Skip to main content
. 2018 Oct 27;23(11):2788. doi: 10.3390/molecules23112788

Table 2.

In silico logP and ADME analysis.

Compounds MW logP tPSA nON nOHNH Vio MV
2 340.25 2.55 36.44 4 0 0 250.19
3 302.36 2.51 86.19 7 0 0 257.20
5a 358.43 0.93 87.39 8 1 0 305.57
5b 386.48 1.41 87.39 8 1 0 339.19
5c 434.52 2.51 87.39 8 1 0 377.09
5d 510.62 4.17 87.39 8 1 1 448.11
5e 400.46 1.80 93.46 9 0 0 342.10
5f 531.67 2.99 97.88 10 0 1 452.13
5g 531.67 3.74 97.88 10 0 1 452.13
5h 545.70 4.12 97.88 10 0 1 468.94
5i 593.74 5.01 97.88 10 0 2 506.98
5j 507.67 4.34 80.05 8 0 1 417.66
5k 490.62 3.59 95.84 9 1 0 411.93
5l 487.55 2.14 106.23 10 0 0 408.89
6a 444.47 1.49 119.77 11 0 1 369.83
6b 472.53 2.24 119.77 11 0 1 403.43
Doxorubicin 543.52 0.57 206.08 12 7 3 459.18

MW: Molecular weight; logP: log octanol/water partition coefficient; tPSA: Total Polar Surface Area; nON: number of Hydrogen acceptors; nOHNH: number of Hydrogen donors and MV: Molecular Volume; Vio: Violation number Lipinski’s rule.

HHS Vulnerability Disclosure