↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Phenolic indeno[1,2-b]indoles as ABCG2-selective potent and non-toxic inhibitors stimulating basal ATPase activity

Overview of attention for article published in Drug Design, Development and Therapy, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Phenolic indeno[1,2-b]indoles as ABCG2-selective potent and non-toxic inhibitors stimulating basal ATPase activity
Published in
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, July 2015
DOI 10.2147/dddt.s84982
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gustavo Jabor Gozzi, Zouhair Bouaziz, Evelyn Winter, Nathalia Daflon-Yunes, Mylène Honorat, Nathalie Guragossian, Christelle Marminon, Glaucio Valdameri, Andre Bollacke, Jean Guillon, Noël Pinaud, Mathieu Marchivie, Silvia M Cadena, Joachim Jose, Marc Le Borgne, Attilio Di Pietro

Abstract

Ketonic indeno[1,2-b]indole-9,10-dione derivatives, initially designed as human casein kinase II (CK2) inhibitors, were recently shown to be converted into efficient inhibitors of drug efflux by the breast cancer resistance protein ABCG2 upon suited substitutions including a N (5)-phenethyl on C-ring and hydrophobic groups on D-ring. A series of ten phenolic and seven p-quinonic derivatives were synthesized and screened for inhibition of both CK2 and ABCG2 activities. The best phenolic inhibitors were about threefold more potent against ABCG2 than the corresponding ketonic derivatives, and showed low cytotoxicity. They were selective for ABCG2 over both P-glycoprotein and MRP1 (multidrug resistance protein 1), whereas the ketonic derivatives also interacted with MRP1, and they additionally displayed a lower interaction with CK2. Quite interestingly, they strongly stimulated ABCG2 ATPase activity, in contrast to ketonic derivatives, suggesting distinct binding sites. In contrast, the p-quinonic indenoindoles were cytotoxic and poor ABCG2 inhibitors, whereas a partial inhibition recovery could be reached upon hydrophobic substitutions on D-ring, similarly to the ketonic derivatives.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 23%
Student > Bachelor 5 17%
Other 2 7%
Professor 2 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Other 6 20%
Unknown 6 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 17%
Chemistry 5 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 8 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 July 2015.
All research outputs
#22,759,802
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#1,754
of 2,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,501
of 277,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#124
of 157 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,613 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 157 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.