ArticleMolecular diversity2014
Antiproliferative activity of the Michael adducts of aroylacrylic acids and cyclic amines.
Article in Molecular diversity, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Antimicrobial and Antibiofilm Potential of Acyclic Amines and Diamines against Multi-Drug ResistantFrontiers in microbiology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Antiproliferative activity of twenty one Michael adducts of aroylacrylic acids and cyclic amines (N-Me-piperazine, imidazole, 2-Me-imidazole, and indole) was tested toward five human tumor cell lines (HeLa, LS174, K562, FemX, MDA-MB-361) in vitro. Compounds exerted antiproliferative activity in the high to the single-digit micromolar concentrations, causing increase of the cell population fraction in S phase and apoptosis. N-Me-piperazine and imidazole derivatives of aroylacrylic acids substituted with bulky alkyl substituents (2,4-di-i-Pr-Ph-, 2,4,6-tri-Et-Ph-, or β-tetrahydronaphthyl-) showed the best potency, while indole adducts were proved as the inferior antiproliferative agents. Few compounds showed significant selectivity, tumor versus healthy cells, with selectivity index ~60 for the most selective congener. An unbiased in silico distinction between more and less potent compounds was obtained from 3D QSAR models derived by alignment-independent GRIND-2 descriptors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24874228What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.