2020Drug Design Development and TherapyOpen access

Comparative Cholinesterase, α-Glucosidase Inhibitory, Antioxidant, Molecular Docking, and Kinetic Studies on Potent Succinimide Derivatives

Ashfaq Ahmad, Farhat Ullah, Abdul Sadiq, Muhammad Ayaz, Muhammad Saeed Jan, Muhammad Shahid, Abdul Wadood, Fawad Mahmood, Umer Rashid, Riaz Ullah, Muhammad Umar Khayam Sahibzada, Ali S. Alqahtani, Hafiz Majid Mahmood

Open full text 41 citations

Abstract

Introduction: The current study was designed to synthesize derivatives of succinimide and compare their biological potency in anticholinesterase, alpha-glucosidase inhibition, and antioxidant assays. Methods: In this research, two succinimide derivatives including ( S )-1-(2,5-dioxo-1-phenylpyrrolidin-3-yl) cyclohexanecarbaldehyde (Compound 1 ) and ( R )-2-(( S )-2,5-dioxo-1-phenylpyrrolidin-3-yl)-2-phenylpropanal (Compound 2 ) were synthesized using Michael addition. Both the compounds, ie, 1 and 2 were evaluated for in-vitro acetylcholinesterase (AChE), butyrylctcholinesterase (BChE), antioxidant, and α-glucosidase inhibitory potentials. Furthermore, molecular docking was performed using Molecular Operating Environment (MOE) to explore the binding mode of both the compounds against different enzymes. Lineweaver–Burk plots of enzyme inhibitions representing the reciprocal of initial enzyme velocity versus the reciprocal of substrate concentration in the presence of synthesized compounds and standard drugs were constructed using Michaelis–Menten kinetics. Results: In AChE inhibitory assay, compounds 1 and 2 exhibited IC 50 of 343.45 and 422.98 μM, respectively, against AChE enzyme. Similarly, both the compounds showed IC 50 of 276.86 and 357.91 μM, respectively, against BChE enzyme. Compounds 1 and 2 displayed IC 50 of 157.71 and 471.79 μM against α-glucosidase enzyme, respectively. In a similar pattern, compound 1 exhibited to be more potent as compared to compound 2 in all the three antioxidant assays. Compound 1 exhibited IC 50 values of 297.98, 332.94, and 825.92 μM against DPPH, ABTS, and H 2 O 2 free radicals, respectively. Molecular docking showed a triple fold in the AChE and BChE activity for compound 1 compared with compound 2 . The compound 1 revealed good interaction against both the AChE and BChE enzymes which revealed the high potency of this compound compared to compound 2 . Conclusion: Both succinimide derivatives exhibited considerable inhibitory activities against cholinesterases and α-glucosidase enzymes. Of these two, compound 1 revealed to be more potent against all the in-vitro targets which was supported by molecular docking with the lowest binding energies. Moreover, compound 1 also proved to have antiradical properties. Keywords: succinimides, Alzheimer’s disease, cholinesterase, antioxidant, glucosidase, molecular docking

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Introduction: The current study was designed to synthesize derivatives of succinimide and compare their biological potency in anticholinesterase, alpha-glucosidase inhibition, and antioxidant assays. Methods: In this research, two succinimide derivatives including ( S )-1-(2,5-dioxo-1-phenylpyrrolidin-3-yl) cyclohexanecarbaldehyde (Compound 1 ) and ( R )-2-(( S )-2,5-dioxo-1-phenylpyrrolidin-3-yl)-2-phenylpropanal (Compound 2 ) were synthesized using Michael addition. Both the compounds, ie, 1 and 2 were evaluated for in-vitro acetylcholinesterase (AChE), butyrylctcholinesterase (BChE), antioxidant, and α-glucosidase inhibitory potentials. Furthermore, molecular docking was performed using Molecular Operating Environment (MOE) to explore the binding mode of both the compounds against different enzymes. Lineweaver–Burk plots of enzyme inhibitions representing the reciprocal of initial enzyme velocity versus the reciprocal of substrate concentration in the presence of synthesized compounds and standard drugs were constructed using Michaelis–Menten kinetics. Results: In AChE inhibitory assay, compounds 1 and 2 exhibited IC 50 of 343.45 and 422.98 μM, respectively, against AChE enzyme. Similarly, both the compounds showed IC 50 of 276.86 and 357.91 μM, respectively, against BChE enzyme. Compounds 1 and 2 displayed IC 50 of 157.71 and 471.79 μM against α-glucosidase enzyme, respectively. In a similar pattern, compound 1 exhibited to be more potent as compared to compound 2 in all the three antioxidant assays. Compound 1 exhibited IC 50 values of 297.98, 332.94, and 825.92 μM against DPPH, ABTS, and H 2 O 2 free radicals, respectively. Molecular docking showed a triple fold in the AChE and BChE activity for compound 1 compared with compound 2 . The compound 1 revealed good interaction against both the AChE and BChE enzymes which revealed the high potency of this compound compared to compound 2 . Conclusion: Both succinimide derivatives exhibited considerable inhibitory activities against cholinesterases and α-glucosidase enzymes. Of these two, compound 1 revealed to be more potent against all the in-vitro targets which was supported by molecular docking with the lowest binding energies. Moreover, compound 1 also proved to have antiradical properties. Keywords: succinimides, Alzheimer’s disease, cholinesterase, antioxidant, glucosidase, molecular docking

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 41 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Introduction: The current study was designed to synthesize derivatives of succinimide and compare their biological potency in anticholinesterase, alpha-glucosidase inhibition, and antioxidant assays. Methods: In this research, two succinimide derivatives including ( S )-1-(2,5-dioxo-1-phenylpyrrolidin-3-yl) cyclohexanecarbaldehyde (Compound 1 ) and ( R )-2-(( S )-2,5-dioxo-1-phenylpyrrolidin-3-yl)-2-phenylpropanal (Compound 2 ) were synthesized using Michael addition. Both the compounds, ie, 1 and 2 were evaluated for in-vitro acetylcholinesterase (AChE), butyrylctcholinesterase (BChE), antioxidant, and α-glucosidase inhibitory potentials. Furthermore, molecular docking was performed using Molecular Operating Environment (MOE) to explore the binding mode of both the compounds against different enzymes. Lineweaver–Burk plots of enzyme inhibitions representing the reciprocal of initial enzyme velocity versus the reciprocal of substrate concentration in the presence of synthesized compounds and standard drugs were constructed using Michaelis–Menten kinetics. Results: In AChE inhibitory assay, compounds 1 and 2 exhibited IC 50 of 343.45 and 422.98 μM, respectively, against AChE enzyme. Similarly, both the compounds showed IC 50 of 276.86 and 357.91 μM, respectively, against BChE enzyme. Compounds 1 and 2 displayed IC 50 of 157.71 and 471.79 μM against α-glucosidase enzyme, respectively. In a similar pattern, compound 1 exhibited to be more potent as compared to compound 2 in all the three antioxidant assays. Compound 1 exhibited IC 50 values of 297.98, 332.94, and 825.92 μM against DPPH, ABTS, and H 2 O 2 free radicals, respectively. Molecular docking showed a triple fold in the AChE and BChE activity for compound 1 compared with compound 2 . The compound 1 revealed good interaction against both the AChE and BChE enzymes which revealed the high potency of this compound compared to compound 2 . Conclusion: Both succinimide derivatives exhibited considerable inhibitory activities against cholinesterases and α-glucosidase enzymes. Of these two, compound 1 revealed to be more potent against all the in-vitro targets which was supported by molecular docking with the lowest binding energies. Moreover, compound 1 also proved to have antiradical properties. Keywords: succinimides, Alzheimer’s disease, cholinesterase, antioxidant, glucosidase, molecular docking

Key concepts: Succinimide, Chemistry, Butyrylcholinesterase, Acetylcholinesterase, DPPH, ABTS, Stereochemistry, IC50

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Comparative Cholinesterase, α-Glucosidase Inhibitory, Antioxidant, Molecular Docking, and Kinetic Studies on Potent Succinimide Derivatives — Research Paper | ScholarLens