Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 May 30.
Published in final edited form as: Eur J Pharm Sci. 2017 Feb 7;103:60–69. doi: 10.1016/j.ejps.2017.02.005

Table 2.

Scaffold 1

-R1 -R2 -R3 IC50 (95% CI),μM Hill slope (95% CI)
1aa -H 2-CH3; 3-Cl -OH 18 (15 – 22) −2.3 (−4.2, −0.5)
1ab -H graphic file with name nihms853926t1.jpg -OH 63 (44 – 91) −1.3 (−1.7, −0.7)
1ac -Cl 2-Cl; 5-Cl -OH 13 (9 – 17) −1.3 (−1.7, −0.8)
1ad -CH3 -H graphic file with name nihms853926t2.jpg weak inhibitora
1ae -CH3 -H graphic file with name nihms853926t3.jpg 118 (76 – 184) −0.9 (−1.2, −0.5)
1af -CF3 -H graphic file with name nihms853926t4.jpg 76 (42 – 137) −1.2 (−1.9, −0.4)
1ag -CF3 -H graphic file with name nihms853926t5.jpg 170 (115 – 250) −1.7 (−2.5, −09)
1ah -CF3 -H graphic file with name nihms853926t6.jpg 140 (87 – 225) −1.3 (−1.9, −0.6)
1ai -CF3 -H graphic file with name nihms853926t7.jpg 143 (74 – 276) −0.8 (−1.3, −0.3)
1aj -OCF3 -H graphic file with name nihms853926t8.jpg 49 (37 – 66) −2.2 (−3.2, −1.2)
1ak -OCF3 -H graphic file with name nihms853926t9.jpg 98 (75 – 128) −1.9 (−3.1, −0.8)
a

modulatory effect estimated from three concentrations only.