Design, Synthesis, Spectral Analysis, In Vitro Anticancer Evaluation and Molecular Docking Studies of Some Fluorescent 4-Amino-2, 3-Dimethyl-1-Phenyl-3-Pyrazolin-5-One, Ampyrone Derivatives.

The commenced work deals with the synthesis, characterization and evaluation of biological activities of 4-amino-2,3-dimethyl-1-phenyl-3-pyrazolin-5-one. The synthesis was done by the condensation of aromatic acid chlorides with 4-aminoantipyrine. The structures of synthesized derivatives were elucidated using IR, Mass, 1H NMR and 13C NMR spectroscopy, and their UV-Visible and fluorescence properties were studied. The compounds showed significant dual fluorescence. Molecular docking was used to understand the small molecule-receptor protein interaction. The derivatives were screened for their in vitro cytotoxic activity against the reference drug pazopanib on human cervical cancer cell line (SiHa) using MTT assay.

Synthesis and spectroscopic characterization of fluorescent 4-aminoantipyrine analogues: Molecular docking and in vitro cytotoxicity studies.

Two substituted aromatic carbonyl compounds (compounds 1 and 2) of 4-aminoantipyrine were synthesized by condensation of fluorine substituted benzoyl chlorides and 4-aminoantipyrine. The structures of synthesized derivatives were established on the basis of UV-Vis, IR, and Mass, (1)H, (13)C NMR and Fluorescence spectroscopy. Both compounds showed significant fluorescence emission and two broad emission bands were observed in the region at 340 nm and 450 nm on excitation at 280 nm. Theoretically to prove that the molecule has anticancer activity against cervical cancer cells, the compounds were analyzed for molecular docking interactions with HPV16-E7 target protein by Glide protocol. Furthermore, 4-aminoantipyrine derivatives were evaluated for their in vitro cytotoxic activity against human cervical cancer cells (SiHa) by MTT assay. Compound 1 showed two fold higher activity (IC50=0.912 µM) over compound 2, and its activity was similar to that of Pazopanib, suggesting that although the two compounds were chemically very similar the difference in substituent on the phenyl moiety caused changes in properties.