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 4.

Scaffold 3.

# -R1 -R2 -R3 IC50 (95% CI), μM Hill slope (95% CI)
3aa graphic file with name nihms853926t33.jpg -Br -H 58 (37 – 90) −1.3 (−1.9, −0.6)
3ab graphic file with name nihms853926t34.jpg graphic file with name nihms853926t35.jpg -H inhibitorb
3ac graphic file with name nihms853926t36.jpg graphic file with name nihms853926t37.jpg -H 8 (4–16) −0,9 (−1.4, −0.5)
3ad graphic file with name nihms853926t38.jpg graphic file with name nihms853926t39.jpg -H 23 (19–28) n.dc
3ae graphic file with name nihms853926t40.jpg -H graphic file with name nihms853926t41.jpg inactivea
3af graphic file with name nihms853926t42.jpg graphic file with name nihms853926t43.jpg -H inhibitorb
3ag graphic file with name nihms853926t44.jpg -H -H weak inhibitora
a

modulatory effect estimated from three concentrations only;

b

4-parameter logistic model curve could not be fitted.

c

Hill coefficient could not be calculated with significant accuracy (within 3 units).