Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In vitro evaluation reveals hybrid pyridine–1,2,4-triazole compounds effectively reduce cancer cell viability and show antimicrobial action, indicating potential therapeutic uses.
Abstract 1,2,4-Triazole-3-thiones bearing 2-amino-5-chloropyridine or 2-amino-3,5-dibromopyridine moieties were S -alkylated with substituted bromoacetamides to obtain target 1,2,4-triazole-3-thiols. Anticancer effects of the synthesized compounds were evaluated in vitro using cell monolayer (MTT and ‘wound healing’ assays) and 3D spheroid models against human lung adenocarcinoma (A549), triple-negative breast cancer (MDA-MB-231), and melanoma (IGR39) cell lines. In the initial screening, compounds incorporating the 3,5-dibromopyridyl fragment were generally the most cytotoxic and compound 34 (5-chloropyridinyl derivative) was the most potent, with EC 50 values below 5 µM for all tested cancer cell lines. Although cytotoxic, they did not markedly inhibit cancer cell migration. In 3D spheroid cultures, 34 significantly inhibited the growth of MDA-MB-231 and IGR39 spheroids, while compounds 24 (phenyl) and 26 ( p -tolyl) decreased spheroid viability without altering their size. Compound 26 also demonstrated notable antimicrobial properties, exhibiting stronger antifungal activity against C. tenuis (7.8 µg/mL) than nystatin (15.6 µg/mL) and matching the antibacterial potency of vancomycin against M. luteum (7.8 µg/mL). Molecular docking suggested possible MEK/BRAF-related interactions within the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway. Compound 34 showed the most favourable predicted binding profile for MEK (-11.134 kcal/mol) and BRAF (–10.336 kcal/mol). However, these in silico findings require to be confirmed experimentally.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Šermukšnytė et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: