Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Direct interaction between 7-chloro-1-cyclopropyl-6-fluoro-8-nitro-4oxo-1,4-dihydroquinoline-3-carboxylic acid and each of (S)-proline, (2S,4R)-4hydroxyproline and (S)-1,2,3,4-tetrahydroisoquinoline-3-carboxylic acid in hot aqueous ethanolic NaHCO 3 yielded the corresponding optically pure N-(4-oxoquinolin-7-yl)-α-amino acids.The latter derivatives underwent reductive lactamization upon treatment with Na 2 S 2 O 4 in aqueous ethanol to afford moderate yields of the respective pyrido[2,3-f]quinoxaline-3-carboxylic acid [fused]-to tetrahydropyrrolo[1,2-a]-, tetrahydrohydroxylpyrrolo[1,2-a]-and tetrahydroisoquinolino[2,3-a]heterocyclics 10-12, respectively.The antitumor activity against four human tumor cell lines showed that 10-12 displayed high levels of cytotoxicity as compared with Cisplatin.Interestingly, these compounds were more potent against breast carcinoma cell lines (MCF-7 and T-47D) than the lymphoid origin tumor cell lines (Jurkat and BHL-89).In particular, the (S)-proline derivative 10 exhibited preferential cytotoxicity to adherent cells (IC 50 = 0.5 µM), indicative of better potential in blocking the growth of solid tumors rather than the disseminated ones.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
El‐Abadelah et al. (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: