Home >Archive

Volume: 8, Issue: 9, September, 2018
DOI: 10.7324/JAPS.2018.8918



Research Article

In Silico Study of Pyrazolylaminoquinazoline Toxicity by Lazar, Protox, and Admet Predictor

Supandi, Yeni, Fajar Merdekawati

  Author Affiliations


Abstract

Pyrazolylaminoquinazoline is obtained from synthetic AZD4547 and can inhibit kinase activity in recombinant fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) in vitro. The objective of this study was to obtain high activity and low toxicity pyrazolylaminoquinazoline derivatives in silico. The 2-dimensional structures were generated using the ChemDraw application. The Lazar application was used to predict endpoint carcinogenicity, maximum daily dose, and mutagenicity. The ProTox application was used for endpoint LD50 and toxicity classes, while the ADMET application was used for endpoint hepatotoxicity, with reproductive system disorders, and endocrine. Based on the scoring from the three software applications, two compounds were identified as being active against FGFR 2, with no carcinogenic or toxic effects on the liver, endocrine system, and the reproductive system, but they were predicted to have mutagenic effects. These compounds were V29 (N-(5-(3,5-dimethoxy phenethyl -1H-pyrazol-3-yl)-7(octahydro- 2H-pyrido[1,2-a]pyrazine-2-yl) quinazoline-4-amine), with an IC50 of 0.2 ± 0.1 nM and a toxicity score of 1027, and V32 (N-(5-(3,5-dimethoxy phenethyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-yl)-7-(4-(dimethylamino)piperidine-1-yl)quinazoline-4-amine), with an IC50 of 0.3 ± 0.1 nM and a toxicity score of 1024.

Keywords:

In silico, Pirazolilaminokuinazoline, Lazar, ProTox, ADMET Predictor.



Citation: Supandi, Yeni, Merdekawati F. In Silico Study of Pyrazolylaminoquinazoline Toxicity by Lazar, Protox, and Admet Predictor. J App Pharm Sci, 2018; 8(09): 119-129.


Copyright: The Author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

References

Malchers F, Ercanoglu M, Scutte D, Castiglione R, Tischler V, Michels S, et al. Mechanisme of Primary Drug Resistance in FGFR1 Amplified Lung Cancer. Clin Cancer Res, 2017; 27(18):5527-5536.https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-0478

Raies AB, Bajic VB. In silico toxicology: computational methods for the prediction of chemical toxicity. WIREs Comput Mol Sci, 2016; 6:147-172.https://doi.org/10.1002/wcms.1240

Helma C. Lazy Structure Activity Relationships (Lazar) for the Prediction of Rodent Carcinogenicity and Salmonella Mutagenicity. Mol Diversity, 2006; 10:147-158.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11030-005-9001-5

Drwal MN, Banerjee P, Dunkel M, Wettig MR, Preissner R. ProTox: a web server for the in silico prediction of rodent oral toxicity. Nucleic Acids Res, 2014; 10:1-6.https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gku401

Hassan SF, Rashid U, Ansari FL, Ul-Haq Z. Bioisosteric Approach in Designing New Monastrol Derivatives: An Investigation on Their ADMET Prediction Using In Silico Derived Parameters. J Mol Graph Model, 2013; 45:202-210.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmgm.2013.09.002

Gu T, Goss VL, Reeves C, Popova L, Nardone J, MacNeill J, et al. Phosphotyrosine profiling identifies the KG-1 cell line as a model for the study of FGFR1 fusions in acute myeloid leukemia. Blood, 2006; 108(13):4202-4204.https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2006-06-026666

Kunii K, Davis L, Gorenstein J, Hatch J, Yashiro M, Bacca AD. FGFR-2 Amplified Gstric Cancer Cell Line Require FGFR2 and Erbb3 Signaling for Growth and Survival. Cancer Res, 2008; 68 (7):2340-2348.https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-5229

Wang J, Mikse O, Liao RG, Li Y, Tan L, Janne PA, et al. Ligand Associated ERBB2/3 Actifation Confers Acquired Resistance to FGFR Inhibition in FGFR3 Dependent Cancer Cells. Oncogene, 2014; 10:1-11.

Fan J, Dai Y, Shao J, Peng X, Wang C, Cao S, Zhao B, Ai J, Geng M, Duan W. Design, Synthesis and Biological Evaluation of Pyrazolylaminoquinazoline Derivatives as Highly Potent pan-Fibroblast Growth Factor Reseptor Inhibitors. Bioorg Med Chem Let, 2016; 26(11):2594-2599.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bmcl.2016.04.028

Lipinski CA, Lombardo F, Domminy BW, Feeney PJ. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv Drug Deliv Rev, 2001; 46:3-26.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-409X(00)00129-0

Veber DV, Jhonson SR, Cheng HY, Smith BR, Ward KW, Kopple KB. Molecular Properties That Influence the Oral Bioavailability of Drug Candidates. J Med Chem, 2002; 45(12):2616-2623.https://doi.org/10.1021/jm020017n

Hodge A, Sterner B. 2005. Toxicity Classes. In: Canadian Center for Occupational Health and Safety. [Cited 2017 August 4]. Available from: http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/id50.htm.

Simulations Plus. 2016. ADMET PredictorTM versi 8.0.4.6. Simulations Plus Inc. California. [Cited 2017 August 4]. Available from: http://www.simulations-plus.com/.

Article Metrics