SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Adenosine Receptor Ligands: Coumarin-Chalcone Hybrids as Modulating Agents on the Activity of <i>h</i>ARs.

Molecules · 2020-09-19

DOI: 10.3390/molecules25184306PMID: 32961824

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Adenosine receptors (ARs) play an important role in neurological and psychiatric disorders such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, epilepsy and schizophrenia. The different subtypes of ARs and the knowledge on their densities and status are important for understanding the mechanisms underlying the pathogenesis of diseases and for developing new therapeutics. Looking for new scaffolds for selective AR ligands, coumarin-chalcone hybrids were synthesized (compounds 1-8) and screened in radioligand binding (hA1, hA2A and hA3) and adenylyl cyclase (hA2B) assays in order to evaluate their affinity for the four human AR subtypes (hARs). Coumarin-chalcone hybrid has been established as a new scaffold suitable for the development of potent and selective ligands for hA1 or hA3 subtypes. In general, hydroxy-substituted hybrids showed some affinity for the hA1, while the methoxy counterparts were selective for the hA3. The most potent hA1 ligand was compound 7 (Ki = 17.7 µM), whereas compound 4 was the most potent ligand for hA3 (Ki = 2.49 µM). In addition, docking studies with hA1 and hA3 homology models were established to analyze the structure-function relationships. Results showed that the different residues located on the protein binding pocket could play an important role in ligand selectivity.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.