Search

In this innovative research, we aim to reveal pyrazole-based Schiff bases as new multi-target agents. In this context, we re-synthesized three sets of pyrazole-based Schiff bases, 5a–f, 6a–f, and 7a–f, to evaluate their biological applications. The data from in vitro biological assays (including antioxidant and scavenging activities, anti-diabetes, anti-Alzheimer’s, and anti-inflammatory properties) of the pyrazole-based Schiff bases 5a–f, 6a–f, and 7a–f showed that the six pyrazole-based Schiff bases 5a, 5d, 5e, 5f, 7a, and 7f possess the highest biological properties among the compounds evaluated. The cytotoxicity against lung (A549) and colon (Caco-2) human cancer types, as well as normal lung (WI-38) cell lines, was evaluated. The data from the cytotoxicity investigation demonstrated that the three Schiff bases 5d, 5e, and 7a are active against lung (A549) cells, while the two Schiff bases 5e and 7a exhibited the highest cytotoxicity towards colon (Caco-2) cells. Additionally, the enzymatic activities against caspase-3 and Bcl-2 of the six pyrazole-based Schiff bases 5a, 5d, 5e, 5f, 7a, and 7f were evaluated. Furthermore, we assessed the in silico absorption, distribution, metabolism, and toxicity (ADMT) properties of the more potent pyrazole-based Schiff bases. After modifying the structures of the six pyrazole-based Schiff bases, we plan to further extend the studies in the future.

One of the biggest problems facing contemporary medicine is cancer. New approaches to therapy are required due to the difficult and prolonged treatment, the numerous adverse properties of the medications employed, and the developing confrontation of neoplastic cells to treatment. Ten 1,2,4-triazine sulfonamide derivatives (1–10) were chosen for the first time in the current work, and their chemical structures were examined by DFT studies. The in silico flexible docking analysis of the chosen receptors involved in cancer development and metastasis (3RHK, 5GTY, 6PL2, and 7JXH) revealed that the selected compounds are the most promising. The binding affinity of compounds 10, 2, 6, and 4 is much better than the standard drug, Erlotinib, whereas compounds 9, 3, 1, and 7 showed better affinities as compared to standard drugs Neratinib and Tepotinib in the case of 3RHK receptor. The binding affinity against the 5GTY receptor of compounds 10, 5, and 3 is much better than the standard drug Tepotinib, and compounds 7, 6, 2, 4, 1, 8, and 9 showed better than Erlonitib and Neratinib. The binding affinity against the 6PL2 receptor of compounds 8, 3, 5, 4, 9, and 1 is much better than the standard drug Tepotinib. Compounds 10, 6, 7, and 2 were better than Erlotinib and Neratinib. All selected drugs showed better binding affinities than the standard anti-cancer drug Neratinib in the case of the 7JXH receptor, whereas compounds 2, 10, 5, 9, and 8 are better than Erlotinib. In silico ADME experiments supported the identified compounds’ drug similarity. According to the MEP calculations, compounds 3 through 10 can interact non-covalently. The interactions might take the form of σ- and π-hole interactions. Softest compound 4 has the smallest energy gap, with an E-gap value of 3.25 Ev. Compound 4 has the largest energy gap at 3.41 eV. Compound 5 superior electron donor has the highest HOMO energy (6.5470 eV for HOMO). Compound 2 has the lowest LUMO energy, which suggests that it would be the best electron acceptor (ELUMO = 5.766364 eV).