KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Gazi University Journal of Science / 2026 / Volume: 39 Issue: 2

Solvent Effects, Druglikeness, Pharmacokinetics/ADMET and Neuronal Pentraxin-1 and Contactin-2 Targeted Molecular Docking Investigations of Potential Antitumor Agent 5-Ethynyl-2'-deoxyuridine

Çiğdem Bilkan(TOKAT GAZİOSMANPAŞA ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-3347-673X
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2026-06-01
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

These findings suggest that EdU is a highly promising candidate for the treatment of GBM.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Glioblastoma (GBM) is an aggressive brain tumor associated with increasing annual morbidity and mortality rates.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Recently, 5-Ethynyl-2'-deoxyuridine (EdU) has been reported to demonstrate significant antitumor effects against GBM.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:These findings suggest that EdU is a highly promising candidate for the treatment of GBM.
🔬Tür:Research Article
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Solvent effects · Molecular docking · In silico drug investigations

Abstract

Glioblastoma (GBM) is an aggressive brain tumor associated with increasing annual morbidity and mortality rates. Standard treatment typically involves surgical resection followed by postoperative Temozolomide (TMZ). Recently, 5-Ethynyl-2'-deoxyuridine (EdU) has been reported to demonstrate significant antitumor effects against GBM. Therefore, this study investigated the potential of EdU to activate apoptotic pathways in astrocytes carrying mutant DNA a key factor in GBM formation and evaluated its therapeutic efficacy at the molecular level. The investigation was conducted using molecular docking analyses. The neuronal membrane protein contactin-2 (PDB ID: 2OM5), encoded by the CNTN2 gene, and NPTX1 (PDB ID: 6YPE), a protein highly expressed in the brain, were selected as target receptors. Additionally, the solvation behavior, drug-likeness, pharmacokinetic parameters, and toxicity profiles of EdU were determined and compared with those of the widely prescribed antitumor agent, TMZ. Results indicated that EdU interacted with the 2OM5 receptor at residues Asp184 and Ser186, and with the 6YPE receptor at residues Trp258, His314, Asn380, Trp409, Ser403, and Asp226. Moreover, EdU exhibited a 7.5% higher binding affinity for 2OM5 and 3.0% higher binding affinity for 6YPE compared to TMZ. Furthermore, the LD 50 value of EdU was found to be significantly higher than that of TMZ, indicating a much lower toxicity profile. These findings suggest that EdU is a highly promising candidate for the treatment of GBM.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Bilkan, Ç. (2026). Solvent Effects, Druglikeness, Pharmacokinetics/ADMET and Neuronal Pentraxin-1 and Contactin-2 Targeted Molecular Docking Investigations of Potential Antitumor Agent 5-Ethynyl-2'-deoxyuridine. Gazi University Journal of Science, Volume: 39 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.35378/gujs.1841302

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (34)

  1. Gezen, A., Oylumlu, E., and Tanrıöver, G., “Glioblastoma multiforme tedavisindeki birincil engel: Kan beyin bariyeri”, Ege Tıp Dergisi, 64: 184-192, (2025). DOI: https://doi.org/10.19161/etd.1621826
  2. Shen, Y., Thng, D. K. H., Wong, A. L. A., and Toh, T. B., “Mechanistic insights and the clinical prospects of targeted therapies for glioblastoma: a comprehensive review”, Experimental Hematology & Oncology, 13: 40, (2024). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40164-024-00512-8
  3. Rong, L., Li, N., and Zhang, Z., “Emerging therapies for glioblastoma: current state and future directions”, Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research, 41: 142, (2022). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13046-022-02349-7
  4. Tan, Y., Zhang, S. T., Wei, J. W., Dong, D., Wang, X. C., Yang, G. Q., Jie, T., and Zhang, H., “A radiomics nomogram may improve the prediction of IDH genotype for astrocytoma before surgery”, European Radiology, 29: 3325-3337, (2019). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06056-4
  5. Topkan, E., Kucuk, A., Ozdemir, Y., Mertsoylu, H., Besen, A. A., Sezen, D., Bolukbasi Y., Pehlivan, B., and Selek, U., “Systemic inflammation response index predicts survival outcomes in glioblastoma multiforme patients treated with standard stupp protocol”, Journal of Immunology Research, 2020: 8628540, (2020). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8628540
  6. Sarıhan, S., Aslan, G. G., Evrensel, T., and Kocaeli, H, “Glioblastoma multiforme tanılı olgularımızda sağkalım ve prognostik faktörlerin değerlendirilmesi: retrospektif çalışma”, Uludağ Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi, 49: 63-70, (2023). DOI: https://doi.org/10.32708/uutfd.1232437
  7. Bhat, S. A., and Ahmad, S., “Quantum chemical calculations and analysis of FTIR, FT–Raman and UV–Vis spectra of temozolomide molecule”, Journal of Molecular Structure, 1099: 453-462, (2015). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molstruc.2015.07.002
  8. Mason, W. P., and Cairncross, J. G., “Drug insight: temozolomide as a treatment for malignant glioma-impact of a recent trial”, Nature Clinical Practice Neurology, 1: 88-95, (2005). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpneuro0045
  9. Newlands, E. S., Stevens, M. F. G., Wedge, S. R., Wheelhouse, R. T., and Brock, C., “Temozolomide: a review of its discovery, chemical properties, pre-clinical development and clinical trials”, Cancer Treatment Reviews, 23: 35-61, (1997). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0305-7372(97)90019-0
  10. Darkes, M. J., Plosker, G. L., and Jarvis, B., “Temozolomide: a review of its use in the treatment of malignant gliomas, malignant melanoma and other advanced cancers”, American Journal of Cancer, 1: 55-80, (2002). DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00024669-200201010-00006
  11. Fu, D., Calvo, J. A., and Samson, L. D., “Balancing repair and tolerance of DNA damage caused by alkylating agents”, Nature Reviews Cancer, 12: 104-120, (2012). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc3185.
  12. Kaanoglu, H., Adefolaju, A., Fraley, C., Shobande, M., Dasari, R., Mann, B., Bell, N., Keir, S. T., Hingtgen, S. D., Sancar, A., and Satterlee, A. B., “Repurposing the DNA labeling agent EdU for glioblastom a treatment”, Cancer Research, 85: 6872-6872, (2025). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.AM2025-6872
  13. Kaanoglu, H., Adefolaju, A., Fraley, C., Shobande, M., Dasari, R., Mann, B., Bell, N., Keir, S. T., Higgins, D., Kram, D. E., Hingtgen, S. D., Sancar, A., and Satterlee, A. B., “Repurposing the dna labeling agent edu for therapy against heterogeneous patient glioblastoma”, Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, OF1-OF13, (2025). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-24-1098
  14. Bilkan, M. T., “Structural and spectroscopic studies on dimerization and solvent-ligand complexes of Theobromine”, Journal of Molecular Liquids, 238: 523-532, (2017). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2017.05.051
  15. Bilkan, M. T., “Quantum chemical studies on solvent effects, ligand–water complexes and dimer structure of 2, 2ʹ-dipyridylamine”, Physics and Chemistry of Liquids, 57: 100-116, (2019). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00319104.2018.1423564
  16. Wang, L., Cao, X., Yang, Y., Kose, C., Kawara, H., Lindsey-Boltz, L. A., Selby, C. P., and Sancar, A., “Nucleotide excision repair removes thymidine analog 5-ethynyl-2′-deoxyuridine from the mammalian genome”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119: e2210176119, (2022). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2210176119
  17. Frisch, M. J., Truckset, G. W., Schlegel, H. B. et al., Gaussian 09, Revision B.01, Gaussian Inc., C.T. Wallingford. (2009).
  18. Dennington, R.D., Keith, T.A., Millam, J.M., GaussView 5, Gaussian, Inc. (2008).
  19. Jamróz, MH., “Vibrational Energy Distribution Analysis. VEDA 4”, Warsaw, (2004). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.saa.2013.05.096
  20. Bitencourt-Ferreira, G., and de Azevedo, W. F., “Molegro virtual docker for docking”, Docking Screens for Drug Discovery, 149-167, (2019). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-9752-7_10
  21. Daina, A., Michielin, O., and Zoete, V., “SwissADME: a free web tool to evaluate pharmacokinetics, drug-likeness and medicinal chemistry friendliness of small molecules”, Scientific Reports, 7: 42717, (2017). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep42717
  22. Lee, S. K., Chang, G. S., Lee, I. H., Chung, J. E., Sung, K. Y., and No, K. T., “The PreADME: pc-based program for batch prediction of adme properties”, EuroQSAR, 9:5-10, (2004).
  23. Banerjee, P., Kemmler, E., Dunkel, M., and Preissner, R., “ProTox 3.0: a webserver for the prediction of toxicity of chemicals”, Nucleic Acids Research, 52: W513-W520, (2024). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkae303
  24. Barr, P. J., Hamor, T. A., and Walker, R. T., “Antiviral nucleic acid derivatives. III. Crystal structure of 5-e,thynyl-2'-deoxyuridine”, Structural Science, 34: 2799-2802, (1978). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1107/S0567740878009267
  25. Phillips, J. C., “Generalized Koopmans' Theorem” Physical Review, 123: 420, (1961). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.123.420
  26. Shahidha, R., Al-Saadi, A. A., and Muthu, S., “Vibrational spectroscopic studies, normal co-ordinate analysis, first order hyperpolarizability, HOMO–LUMO of midodrine by using density functional methods”, Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy, 134: 127-142, (2015). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.saa.2014.06.033
  27. Lipinski, C. A., “Physicochemical properties and the discovery of orally active drugs: technical and people issues”, In Molecular Informatics: Confronting Complexity, Proceedings of The Beilstein-Institut Workshop (Frankfurt, Germany), (2003, May).
  28. Waterhouse, R. N. “Determination of lipophilicity and its use as a predictor of blood–brain barrier penetration of molecular imaging agents”, Molecular Imaging & Biology, 5: 376-389, (2003). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mibio.2003.09.014.
  29. Meanwell, N. A., “Improving drug candidates by design: a focus on physicochemical properties as a means of improving compound disposition and safety”, Chemical Research in Toxicology, 24: 1420-1456, (2011). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/tx200211v.
  30. Al Wasidi, A. S., Hassan, A. S., and Naglah, A. M., “In vitro cytotoxicity and druglikeness of pyrazolines and pyridines bearing benzofuran moiety”, Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical Science, 10: 142-148, (2020). DOI: https://doi.org/10.7324/JAPS.2020.104018
  31. Lipinski, C. A., “Lead-and drug-like compounds: the rule-of-five revolution” Drug Discovery Today: Technologies, 1: 337-341, (2004). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ddtec.2004.11.007
  32. Du Souich, P., Verges, J., and Erill, S., “Plasma protein binding and pharmacological response”, Clinical Pharmacokinetics, 24: 435-440, (1993). DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00003088-199324060-00001
  33. Olson, R. E., and Christ, D. D., “Plasma protein binding of drugs”, Annual Reports in Medicinal Chemistry, 23:327-336, Academic Press, (1988). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-7743(08)60472-8
  34. Bilkan, M. T., Najeeb, H. A., Poslu, A. H., Bilkan, Ç., and Koz, G., “Synthesis, spectroscopic analysis, quantum chemical calculations and in silico biological activity studies of a new series of 8-aryl xanthine”, Journal of Molecular Structure, 1302: 137485. (2024). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molstruc.2024.137485