30 >30
CYP2D6 (IC50, μM) >30 >30
CYP3A4 (IC50, μM) >30 >30
plasma stability (3 species)c(% remaining at 120 min) 82.8 (r); 100 (m) 81.3 (r); 100 (m); 91.1 (h)
microsomal stability (t1/2, min) 243 (m), 91.0 (r), 280 (h) 355 (m), 342 (r), >400 (h)
hERG, IC50 (μM) >30 >30
hepG2 (human hepatoma) cell toxicity, IC50 (μM)a 11.0 32.6 ± 5.0
plasma protein binding (3 species, % bound) 99.76 (m), 99.79 (r), 87.98 (h) 99.86 (m), 99.48 (r), 99.30 (h)
solubility, (μg/mL) 1.90 (pH 7.4)d 7.1 ± 0.4 (pH 4.0), 1.4 ± 0.1 (pH = 7.4)e
a

Procedures are described in Jung et al.17 hERG inhibition was measured using a fluorescent dye binding method (Supporting Information).

b

Data determined in Wen et al.5

c

Species tested for plasma stability were human, rat, and mouse; species as indicated for microsomal stability.

d

Mean ± standard deviation (SD), pION method, determined by Jai Research Foundation (JRF) India of JRF Global (Gujarat, India).

e

Mean ± SD, pION method, determined at NIH.