Synthesis and Cytotoxic Evaluation of Certain 4‐(Phenylamino)furo[2,3‐b]quinoline and 2‐(Furan‐2‐yl)‐4‐(phenylamino)quinoline Derivatives

Tai‐Chi Wang,Yue Zhao,C. Han,I‐Li Chen,C. Tzeng,Yeh‐long Chen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cbdv.200590003
2005-02-01
Abstract:Certain 4‐(phenylamino)furo[2,3‐b]quinoline and 2‐(furan‐2‐yl)‐4‐(phenylamino)quinoline derivatives were synthesized and evaluated in vitro against the full panel of NCIs 60 cancer cell lines. The preliminary results indicated these tricyclic 4‐(phenylamino)furo[2,3‐b]quinolines were more cytotoxic than their corresponding 2‐(furan‐2‐yl)‐4‐(phenylamino)quinoline isomers. For the 4‐(phenylamino)furo[2,3‐b]quinolines, compounds 2a and 3d are two of the most potent with a mean GI50 value of 0.025 μM in each case. Inactivity of 2b and 2c (positional isomers of 2a) indicated that both electronic environment, and the distance between intercalating pharmacophore and H‐bond‐donating MeO group are important. For the 2‐(furan‐2‐yl)‐4‐(phenylamino)quinoline isomers, compound 12 (a mean GI50 of 4.36 μM), which bears a para‐COMe substituent, is more active than its meta‐substituted counterpart 13 (10.5 μM). However, the electron‐donating MeO substituent is preferred at the meta‐position, and the cytotoxicity for the meta‐substituted derivatives decreased in the order: MeO derivative 14b (3.05 μM)>oxime 16 (6.85 μM)>ketone 13 (10.5 μM)>methyl oxime 18 (20.6 μM).
Medicine,Chemistry
What problem does this paper attempt to address?