Skip to main content
NCBI home page
ACS Omega logoLink to ACS Omega
. 2022 Nov 10;7(46):42036–42043. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.2c03908

Synthesis and Anticancer Evaluation of Novel Indole Based Arylsulfonylhydrazides against Human Breast Cancer Cells

Aysha Gaur †, Mudasir Nabi Peerzada †, Nashrah Sharif Khan ‡,§, Imran Ali †,*, Amir Azam †,*
PMCID: PMC9685603  PMID: 36440122

Abstract

graphic file with name ao2c03908_0005.jpg

A series of novel indole based sulfonohydrazide derivatives (5a–k) containing morpholine heterocyclic ring were synthesized through multistep chemical reactions. The target compounds (5a–k) were prepared by the reaction of substituted phenyl sulfonylhydrazides (2a–k) with morpholine derivative of indole 3-carboxaldehyde. All the target compounds were screened for their anticancer activity in vitro against the estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer line MCF-7 and triple-negative breast cancer cell line, MDA-MB-468. It was found that among all the evaluated compounds, the chemotype 4-chloro-N′-((1-(2-morpholinoethyl)-1H-indol-3-yl)methylene)benzenesulfonohydrazide (5f) showed promising inhibition of both MCF-7 and MDA-MB-468 cancer cells with the respective IC50 values of 13.2 μM and 8.2 μM. Compound 5f was found to be nontoxic against HEK 293 noncancerous cells in the studied concentration range, therefore indicating that such chemotypes inhibit the proliferation of cancerous cells selectively and significantly.

1. Introduction

Cancer is a class of complex diseases in which cells undergo rapid, uncontrollable, and pathological proliferation by disruption of the principles of normal cell division. Cancer has been considered one of the most dangerous diseases, which threatens human lives and is the second leading cause of death globally.1 Therefore, researchers have developed several novel anticancer agents. and substantial numbers of compounds have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for cancer treatment. However, the emergence of drug resistance2 and undesirable off target effects are significant factors associated with approved treatment chemotherapy regimens. Consequently, it is essential for medicinal chemists to develop new anticancer agents having high specificity and increased potency with the least off-target effects and limited resistance issues.3,4 Breast cancer is one of the most commonly diagnosed types of cancer among women, with millions of new cases identified worldwide every year. It is classified into a few major molecular subtypes according to hormone and growth factor receptor expression. Hormone dependent breast cancer (estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, HER2 receptor positive, and triple positive), which comprises about two-thirds of breast cancer cases, has several options for treatment. The activation of these receptors by female hormones induces the proliferation of cancer cells, so blocking it with receptor-specific therapy is an effective treatment strategy. However, not all breast cancer subtypes overexpress hormone receptors or become resistant, and thus they do not respond to receptor-specific therapy, necessitating the use of anticancer drugs.5

In addition, triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), that accounts for 10–15% of all cases, is characterized by the lack of expression of hormone receptors and considered more aggressive with limited options for specific and effective therapy due to less validated biomarkers.6 Moreover, the high breast cancer mortality rate is primarily due to the inefficient current treatment (radiotherapy, systematic chemotherapy, and surgical procedures). Although preventive measures are taken, and several drugs have been developed, it is still necessary to develop new antineoplastic drugs that are more effective and selective toward cancer cells.

In anticancer drug discovery, heterocycles have played a very important role and have been considered for the development of novel lead compounds.7 In particular, nitrogen-based heterocycles are a prominent source of biologically active compounds and important structural motifs in anticancer drug design,8,9 featuring in almost three-quarters of the heterocyclic anticancer agents approved by the FDA.10,11 Of all the nitrogen heterocycles, indole is one of the most important scaffolds, and the derivatives of it have demonstrated strong ability to induce cell death in a number of cancer cell lines. Over the last few decades, indole and its derivatives have been shown to modulate a number of biological pathways implicated in the progression of cancer.12 These include the prevention of cell signaling, normal cell cycle progression, tumor vascularization, and DNA repair, as well as the ability to induce cellular oxidative stress and cell death. Due to the versatility of indole, it has been a highly “privileged scaffold” for the design and development of anticancer agents.13,14

The two most important naturally occurring indole alkaloids, vincristine and vinblastine, are used in the management of melanoma, acute lymphoblastic leukemia, small and nonsmall cell lung cancer, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, etc. Various other indole derivatives like indole-3-carbinol and DIM (3,3′-diindolylmethane) are known to be efficacious in a number of cancers.15 So far, many natural and synthetic indole based molecules have been discovered as promising anticancer agents used in clinic or clinical evaluations, suggesting its prominent place in anticancer drug development, and paved a faithful way to develop effective novel potent compounds.16−19 Furthermore, among nitrogen-containing six-membered heterocycles, morpholine has also proved to be the most useful framework for biological activities. Indole and morpholine heterocycles were ranked in the ninth and 17th positions, of the top 25 most frequent nitrogen heterocycles among the U.S. FDA approved drugs.20

Appropriately substituted morpholines have long been known to possess a wide range of biological actions ranging from analgesic, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, antiobesity, and anti-hyperlipidemic to antimicrobial, anti-neurodegenerative, and anticancer activity.21 The main structural feature responsible for bioactivity of morpholine is the presence of oxygen atom, which is capable of participating in donor–acceptor-type interactions with the substrate and thereby forms a strong complex with its target. This oxygen atom also complements the pharmacophoric performance of morpholine by reducing the basicity of nitrogen. Morpholine is introduced in drug molecules for enhanced bioavailability and aqueous solubility.22,23 To a medicinal chemist morpholine is a moiety of immense significance and has been used as a core scaffold and capping fragment to design new drug molecules.22

Likewise, as an important nitrogen-containing compound in organic synthesis, sulfonohydrazide derivatives have emerged as the significant class of compounds explored for drug discovery and widely employed to construct C–C, C–N, and C–S bonds.24,25 Compounds containing sulfonohydrazide structural units have been recognized as potential anticancer,26 antifungal,27 antibacterial,28 antituberculosis,29 anti-anxiety,30 and anti-arrhythmic agents.31 As illustrated in Figure 1, numerous compounds containing indole, sulfonohydrazide, and morpholine moieties have been reported to exhibit potential anticancer activity in which they acted as inhibitors against many biological targets such as compound 1 acting as PI3Kinase p110α inhibitor,32 compounds 2 and 3 displaying significant anticancer activity against HCT116 colon cancer and DAN-G pancreas cancer cell line,33,34 compound 4 indisulam, an indole sulfonamide derivative, being used as an anticancer agent for the treatment of lung cancer and exhibiting promising carbonic anhydrase inhibitory activity,35 compound 5 WAY-600, bearing a morpholine ring, a selective inhibitor of mTOR and clinically used for the treatment of cancer, and compounds 6–7 being indole derivatives containing morpholine moiety, which showed considerable antiproliferative activities against cancer cell lines and acting as potent tubulin polymerization inhibitor.36,37

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Some compounds containing indole, morpholine, and sulfonohydrazide scaffolds that are reported as anticancer agents.

Furthermore, other morpholine-linked indole derivatives 8–9 possessed significant inhibitory activity toward ATR protein kinase38 and terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase (tdt).39,40 Keeping under consideration the broad-spectrum biological activity of indole, morpholine. and sulfonohydrazide based compounds, these motifs were integrated with each other by going through the multistep chemical reactions to develop the novel compounds and to evaluate their anticancer activity.

2. Chemistry

The synthetic strategy employed for the synthesis of title compounds (5a–k) is dipicted in Scheme 1. The starting material, substituted phenyl sulfonylhydrazides (2a–k), were prepared by the reaction of differently substituted benzenesulfonyl chlorides (1a–k) with hydrazine monohydrate. Further, the indole 3-carboxaldehyde (3) was reacted with chloroethyl morpholine in the presence of potassium carbonate at room temperature to get the intermediate compound (4). Substituted phenyl sulfonylhydrazides (2a–k) were then reacted in the presence of glacial acetic acid with intermediate 4 for the introduction of azometheine group to get the target compounds (5a–k). The formation of target compounds was confirmed on the basis of 1H NMR, 13C NMR, and ESI mass spectroscopy.

Scheme 1. a.

Scheme 1

Open in a new tab

Reagents and conditions (a) NH2NH2.H2O, THF, 0 °C; 3 h. (b) choloroethyl morpholine, K2CO3, CH3CN, room temperature, 24–48 h. (c) ethanol, glacial acetic acid, reflux 80 °C, 4–7 h.

3. Cell Viability Assay

Cell viability studies showed a significant decrease in the proliferation of selected cancer cells. We have evaluated the antiproliferative potential of synthesized compounds on MCF-7 and MDA-MB-468 human breast cancer cell lines with the help of MTT assay. Treatment of compounds inhibited the viability of cancer cells in a dose-dependent manner (Figure 2). IC50 values of each compound (5a–k) after 48 h treatment are given in Table 1. Interestingly, it was found that all compounds inhibited the viability of cells as the concentration of compounds increases, but compound 5f inhibited the viability of MDA-MB-468 and MCF-7 cells more prominently as evident by their IC50 values. The IC50 value of 5f is found to be 8.2 μM, and 13.2 μM for MDA-MB-468 and MCF-7 cells, respectively. On the other hand in the case of HEK-293 cells, it was found that the studied compounds did not inhibit the proliferation of these cells in the studied concentration range (100–0.01 μM). These results suggested that the synthesized compounds specifically show significant toxicity toward cancerous cells MCF-7 and MDA-MB-468 only and confirmed that 5f is biocompatible for healthy cells.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Cell viability studies: (A) Effect of compound 5f on the viability of MCF-7 and MDA-MB-468 cancer cells lines vs concentration of compound 5f. (B) Graphical representation for cell viabilities of HEK 293 cells. Each of the selected cells was treated with increasing concentrations of compound 5f for 48 h.

Table 1. In Vitro Inhibition Profile of the Compounds (5a–k) against MCF-7 and MDA-MB-468 breast cancer cells.

3.

Open in a new tab

In chemotherapy, minimal cytotoxicity to noncancerous cells and high cytotoxicity toward cancerous cells is desirable. The selectivity index (SI) therefore reflects the differential cytotoxicity of a compound to noncancerous cells and cancerous cells (SI = IC50 of a pure compound in noncancer cell line/IC50 of the same pure compound in cancer cell line). The higher the SI value of a compound is, the greater its selectivity.41,42 SI values calculated in relation to HEK-293, noncancerous cells for compound 5f, provided SI values of 36.6 and 58.9 for MDA-MB 468 and MCF-7 cells, respectively, demonstrating that this compound is selectively toxic toward cancerous cells.

4. Results and Discussion

Novel arylsulfonohydrazides (5a–k) were synthesized by going through the multistep chemical reactions. Various sulfonohydrazides were grafted with 1-[2-(morpholin-4-yl)ethyl]-1H-indole-3-carbaldehyde to get the novel compounds (5a–k) (Scheme 1). Phenyl rings containing electron with drawing and electron donating groups were attached to the indole-morpholine hybrids through the SO2N2 group. All the synthesized compounds (5a–k) were evaluated against MCF-7, MDA-MB-468 cancer call lines, and HEK-293 noncancerous cell line. Cells were exposed to different concentrations of compounds (5a–k) to determine the effect. The molecules (5a–k) inhibited the activity of MCF-7 cells in the range of 13.2–82.03 μM. It was found that compound 5f having a p-chlorophenyl substituent showed significant inhibition of MCF-7 cells followed by biphenyl substituent containing compound 5k, and these compounds prevented the proliferation of MCF-7 cells with IC50 values of 13.2 μM and 17.3 μM, respectively.

Compounds 5e and 5i containing p-nitrophenyl and quinoline groups showed least antiproliferative effect for MCF-7 cells exhibiting the respective IC50 values of 82.03 and 79.13 μM. However, all the title compounds inhibited the growth of estrogen receptor (ER)-negative MDA-MB-468 cancerous cells in the range of 8.2 to 53.38 μM. The compound 5f having p-chlorophenyl substituent inhibited the growth of MDA-MB-468 cancer cells significantly and the observed minimal inhibition concentration was 8.2 μM. The compound 5f inhibited the growth of both MCF-7 and MDA-MB-468 cells prominently. Following compound 5f, the compound 5d having p-fluorophenyl substituent inhibited the growth of MDA-MB-468 cells with IC50 value of 15 μM. The compounds 5j and 5h of the series containing benzyl and naphthyl substituent showed least inhibition of investigated MDA-MB-468 cancer cells.

Compound 5j inhibited the growth of MDA-MB-468 cell line with IC50 value of 50.63 μM, whereas the compound 5h inhibited the growth of these cells with 53.38 μM. As the activity of the compound (5a–k) varied with the change in substituent; therefore in terms of structure activity relationship, the activity of the compounds of this series is substituent dependent. All the title compounds (5a–k) were nontoxic to the HEK-293 cell line indicating that these compounds inhibited the growth of cancerous cells selectively. Therefore, the synthesized arylsulfonohydrazides (5a–k) could be treated as the significant anticancer candidates for the inhibition of breast cancer.

5. Conclusion

A series of novel sulfonohydrazides incorporating indole and morpholine heterocyclic scaffolds was synthesized by going through multistep chemical reactions. These compounds were evaluated against MDA-MB-468 and MCF-7 cancer cells. It was found that among all the compounds; compound 5f containing the p-chlorophenyl substituent was more active compared to the other compounds of the series. Compound 5f inhibited the proliferation of MCF-7 breast cancer cells with an IC50 value of 13.2 μM, whereas it inhibited the growth of MDA-MB-468 cancerous cells with an IC50 value of 8.2 μM. It was found that all the evaluated compounds were nontoxic toward HEK 293 cells in concentrations up to 100 μM. The compounds inhibited the growth of breast cancer cells selectively and significantly. The integration of active pharmacophores used in this study lead to the development of novel antiproliferative agents.

6. Experimental Protocols

All the required chemicals were purchased from Merck and Aldrich Chemical Co. (USA). The reagents were of analytical grade and were used without further purification. Precoated aluminum sheets (Silica gel 60 F254, Merck Germany) were employed for thin-layer chromatography (TLC). The synthesized compounds were visualized on TLC using ultraviolet (UV) light (λ = 254 nm). The melting points of all the compounds were determined on a Veego instrument with model specifications REC-22038 A2 and were uncorrected. 1H NMR and 13C NMR spectra were recorded on Jeol-500 MHz and Jeol-100 MHz spectrometer, respectively, using DMSO-d6 as a solvent, and tetramethylsilane (TMS) was employed as the internal standard. Splitting patterns are designated as follows; s, singlet; d, doublet; t: triplet: m, multiplet; ar: aromatic. Mass spectra of all the compounds were recorded by ESI-MS (AB-Sciex 2000, Applied Biosystem).

6.1. Procedure Used for Synthesis of Arylsulfonylhydrazides (2a–k)

A mixture of substituted sulfonyl chlorides (1a–k) (26 mmol) and hydrazine monohydrate (66 mmol, 99%) was stirred at 0–5 °C in THF (20 mL) for 1–2 h. The reaction progress was monitored using TLC. After the completion of the reaction the solvent was evaporated in vacuo. The residue thus obtained was washed with water, extracted with dichloromethane, and dried over anhydrous sodium sulfate. The product was recrystallized from methanol.

6.2. Procedure Used for Synthesis of Morpholine Derivative of Indole 3-Carboxaldehyde (4)

To a stirred solution of indole-3-carbaldehyde (3) (1.72 mmol) in dry acetonitrile at room temperature, potassium carbonate (8.60 mmol) was added. After 15–20 min, N-(2-chloroethyl) morpholine hydrochloride (3.44 mmol) was added dropwise to the resulting mixture and the reaction mixture was heated to reflux for 28 h. The progress of the reaction was monitored by TLC. After the completion of the reaction, the mixture was cooled to room temperature followed by extraction with ethyl acetate and water. The organic layers were dried over anhydrous Na2SO4 and concentrated under reduced pressure. The residue was recrystallized from ethanol and ethyl acetate to afford compound 4.

6.3. Procedure Used for the Synthesis of Morpholine Based Indolyl 3-Sulfonohydrazide Hybrids (5a–k)

The N-substituted indole 3-carboxaldehyde (4) (3 mmol) prepared above and different arylsulfonylhydrazides (2a–k) (1 mmol) were taken in ethanol in the presence of catalytic amount of glacial acetic acid and refluxed at 80 °C for 4–7 h. The progress of the reaction was monitored by using TLC visualized under ultraviolet wavelength of 254 nm. On completion of reaction, the reaction mixture was cooled to room temperature and then extracted with ethyl acetate and water. The ethyl acetate layer was dried by anhydrous Na2SO4, filtered, and concentrated to dryness under reduced pressure. The crude product was crystallized from chloroform and ethanol to get the title sulfonohydrazides (5a–k).

4-Methoxy-N′-((1-(2-morpholinoethyl)-1H-indol-3-yl)methylene)benzenesulfonohydrazide 5a

Yield: 82%; white solid; m.p.: 220–221 °C; M.F.: C22H26N4O4S; 1H NMR (500 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 11.75 (s, 1H, −NH), 8.55 (s, 1H, Ar–H), 7.97 (d, 1H, J = 8.25 Hz, Ar–H), 7.93 (d, 1H, J = 2.75 Hz, Ar–H), 7.77–7.75 (m, 2H, Ar–H), 7.46 (d, 1H, J = 8.25 Hz, Ar–H), 7.22–7.19 (m, 1H, Ar–H), 7.15–7.12 (m, 3H, Ar–H), 3.83 (s, 3H, -OCH3), 3.54–3.53 (m, 4H, morph-CH2), 3.41–3.40 (m, 2H, −CH2), 2.49–2.46 (m, 2H, −CH2), 2.45–2.39 (m, 4H, morph-CH2); 13C NMR (75 MHz, DMSO-d6): 163.04, 155.84, 137.11, 132.94, 130.61, 127.43, 124.28, 122.93, 121.82, 121.06, 114.22, 112.11, 111.07, 66.18, 56.17, 55.79, 53.36, 47.69; ESI-MS (m/z): [M+ + 1] 443.20; Anal. Calcd For C22H26N4O4S: C, 59.71; H, 5.92; N, 12.66; S, 7.25. Found: C, 60.01; H, 5.72; N, 12.91; S, 6.95.

4-Methyl-N′-((1-(2-morpholinoethyl)-1H-indol-3-yl) methylene) benzenesulfonohydrazide 5b

Yield: 88%; white solid; m.p.: 235–236 °C; M.F.: C22H26N4O3S; 1H NMR (500 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 11.75 (s, 1H, −NH), 8.55 (s, 1H, Ar–H), 7.97 (d, 1H, J = 7.55 Hz, Ar–H), 7.93 (d, 1H, J = 2.75 Hz, Ar–H), 7.73 (d, 2H, J = 8.25 Hz, Ar–H), 7.47 (d, 1H, J = 8.25 Hz, Ar–H), 7.42 (d, 2H, J = 8.25 Hz, Ar–H), 7.22–7.19 (m, 1H, Ar–H), 7.15–7.12 (m, 3H, Ar–H), 3.55–3.53 (m, 4H, morph-CH2), 3.44–3.41 (m, 2H, −CH2), 2.49–2.47 (m, 2H, −CH2), 2.45–2.39 (m, 4H+3H, morph-CH2,-CH3); 13C NMR (75 MHz, DMSO-d6): 155.61, 143.90, 137.06, 132.99, 132.92, 129.43, 128.35, 124.21, 122.84, 121.74, 120.94, 112.04, 110.99, 66.15, 56.14, 53.31, 47.60, 21.06; ESI-MS (m/z): [M+ + 1] 427.50; Anal. Calcd For C22H26N4O3S: C, 61.95; H, 6.14; N, 13.14; S, 7.52. Found: C, 62.12; H, 5.89; N, 12.91; S, 7.77.

N′-((1-(2-Morpholinoethyl)-1H-indol-3-yl)methylene)benzenesulfonohydrazide (5c)

Yield: 91%; white solid; m.p.: 245–246 °C; M.F.: C21H24N4O3S; 1H NMR (500 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 11.94 (s, 1H, −NH), 8.76 (s, 1H, Ar–H), 7.98 (d, 1H, J = 2.75 Hz, Ar–H), 7.91 (d, 1H, J = 7.55 Hz, Ar–H), 7.82 (d, 2H, J = 7.55 Hz, Ar–H), 7.77–7.49 (m, 1H, Ar–H), 7.66–7.63 (m, 2H, Ar–H), 7.49 (d, 1H, J = 8.25 Hz, Ar–H), 7.23–7.19 (m, 1H, Ar–H), 7.13–7.10 (m, 1H, Ar–H), 3.83 (s, 4H, morph-CH2), 3.70 (s, 2H, −CH2), 3.17 (s, 2H, −CH2), 2.49 (s, 4H, morph-CH2 missing); 13C NMR (75 MHz, DMSO-d6): 159.12, 137.15, 135.01, 133.95, 133.80, 129.23, 128.55, 124.28, 123.05, 121.83, 121.16, 112.25, 110.77, 63.74, 53.34, 51.55, 45.80; ESI-MS (m/z): [M+ + 1] 413.10; Anal. Calcd For C21H24N4O3S: C, 61.14; H, 5.86; N, 13.58; S, 7.77. Found: C, 60.88; H, 6.12; N, 13.73; S, 8.05.

4-Fuoro-N′-((1-(2-morpholinoethyl)-1H-indol-3-yl) methylene)benzenesulfonohydrazide (5d)

Yield: 83%; white solid; m.p.: 210–211 °C; M.F: C21H23FN4O3S; 1H NMR (500 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 11.97 (s, 1H, −NH), 8.79 (s, 1H, Ar–H), 7.99 (d, 1H, J = 2.75 Hz, Ar–H), 7.91–7.87 (m, 3H, Ar–H), 7.54–7.47 (m, 3H, Ar–H), 7.23–7.20 (m, 1H, Ar–H), 7.15–7.12 (m, 1H, Ar–H), 3.83 (m, 4H, morph-CH2), 3.74 (m, 2H, −CH2), 3.25 (m, 2H+4H, CH2, morph-CH2); 13C NMR (75 MHz, DMSO-d6): 166.63, 164.63, 137.61, 134.38, 132.15, 132.07, 131.82, 124.75, 123.48, 122.25, 121.69, 117.09, 116.90, 112.71, 111.15, 63.84, 51.62; ESI-MS (m/z): [M+ + 1] 470.50; Anal. Calcd For C21H23FN4O3S: C, 58.59; H, 5.39; N, 13.01; S, 7.45. Found: C, 58.62; H, 5.33; N, 13.03; S, 7.30.

N′-((1-(2-Morpholinoethyl)-1H-indol-3-yl)methylene)-4-nitrobenzenesulfonohydrazide (5e)

Yield: 89%; yellow solid; m.p.: 232–233 °C; M.F: C21H23N5O5S; 1H NMR (500 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 11.80 (s, 1H, −NH), 8.59 (s, 1H, Ar–H), 8.45–8.53 (m, 2H, Ar–H), 8.13–8.11 (m, 2H, Ar–H), 7.97 (d, 1H, J = 2.75 Hz, Ar–H), 7.91 (d, 1H, J = 8.25 Hz, Ar–H), 7.47 (d, 1H, J = 7.6 Hz, Ar–H), 7.23–7.19 (m, 1H, Ar–H), 7.16–7.13 (m, 1H, Ar–H), 3.54–3.52 (m, 4H+2H, morph-CH2, −CH2), 2.49 (m, 2H, −CH2), 2.40 (m, 4H, morph-CH2); 13C NMR (75 MHz, DMSO-d6): 156.70, 150.74, 141.94, 137.60, 133.90, 130.37, 124.79, 124.65, 123.45, 122.17, 121.69, 112.63, 111.24, 66.64, 56.51, 53.77, 47.84; ESI-MS (m/z): [M+ + 1] 458.50; Anal. Calcd For C21H23N5O5S: C, 55.71; H, 5.07; N, 15.31; S, 7.01. Found: C, 55.95; H, 5.23; N, 15.50; S, 6.82.

4-Chloro-N′-((1-(2-morpholinoethyl)-1H-indol-3-yl)methylene)benzenesulfonohydrazide (5f)

Yield: 90%; white solid; m.p.: 223–224 °C; M.F: C21H23N4O3S; 1H NMR (500 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 11.78 (s, 1H, −NH), 8.56 (s, 1H, Ar–H), 7.95 (d, 1H, J = 2.75 Hz, Ar–H), 7.92 (d, 1H, J = 7.55 Hz, Ar–H), 7.86–7.84 (m, 2H, Ar–H), 7.72–7.70 (m, 2H, Ar–H), 7.47 (d, 1H, J = 8.25 Hz, Ar–H), 7.22–7.19 (m, 1H, Ar–H), 7.15–7.12 (m, 1H, Ar–H), 3.54–3.53 (m, 4H, morph-CH2), 3.48–3.45 (m, 2H, −CH2), 2.47–2.45 (m, 2H, −CH2), 2.39 (m, 4H, morph-CH2); 13C NMR (75 MHz, DMSO-d6): 156.59, 139.02, 137.59, 135.24, 133.69, 130.72, 129.72, 124.68, 123.41, 122.17, 121.60, 112.61, 111.36, 66.65, 56.56, 53.79, 47.99; ESI-MS (m/z): [M+ + 1] 447.10; Anal. Calcd For C21H23ClN4O3S: C, 56.43; H, 5.19; N, 12.54; S, 7.17. Found: C, 56.15; H, 4.95; N, 12.49; S, 7.26.

4-(tert-Butyl)-N′-((1-(2-morpholinoethyl)-1H-indol-3-yl)methylene)benzenesulfonohydrazide (5g)

Yield: 85%; brown solid; m.p.: 237–238 °C; M.F: C25H32N4O3S; 1H NMR (500 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 11.74 (s, 1H, −NH), 8.52 (s, 1H, Ar–H), 7.94–7.91 (m, 2H, Ar–H), 7.78–7.76 (m, 2H, Ar–H), 7.63 (d, 1H, J = 8.25 Hz, Ar–H), 7.46 (d, 1H, J = 8.25 Hz, Ar–H), 7.21–7.18 (m, 1H, Ar–H), 7.12–7.09 (m, 1H, Ar–H), 3.55–3.53 (m, 4H, morph-CH2), 3.49–3.46 (m, 2H, −CH2), 2.49–2.47 (m, 2H, −CH2), 2.46–2.39 (m, 4H, morph-CH2), 1.29 (s, 9H, −CH3); 13C NMR (75 MHz, DMSO-d6): 156.43, 154.62, 137.06, 133.29, 132.73, 128.24, 125.86, 124.21, 122.85, 121.78, 120.87, 112.04, 111.04, 66.16, 56.21, 53.35, 47.42, 34.97, 30.79; ESI-MS (m/z): [M+ + 1] 469.50; Anal. Calcd For C25H32N4O3S: C, 64.08; H, 6.88; N, 11.96; S, 6.84. Found: C, 63.80; H, 6.97; N, 11.68; S, 6.65.

N′-((1-(2-Morpholinoethyl)-1H-indol-3-yl)methylene)naphthalene-2-sulfonohydrazide (5h)

Yield: 89%; white solid; m.p.: 242–243 °C; M.F: C25H26N4O3S; 1H NMR (500 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 11.74 (s, 1H, −NH), 8.57 (d, 2H, J = 8.25 Hz, Ar–H), 8.16–8.12 (m, 2H, Ar–H), 8.06 (d, 1H, J = 8.25 Hz, Ar–H), 7.95–7.92 (m, 2H, Ar–H), 7.88–7.86 (m, 1H, Ar–H), 7.73–7.66 (m, 2H, Ar–H), 7.45 (d, 1H, J = 8.25 Hz, Ar–H), 7.20–7.17 (m, 1H, Ar–H), 7.07–7.04 (m, 1H, Ar–H), 3.54–3.53 (m, 4H, morph-CH2), 2.49–2.47 (m, 2H, −CH2), 2.46–2.39 (m, 4H, morph-CH2); 13C NMR (75 MHz, DMSO-d6); 154.80, 137.09, 134.66, 133.19, 132.93, 131.63, 129.93, 129.40, 129.19, 128.92, 127.94, 127.71, 124.20, 123.58, 122.93, 121.80, 120.95, 112.10, 111.04, 66.18, 56.23, 53.36, 47.46; ESI-MS (m/z): [M+ + 1] 463.50; Anal. Calcd For C25H26N4O3S: C, 64.91; H, 5.67; N, 12.11; S, 6.93. Found: C, 65.05; H, 5.43; N, 11.93; S, 7.18.

N′-((1-(2-Morpholinoethyl)-1H-indol-3-yl)methylene)quinoline-5-sulfonohydrazide (5i)

Yield: 91%; white solid; m.p.: 257–258 °C; M.F: C24H25N5O3S; 1H NMR (500 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 11.38 (s, 1H, −NH), 9.04–9.03 (m, 1H, Ar–H), 8.62–8.61 (m, 1H, Ar–H), 8.46–8.44 (m, 1H, Ar–H), 8.28–8.26 (m, 1H, Ar–H), 8.10 (s, 1H, Ar–H), 7.86–7.83 (m, 1H, Ar–H), 7.63–7.60 (m, 2H, Ar–H), 7.41 (d, 1H, J = 8.25 Hz, Ar–H), 7.31 (d, 1H, J = 8.25 Hz, Ar–H), 7.07–7.04 (m, 1H, Ar–H), 6.90–6.87 (m, 1H, Ar–H), 4.34 (t, 2H, J = 6.85 Hz, −CH2), 3.64–3.62 (m, 4H, morph-CH2), 2.69 (t, 2H, J = 6.85 Hz, −CH2), 2.55–2.50 (m, 4H, morph-CH2); 13C NMR (75 MHz, DMSO-d6): 151.51, 143.19, 140.25, 136.91, 136.77, 136.08, 134.21, 134.00, 130.16, 128.54, 125.57, 123.78, 122.47, 122.43, 121.55, 120.15, 111.67, 111.52, 66.33, 57.37, 53.64, 46.08; ESI-MS (m/z): [M+ + 1] 464.50; Anal. Calcd For C24H25N5O3S: C, 62.18; H, 5.44; N, 15.11; S, 6.92. Found: 61.99; H, 5.18; N, 14.92; S, 7.10.

N′-((1-(2-Morpholinoethyl)-1H-indol-3-yl)methylene)-1-phenylmethanesulfonohydrazide (5j)

Yield: 90%; white solid; m.p.: 236–237 °C; M.F: C22H26N4O3S; 1H NMR (500 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 11.69 (s, 1H, −NH), 8.38 (s, 1H, Ar–H), 8.21 (d, 1H, J = 7.55 Hz, Ar–H), 7.90 (d, 1H, J = 2.75 Hz, Ar–H), 7.49 (d, 1H, J = 8.25 Hz, Ar–H), 7.36 (s, 4H, Ar–H), 7.24–7.19 (m, 2H, Ar–H), 4.67 (s, 2H, −CH2), 3.63 (t, 2H, J = 6.85 Hz, −CH2), 3.55–3.53 (m, 4H, morph-CH2), 2.39–2.36 (m, 2H+4H, −CH2, morph-CH2); 13C NMR (75 MHz, DMSO-d6): 149.08, 137.09, 131.85, 131.03, 129.00, 128.51, 128.33, 124.25, 122.81, 121.80, 120.92, 112.01, 111.27, 66.16, 56.05, 53.66, 53.34, 45.85. ESI-MS (m/z): [M+ + 1] 427.50; Anal. Calcd For C22H26N4O3S: C, 61.95; H, 6.14; N, 13.14; S, 7.52. Found: C, 62.14; H, 6.06; N, 13.05; S, 7.45.

N′-((1-(2-Morpholinoethyl)-1H-indol-3-yl)methylene)-[1,1′-biphenyl]-4-sulfonohydrazide (5k)

Yield: 92%; white solid; m.p.: 248–249 °C; M.F: C27H28N4O3S; 1H NMR (500 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 11.79 (s, 1H, −NH), 8.60 (s, 1H, Ar–H), 8.02–7.93 ((m, 6H, Ar–H), 7.75 (d, 2H, J = 7.60 Hz, Ar–H), 7.52–7.42 (m, 4H, Ar–H), 7.23–7.14 (m, 2H, Ar–H), 3.55–3.51 (m, 4H+2H, morph-CH2, −CH2), 2.51–2.48 (m, 4H, morph-CH2), 2.41 (s, 2H, −CH2); 13C NMR (75 MHz, DMSO-d6): 155.55, 144.84, 138.35, 137.10, 134.73, 133.00, 129.20, 129.04, 128.69, 127.19, 127.15, 124.25, 122.90, 121.79, 121.06, 112.10, 111.01, 66.17, 56.18, 53.34, 47.55; ESI-MS (m/z): [M+ + 1] 489.26; Anal. Calcd For C27H28N4O3S: C, 66.37; H, 5.78; N, 11.47; S, 6.56. Found: C, 66.58; H, 5.59; N, 11.53; S, 6.37.

6.4. Cell Proliferation Study

MDA-MB-468 (8000 cells/well), MCF-7 (8000 cells/well), and HEK 293 (5000 cells/well) cells were seeded in DMEM media supplemented with 10% FBS in a 96 well plate. Cells were left for 24 h in an incubator maintained at 37 °C, 5% CO2, and humidified atmosphere. Later, cells were treated with compounds (5a–k) at different concentrations and incubated for additional 48 h. For biocompatibility on HEK 293 cells, (5a–k) compounds were exposed to the cells. Following incubation, viability of each group was quantified using MTT assay. For MTT assay, 10 μL MTT reagent (5 mg/mL) was added per well and incubated for 2–4 h. Later, media was discarded from each well and crystals developed from MTT reagent were dissolved in 100 μL DMSO. Absorbance was measured at 570 nm/690 nm using ELISA plate reader and % survival was calculated as follows:

6.4.

Acknowledgments

Aysha Gaur is thankful to Department of Science & Technology, New Delhi, India for the award of INSPIRE fellowship (F. No. IF180426).

Glossary

Abbreviations

FDA

food and drug administration

PI3Kinase p110α

phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase, catalytic subunit alpha

mTOR

mammalian target of rapamycin

ATR

ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related protein

ESI-MS

electrospray ionization mass spectrometry

DMSO

dimethyl sulfoxide

s

singlet

d

doublet

t

triplet

m

multiplet

morph

morpholine

MTT

3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl-2H-tetrazolium bromide

FBS

fetal bovine serum

MCF-7

Michigan cancer foundation-7

HEK 293

human embryonic kidney 293

Supporting Information Available

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.2c03908.

  • 1HNMR and 13CNMR spectra of the compounds 5a–k (PDF)

Author Contributions

# Authors A. Gaur and M. N. Peerzada have contributed equally to the manuscript.

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Supplementary Material

ao2c03908_si_001.pdf (1.3MB, pdf)

References

  1. Rashid H. ur; Xu Y.; Muhammad Y.; Wang L.; Jiang J. Research Advances on Anticancer Activities of Matrine and Its Derivatives: An Updated Overview. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2019, 161, 205–238. 10.1016/j.ejmech.2018.10.037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Housman G.; Byler S.; Heerboth S.; Lapinska K.; Longacre M.; Snyder N.; Sarkar S. Drug Resistance in Cancer: An Overview. Cancers (Basel). 2014, 6 (3), 1769–1792. 10.3390/cancers6031769. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Gao F.; Sun Z.; Kong F.; Xiao J. Artemisinin-Derived Hybrids and Their Anticancer Activity. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2020, 188, 112044. 10.1016/j.ejmech.2020.112044. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Wan Y.; Fang G.; Chen H.; Deng X.; Tang Z. Sulfonamide Derivatives as Potential Anti-Cancer Agents and Their SARs Elucidation. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2021, 226, 113837. 10.1016/j.ejmech.2021.113837. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Ottoni F. M.; Gomes E. R.; Pádua R. M.; Oliveira M. C.; Silva I. T.; Alves R. J. Synthesis and Cytotoxicity Evaluation of Glycosidic Derivatives of Lawsone against Breast Cancer Cell Lines. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2020, 30 (2), 126817. 10.1016/j.bmcl.2019.126817. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Gautam Y.; Das S.; Khan H.; Pathak N.; Iqbal H.; Yadav P.; Sirohi V. K.; Khan S.; Raghuvanshi D. S.; Dwivedi A.; et al. Design, Synthesis and Broad Spectrum Antibreast Cancer Activity of Diarylindoles via Induction of Apoptosis in Aggressive Breast Cancer Cells. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2021, 42, 116252. 10.1016/j.bmc.2021.116252. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Peerzada M. N.; Hamel E.; Bai R.; Supuran C. T.; Azam A. Deciphering the Key Heterocyclic Scaffolds in Targeting Microtubules, Kinases and Carbonic Anhydrases for Cancer Drug Development. Pharmacol. Ther. 2021, 225, 107860. 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2021.107860. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Hosseinzadeh Z.; Ramazani A.; Razzaghi-Asl N. Anti-Cancer Nitrogen-Containing Heterocyclic Compounds. Curr. Org. Chem. 2018, 22 (23), 2256–2279. 10.2174/1385272822666181008142138. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Lang D. K.; Kaur R.; Arora R.; Saini B.; Arora S. Nitrogen-Containing Heterocycles as Anticancer Agents: An Overview. Anticancer. Agents Med. Chem. 2020, 20 (18), 2150–2168. 10.2174/1871520620666200705214917. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Martins P.; Jesus J.; Santos S.; Raposo L.; Roma-Rodrigues C.; Baptista P.; Fernandes A. Heterocyclic Anticancer Compounds: Recent Advances and the Paradigm Shift towards the Use of Nanomedicine’s Tool Box. Molecules 2015, 20 (9), 16852–16891. 10.3390/molecules200916852. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Wu Y.-J. Heterocycles and Medicine 2012, 1–53. 10.1016/B978-0-08-096807-0.00001-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Dadashpour S.; Emami S. Indole in the Target-Based Design of Anticancer Agents: A Versatile Scaffold with Diverse Mechanisms. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2018, 150, 9–29. 10.1016/j.ejmech.2018.02.065. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Wan Y.; Li Y.; Yan C.; Yan M.; Tang Z. Indole: A Privileged Scaffold for the Design of Anti-Cancer Agents. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2019, 183, 111691. 10.1016/j.ejmech.2019.111691. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Thanikachalam P. V.; Maurya R. K.; Garg V.; Monga V. An Insight into the Medicinal Perspective of Synthetic Analogs of Indole: A Review. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2019, 180, 562–612. 10.1016/j.ejmech.2019.07.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Mir R. H.; Mohi-ud-din R.; Wani T. U.; Dar M. O.; Shah A. J.; Lone B.; Pooja C.; Masoodi M. H. Indole: A Privileged Heterocyclic Moiety in the Management of Cancer. Curr. Org. Chem. 2021, 25 (6), 724–736. 10.2174/1385272825666210208142108. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Sidhu J. S.; Singla R.; Mayank; Jaitak V. Indole Derivatives as Anticancer Agents for Breast Cancer Therapy: A Review. Anticancer. Agents Med. Chem. 2015, 16 (2), 160–173. 10.2174/1871520615666150520144217. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Sever B.; Altıntop M. D.; Kuş G.; Özkurt M.; Özdemir A.; Kaplancıklı Z. A. Indomethacin Based New Triazolothiadiazine Derivatives: Synthesis, Evaluation of Their Anticancer Effects on T98 Human Glioma Cell Line Related to COX-2 Inhibition and Docking Studies. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2016, 113, 179–186. 10.1016/j.ejmech.2016.02.036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. K. Rathi A.; Syed R.; Singh V.; Shin H.-S.; V. Patel R. Kinase Inhibitor Indole Derivatives as Anticancer Agents: A Patent Review. Recent Pat. Anticancer. Drug Discovery 2017, 12 (1), 55–72. 10.2174/1574892811666161003112119. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Sever B.; Altıntop M. D.; Özdemir A.; Akalın Çiftçi G.; Ellakwa D. E.; Tateishi H.; Radwan M. O.; Ibrahim M. A. A.; Otsuka M.; Fujita M.; et al. In Vitro and In Silico Evaluation of Anticancer Activity of New Indole-Based 1,3,4-Oxadiazoles as EGFR and COX-2 Inhibitors. Molecules 2020, 25 (21), 5190. 10.3390/molecules25215190. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Doan P.; Karjalainen A.; Chandraseelan J. G.; Sandberg O.; Yli-Harja O.; Rosholm T.; Franzen R.; Candeias N. R.; Kandhavelu M. Synthesis and Biological Screening for Cytotoxic Activity of N-Substituted Indolines and Morpholines. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2016, 120, 296–303. 10.1016/j.ejmech.2016.05.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Kourounakis A. P.; Xanthopoulos D.; Tzara A. Morpholine as a Privileged Structure: A Review on the Medicinal Chemistry and Pharmacological Activity of Morpholine Containing Bioactive Molecules. Med. Res. Rev. 2020, 40 (2), 709–752. 10.1002/med.21634. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. War J. A.; Srivastava S. K.; Srivastava S. D. Design, Synthesis and DNA-Binding Study of Some Novel Morpholine Linked Thiazolidinone Derivatives. Spectrochim. Acta Part A Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc. 2017, 173, 270–278. 10.1016/j.saa.2016.07.054. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hosseini-Kharat M.; Rahimi R.; Zargarian D.; Mehri Lighvan Z.; Momtazi-Borojeni A. A.; Sharifi T.; Abdollahi E.; Tavakol H.; Mohammadi T. Antiproliferative Activity of Morpholine-Based Compounds on MCF-7 Breast Cancer, Colon Carcinoma C26, and Normal Fibroblast NIH-3T3 Cell Lines and Study of Their Binding Affinity to Calf Thymus-DNA and Bovine Serum Albumin. J. Biomol. Struct. Dyn. 2019, 37 (14), 3788–3802. 10.1080/07391102.2018.1527724. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Xia Y.; Wang J. N-Tosylhydrazones: Versatile Synthons in the Construction of Cyclic Compounds. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2017, 46 (8), 2306–2362. 10.1039/C6CS00737F. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Huang Y.; Zhou P.; Wu W.; Jiang H. Selective Construction of 2-Substituted Benzothiazoles from o -Iodoaniline Derivatives S 8 and N -Tosylhydrazones. J. Org. Chem. 2018, 83 (4), 2460–2466. 10.1021/acs.joc.7b03118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Ma Y.; Sun G.; Chen D.; Peng X.; Chen Y.-L.; Su Y.; Ji Y.; Liang J.; Wang X.; Chen L.; et al. Design and Optimization of a Series of 1-Sulfonylpyrazolo[4,3- b]Pyridines as Selective c-Met Inhibitors. J. Med. Chem. 2015, 58 (5), 2513–2529. 10.1021/jm502018y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Gao Z.; Lv M.; Li Q.; Xu H. Synthesis of Heterocycle-Attached Methylidenebenzenesulfonohydrazones as Antifungal Agents. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2015, 25 (22), 5092–5096. 10.1016/j.bmcl.2015.10.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Gündüzalp A. B.; Özmen Ü. Ö.; Çevrimli B. S.; Mamaş S.; Çete S. Synthesis, Characterization, Electrochemical Behavior, and Antimicrobial Activities of Aromatic/Heteroaromatic Sulfonylhydrazone Derivatives. Med. Chem. Res. 2014, 23 (7), 3255–3268. 10.1007/s00044-013-0907-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. P. James J.; Ishwar Bhat K.; More U. A.; Joshi S. D. Design, Synthesis, Molecular Modeling, and ADMET Studies of Some Pyrazoline Derivatives as Shikimate Kinase Inhibitors. Med. Chem. Res. 2018, 27 (2), 546–559. 10.1007/s00044-017-2081-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Tripathi A. C.; Upadhyay S.; Paliwal S.; Saraf S. K. Derivatives of 4,5-Dihydro (1H) Pyrazoles as Possible MAO-A Inhibitors in Depression and Anxiety Disorders: Synthesis, Biological Evaluation and Molecular Modeling Studies. Med. Chem. Res. 2018, 27 (5), 1485–1503. 10.1007/s00044-018-2167-z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Guo X.; Yang Q.; Xu J.; Zhang L.; Chu H.; Yu P.; Zhu Y.; Wei J.; Chen W.; Zhang Y.; et al. Design and Bio-Evaluation of Indole Derivatives as Potent Kv1.5 Inhibitors. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2013, 21 (21), 6466–6476. 10.1016/j.bmc.2013.08.041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Hayakawa M.; Kawaguchi K.; Kaizawa H.; Koizumi T.; Ohishi T.; Yamano M.; Okada M.; Ohta M.; Tsukamoto S.; Raynaud F. I. Synthesis and Biological Evaluation of Sulfonylhydrazone-Substituted Imidazo[1,2-a]Pyridines as Novel PI3 Kinase P110α Inhibitors. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2007, 15 (17), 5837–5844. 10.1016/j.bmc.2007.05.070. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. George R. F. Facile Synthesis of Simple 2-Oxindole-Based Compounds with Promising Antiproliferative Activity. Future Med. Chem. 2018, 10 (3), 269–282. 10.4155/fmc-2017-0148. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Korcz M.; Sa̧czewski F.; Bednarski P.; Kornicka A. Synthesis, Structure, Chemical Stability, and In Vitro Cytotoxic Properties of Novel Quinoline-3-Carbaldehyde Hydrazones Bearing a 1,2,4-Triazole or Benzotriazole Moiety. Molecules 2018, 23 (6), 1497. 10.3390/molecules23061497. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Kumar S.; Rulhania S.; Jaswal S.; Monga V. Recent Advances in the Medicinal Chemistry of Carbonic Anhydrase Inhibitors. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2021, 209, 112923. 10.1016/j.ejmech.2020.112923. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Diao P.-C.; Li Q.; Hu M.-J.; Ma Y.-F.; You W.-W.; Hong K. H.; Zhao P.-L. Synthesis and Biological Evaluation of Novel Indole-Pyrimidine Hybrids Bearing Morpholine and Thiomorpholine Moieties. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2017, 134, 110–118. 10.1016/j.ejmech.2017.04.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Wang G.; Li C.; He L.; Lei K.; Wang F.; Pu Y.; Yang Z.; Cao D.; Ma L.; Chen J.; et al. Design, Synthesis and Biological Evaluation of a Series of Pyrano Chalcone Derivatives Containing Indole Moiety as Novel Anti-Tubulin Agents. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2014, 22 (7), 2060–2079. 10.1016/j.bmc.2014.02.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Foote K. M.; Blades K.; Cronin A.; Fillery S.; Guichard S. S.; Hassall L.; Hickson I.; Jacq X.; Jewsbury P. J.; McGuire T. M.; et al. Discovery of 4-{4-[(3 R)-3-Methylmorpholin-4-Yl]-6-[1-(Methylsulfonyl)Cyclopropyl]Pyrimidin-2-Yl}-1 H -Indole (AZ20): A Potent and Selective Inhibitor of ATR Protein Kinase with Monotherapy in Vivo Antitumor Activity. J. Med. Chem. 2013, 56 (5), 2125–2138. 10.1021/jm301859s. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Costi R.; Cuzzucoli Crucitti G.; Pescatori L.; Messore A.; Scipione L.; Tortorella S.; Amoroso A.; Crespan E.; Campiglia P.; Maresca B.; et al. New Nucleotide-Competitive Non-Nucleoside Inhibitors of Terminal Deoxynucleotidyl Transferase: Discovery, Characterization, and Crystal Structure in Complex with the Target. J. Med. Chem. 2013, 56 (18), 7431–7441. 10.1021/jm4010187. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Arshad F.; Khan M. F.; Akhtar W.; Alam M. M.; Nainwal L. M.; Kaushik S. K.; Akhter M.; Parvez S.; Hasan S. M.; Shaquiquzzaman M. Revealing Quinquennial Anticancer Journey of Morpholine: A SAR Based Review. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2019, 167, 324–356. 10.1016/j.ejmech.2019.02.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Taghour M. S.; Elkady H.; Eldehna W. M.; El-Deeb N. M.; Kenawy A. M.; Elkaeed E. B.; Alsfouk A. A.; Alesawy M. S.; Metwaly A. M.; Eissa I. H. Design and Synthesis of Thiazolidine-2,4-Diones Hybrids with 1,2-Dihydroquinolones and 2-Oxindoles as Potential VEGFR-2 Inhibitors: In-Vitro Anticancer Evaluation and in-Silico Studies. J. Enzyme Inhib. Med. Chem. 2022, 37 (1), 1903–1917. 10.1080/14756366.2022.2085693. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Iliev I.; Kontrec D.; Detcheva R.; Georgieva M.; Balacheva A.; Galić N.; Pajpanova T. Cancer Cell Growth Inhibition by Aroylhydrazone Derivatives. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 2019, 33 (1), 756–763. 10.1080/13102818.2019.1608302. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

ao2c03908_si_001.pdf (1.3MB, pdf)

Articles from ACS Omega are provided here courtesy of American Chemical Society

RESOURCES