Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A series of O(6)-allyl- and O(6)-(2-oxoalkyl)guanines were synthesized and evaluated, in comparison with the corresponding O(6)-alkylguanines, as potential inhibitors of the DNA-repair protein O(6)-alkylguanine-DNA alkyltransferase (AGT). Simple O(6)-alkyl- and O(6)-cycloalkylguanines were weak AGT inactivators compared with O(6)-allylguanine (IC(50) = 8.5 +/- 0.6 microM) with IC(50) values ranging from 100 to 1000 microM. The introduction of substituents at C-2 of the allyl group of O(6)-allylguanine reduced activity compared with the parent compound, while analogous compounds in the O(6)-(2-oxoalkyl)guanine series exhibited very poor activity (150-1000 microM). O(6)-Cycloalkenylguanines proved to be excellent AGT inactivators, with 1-cyclobutenylmethylguanine (IC(50) = 0.55 +/- 0.02 microM) and 1-cyclopentenylmethylguanine (IC(50) = 0.39 +/- 0.04 microM) exhibiting potency approaching that of the benchmark AGT inhibitor O(6)-benzylguanine (IC(50) = 0.18 +/- 0.02 microM). 1-Cyclopentenylmethylguanine also inactivated AGT in intact HT29 human colorectal carcinoma cells (IC(50) = 0.20 +/- 0.07 microM) and potentiated the cytotoxicity of the monomethylating antitumor agent Temozolomide by approximately 3- and 10-fold, respectively, in the HT29 and Colo205 tumor cell lines. The observation that four mutant AGT enzymes resistant to O(6)-benzylguanine also proved strongly cross-resistant to 1-cyclopentenylmethylguanine indicates that the O(6)-substituent of each compound makes similar binding interactions within the active site of AGT.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Griffin et al. (2000) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: