A novel series of 5‐(4‐methoxybenzylidene)thiazolidine‐2,4‐dione derivatives, 5a–g and 7a–f, was designed, synthesized, and evaluated for their anticancer activity against HepG2, HCT116, and MCF‐7 cells. HepG2 and HCT116 were the most sensitive cell lines to the influence of the new derivatives. In particular, compounds 7f, 7e, 7d, and 7c were found to be the most potent derivatives of all the tested compounds against the HepG2, HCT116, and MCF‐7 cancer cell lines. Compound 7f (IC50 = 6.19 ± 0.5, 5.47 ± 0.3, and 7.26 ± 0.3 µM, respectively) exhibited a higher activity than sorafenib (IC50 = 9.18 ± 0.6, 8.37 ± 0.7, and 5.10 ± 0.4 µM, respectively) against HepG2 and MCF‐7, cells but a lower activity against HCT116 cancer cells, respectively. Also, this compound displayed a higher activity than doxorubicin (IC50 = 7.94 ± 0.6, 8.07 ± 0.8, and 6.75 ± 0.4 µM, respectively) against HepG2 and MCF‐7 cells, but nearly the same activity against HCT116 cells, respectively. All derivatives, 5a–g and 7a–f, were evaluated for their inhibitory activities against vascular endothelial growth factor receptor‐2 (VEGFR‐2). Among them, compound 7f was found to be the most potent derivative that inhibited VEGFR‐2 at an IC50 value of 0.12 ± 0.02 µM, which is nearly the same as that of sorafenib (IC50 = 0.10 ± 0.02 µM). Compounds 7e, 7d, 7c, and 7b exhibited the highest activity, with IC50 values of 0.13 ± 0.02, 0.14 ± 0.02, 0.14 ± 0.02, and 0.18 ± 0.03 µM, respectively, which are more than the half of that of sorafenib. Furthermore, molecular docking was performed to investigate their binding mode and affinities toward the VEGFR‐2 receptor. The data obtained from the docking studies highly correlated with those obtained from the biological screening.

The anticancer activity of novel thiazolidine‐2,4‐diones was evaluated against HepG2, HCT‐116, and MCF‐7 cells. MCF‐7 was the most sensitive cell line to the cytotoxicity of the new derivatives. In particular, compounds 18, 12, 17, and 16 were found to be the most potent derivatives over all the tested compounds against the cancer cell lines HepG2, HCT116, and MCF‐7, with IC50 = 9.16 ± 0.9, 8.98 ± 0.7, 5.49 ± 0.5 µM; 9.19 ± 0.5, 8.40 ± 0.7, 6.10 ± 0.4 µM; 10.78 ± 1.2, 8.87 ± 1.5, 7.08 ± 1.6 µM; and 10.87 ± 0.8, 9.05 ± 0.7, 7.32 ± 0.4 µM, respectively. Compounds 18 and 12 have nearly the same activities as sorafenib (IC50 = 9.18 ± 0.6, 5.47 ± 0.3, and 7.26 ± 0.3 µM, respectively), against HepG2 cells, but slightly lower activity against HCT116 cells and slightly higher activity against the MCF‐7 cancer cell line. Also, these compounds displayed lower activities than doxorubicin against HepG2 and HCT‐116 cells but higher activity against MCF‐7 cells (IC50 = 7.94 ± 0.6, 8.07 ± 0.8, and 6.75 ± 0.4 µM, respectively). In contrast, compounds 17 and 16 exhibited lower activities than sorafenib against HepG2 and HCT116 cells, but nearly equipotent activity against the MCF‐7 cancer cell line. Also, these compounds displayed lower activities than doxorubicin against the three cell lines. All the synthesized derivatives 7–18 were evaluated for their inhibitory activities against VEGFR‐2. The tested compounds displayed high to medium inhibitory activity, with IC50 values ranging from 0.17 ± 0.02 to 0.27 ± 0.03 µM. Compounds 18, 12, 17, and 16 potently inhibited VEGFR‐2 at IC50 values of 0.17 ± 0.02, 0.17 ± 0.02, 0.18 ± 0.02, and 0.18 ± 0.02 µM, respectively, which are nearly more than half of that of the IC50 value for sorafenib (0.10 ± 0.02 µM).

The anticancer activity of novel thiazolidine‐2,4‐diones was evaluated against HepG2, HCT‐116, and MCF‐7 cells. Among the tested cancer cell lines, HCT‐116 was the most sensitive one to the cytotoxic effect of the new derivatives. In particular, compounds 18, 11, and 10 were found to be the most potent derivatives among all the tested compounds against the HepG2, HCT‐116, and MCF‐7 cancer cell lines, with IC50 values ranging from 38.76 to 53.99 µM. The most active antiproliferative derivatives (7–14 and 15–19) were subjected to further biological studies to evaluate their inhibitory potentials against VEGFR‐2. The tested compounds displayed a good‐to‐medium inhibitory activity, with IC50 values ranging from 0.26 to 0.72 µM. Among them, compounds 18, 11, and 10 potently inhibited VEGFR‐2 at IC50 values in the range of 0.26–0.29 µM, which are nearly three times that of the sorafenib IC50 value (0.10 µM). Although our derivatives showed lower activities than the reference drug, they could be useful as a template for future design, optimization, adaptation, and investigation to produce more potent and selective VEGFR‐2 inhibitors with higher anticancer analogs. The ADMET profile showed that compounds 18, 11, and 10 do not violate any of Lipinski's rules and have a comparable intestinal absorptivity in humans. Also, the new derivatives could not inhibit cytochrome P3A4. Unlike sorafenib and doxorubicin, compounds 18, 11, and 10 are expected to have prolonged dosing intervals. Moreover, compounds 10 and 18 displayed a wide therapeutic index and higher selectivity against cancer cells as compared with their cytotoxicity against normal cells.

No abstract

Condensation of benzoyl chloride (I) with S‐methyl hydrazinecarbodithioate (II) produces the benzoyl dithioate (III) which is cyclized to form the 1,3,4‐thiadiazole (IV) or the 1,3,4‐oxadiazole (V) upon reaction with phosphorus pentoxide or thionyl chloride respectively.