Next Article in Journal
Correction: Palmeira et al. Preliminary Virtual Screening Studies to Identify GRP78 Inhibitors Which May Interfere with SARS-CoV-2 Infection. Pharmaceuticals 2020, 13, 132
Previous Article in Journal
In Vivo Anti-Inflammatory and Antinociceptive Activities of Black Elder (Sambucus nigra L.) Fruit and Flower Extracts
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Pharmaceuticals
Volume 17
Issue 4
10.3390/ph17040410
pharmaceuticals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Synthesis, In Vitro Biological Evaluation and Molecular Modeling of Benzimidazole-Based Pyrrole/Piperidine Hybrids Derivatives as Potential Anti-Alzheimer Agents

by
Sundas Tariq
1,
Fazal Rahim
1,*,
Hayat Ullah
2,*,
Maliha Sarfraz
3,
Rafaqat Hussain
1,
Shoaib Khan
4,
Misbah Ullah Khan
5,
Wajid Rehman
1,
Amjad Hussain
2,
Mashooq Ahmad Bhat
6,
Muhammad Kamran Farooqi
7,
Syed Adnan Ali Shah
8,9 and
Naveed Iqbal
10
1
Department of Chemistry, Hazara University, Mansehra 21120, Pakistan
2
Institute of Chemistry, University of Okara, Okara 56130, Pakistan
3
Department of Zoology, Wildlife and Fisheries, University of Agriculture Faisalabad, Sub-Campus Toba Tek Singh, Toba Tek Singh 36080, Pakistan
4
Department of Chemistry, Abbottabad University of Science and Technology, Abbottabad 22500, Pakistan
5
Center for Nanosciences, University of Okara, Okara 56130, Pakistan
6
Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
7
Hubei Key Laboratory of Material Chemistry and Service Failure, School of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 1037 Luoyu Road, Hongshan District, Wuhan 430074, China
8
Faculty of Pharmacy, Universiti Teknologi MARA Cawangan Selangor Kampus Puncak Alam, Bandar Puncak Alam 42300, Selangor, Malaysia
9
Atta-ur-Rahman Institute for Natural Product Discovery (AuRIns), Universiti Teknologi MARA Cawangan Selangor Kampus Puncak Alam, Bandar Puncak Alam 42300, Selangor, Malaysia
10
Department of Chemistry, University of Poonch, Rawalakot 12350, Pakistan
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pharmaceuticals 2024, 17(4), 410; https://doi.org/10.3390/ph17040410
Submission received: 24 February 2024 / Revised: 15 March 2024 / Accepted: 20 March 2024 / Published: 24 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Medicinal Chemistry)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Benzimidazole-based pyrrole/piperidine analogs (1–26) were synthesized and then screened for their acetylcholinesterase and butyrylcholinesterase activities. All the analogs showed good to moderate cholinesterase activities. Synthesized compounds (1–13) were screened in cholinesterase enzyme inhibition assays and showed AChE activities in the range of IC50 = 19.44 ± 0.60 µM to 36.05 ± 0.4 µM against allanzanthane (IC50 = 16.11 ± 0.33 µM) and galantamine (IC50 = 19.34 ± 0.62 µM) and varied BuChE inhibitory activities, with IC50 values in the range of 21.57 ± 0.61 µM to 39.55 ± 0.03 µM as compared with standard allanzanthane (IC50 = 18.14 ± 0.05 µM) and galantamine (IC50 = 21.45 ± 0.21 µM). Similarly, synthesized compounds (14–26) were also subjected to tests to determine their in vitro AChE inhibitory activities, and the results obtained corroborated that all the compounds showed varied activities in the range of IC50 = 22.07 ± 0.13 to 42.01 ± 0.02 µM as compared to allanzanthane (IC50 = 20.01 ± 0.12 µM) and galantamine (IC50 = 18.05 ± 0.31 µM) and varied BuChE inhibitory activities, with IC50 values in the range of 26.32 ± 0.13 to 47.03 ± 0.15 µM as compared to standard allanzanthane (IC50 = 18.14 ± 0.05 µM) and galantamine (IC50 = 21.45 ± 0.21 µM). Binding interactions of the most potent analogs were confirmed through molecular docking studies. The active analogs 2, 4, 10 and 13 established numerous interactions with the active sites of targeted enzymes, with docking scores of −10.50, −9.3, −7.73 and −7.8 for AChE and −8.97, −8.2, −8.20 and −7.6 for BuChE, respectively.

1. Introduction

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a chronic neurological disorder characterized by memory impairment, cognitive dysfunction, behavioral disturbances and deficits in activities of daily living [1,2,3]. AD has been found to be associated with a cholinergic deficit in the postmortem brain characterized by a significant decrease in the amount of acetylcholine [4,5]. AD has become a major problem, particularly in developed countries, due to increasing old-age populations with a high quality of life. Acetylcholine is a neurotransmitter inhibited, primarily, by acetylcholinesterase (AChE) and, secondarily, by butyrylcholinesterase (BuChE), which are considered to play a role in the pathology of AD [6]. Both enzymes are present in the brain and are detected in neurofibrillary tangles and neurotic plaques [7]. Despite the unknown etiology of AD, elevation of acetylcholine amounts through AChE enzyme inhibition has been accepted as the most effective treatment strategy against AD [8]. Therefore, AChE and BuChE inhibitors have become remarkable alternatives in the treatment of AD. However, the present drugs (e.g., tacrine, galantamine, donepezil and rivastigmine) (Figure 1) with AChE inhibitory activity possess some side effects and are effective only against the mild type of AD, and currently there is no drug with BuChE inhibitory activity available [9,10].
Benzimidazole possesses a diverse range of biological activities, such as anti-hypertensive [11,12], anti-Alzheimer’s [13], anti-microbial, anti-viral [14], anti-diabetic [15,16] and anti-cancer activities [17]. There are some drug molecules, such as benoxaprofen, albendazole, enviradine, bendamastine, omeprazole and astemizole, which contain a benzimidazole moiety in their skeleton (Figure 2) [18].
Pyrrole derivatives have been found to exhibit a wide range of biological activities, including anti-bacterial, anti-fungal, anti-viral, anti-inflammatory, analgesic, anti-tumor and anti-convulsant activities. Pyrrole-containing drugs, such as atorvastatin, are used to treat hypercholesterolemia [19], and tolmetin is used to treat osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis [20]. Nargenicin is an antibacterial drug that contains a pyrrole ring [21]. Prodigiosin is an anti-cancer compound that contains three pyrrole scaffolds [22]. Piperidine and its derivatives have great biological significance in medicinal chemistry and are widely used in the development of drugs for the treatment of various diseases. Their unique chemical properties and ability to interact with a variety of biological targets make them important scaffolds for drug design [23], including anti-cancer drugs [24,25,26,27,28], antibiotics [29], analgesics [30], antidepressants [31] and antioxidants [32]. Keeping in view the biological significance of benzimidazole, pyrrole and piperidine moieties, in this study, we designed and synthesized hybrid scaffolds of benzimidazole-bearing pyrroles and piperidines as potential inhibitors of AChE and BuChE for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease in the search for lead molecules, and the results obtained corroborated that these compounds could be considered as potential lead molecules for the development of improved AChE and BuChE inhibitors.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Chemistry

The synthesis of targeted benzimidazole-based pyrrole/piperidine derivatives (1–26) was achieved in a series of steps. Initially, 2-marcaptobenzimidazole (I) was reacted with differently substituted phenacyl bromides in ethanol and triethylamine, and then a reaction mixture was refluxed for 4 h to give S-substituted benzimidazole (II), which was further redissolved in a hydrazine hydrate solution while being stirred in acetic acid. After being refluxed for 3 h, the solvent was evaporated, and the resulting solid residue (III) was reacted in two different ways:
(1)
Substrate (III) was put in ethanol and triethylamine, followed by the addition of 1H-pyrrole-3-carbaldehyde. The reaction mixture was refluxed and stirred for 7 h to obtain targeted benzimidazole-based pyrrole derivatives (1–13).
(2)
Further, the intermediate (III) was reacted with piperidine-1-carbaldehyde in ethanol along with a catalytic amount of triethylamine, and the resulting solid residue was heated over a sand bath for 8 h to afford targeted benzimidazole-based piperidine derivatives (14–26) (Scheme 1).

2.2. In Vitro Acetylcholinesterase and Butyrylcholinesterase Activities

The synthesized scaffolds based on benzimidazole-bearing pyrroles/piperidines (1–26) were subjected to in vitro acetylcholinesterase and butyrylcholinesterase inhibitory activity assays. All the newly synthesized compounds showed good to moderate acetylcholinesterase and butyrylcholinesterase inhibitory activities. Target compounds (1–13) were screened in assays for cholinesterase enzyme inhibition and showed AChE activities in the range of IC50 = 19.44 ± 0.60 µM–36.05 ± 0.4 µM against allanzanthane (IC50 = 16.11 ± 0.33 µM) and galantamine (IC50 = 19.34 ± 0.62 µM) and varied BuChE inhibitory activities, with IC50 values in the range of 21.57 ± 0.61 µM–39.55 ± 0.03 µM. The results were compared with those of standard allanzanthane (IC50 = 18.14 ± 0.05 µM) and galantamine (IC50 = 21.45 ± 0.21 µM). Similarly, target compounds (14–26) were also subjected to in vitro AChE inhibitory activity assays, and the results obtained corroborated that all the compounds showed varied activities in the range of IC50 = 22.07 ± 0.13–42.01 ± 0.02 µM against allanzanthane (IC50 = 20.01 ± 0.12 µM) and galantamine (IC50 = 18.05 ± 0.31 µM) and varied BuChE inhibitory activities, with IC50 values in the range of 26.32 ± 0.13–47.03 ± 0.15 µM as compared to standard allanzanthane (IC50 = 18.14 ± 0.05 µM) and galantamine (IC50 = 21.45 ± 0.21 µM).

Structure–Activity Relationship (SAR) Studies for Acetylcholinesterase and Butyrylcholinesterase Activities

By inspecting the influence of various moieties (R1 and R2) on AChE and BuChE activities, SAR studies were established. Among the series (1–13), compound 10 (bearing a NO2 at the 5-position of the benzimidazole ring and a m-NO2 substitution on the aryl ring) emerged as the most potent inhibitor of AChE and BuChE enzymes. Furthermore, compound 2 (that has a –OCH3 group at the 5-position of the benzimidazole ring and a p-OCH3 substitution on the aryl ring) also showed great inhibitory potential against the targeted enzymes. However, an alteration in inhibitory potential was observed by changing the position of the –OCH3 group around the aryl ring. Therefore, compound 4 (that has a –OCH3 group at the 5-position of the benzimidazole ring and a o-OCH3 substitution on the aryl ring), which holds substituents of a similar nature but has the –OCH3 group in a different position on the aryl ring, demonstrated a lesser inhibition profile. Moreover, compound 8 (with an unsubstituted benzimidazole ring and a o-OCH3 substitutedaryl ring) showed great inhibitory potential when compared to compound 9 (with an unsubstituted benzimidazole ring and p-OCH3 substituted in the aryl ring), indicating that a change in the position of the substituent around the aryl ring may cause an alteration to the inhibitory potential (Table 1).
It was noteworthy that analogs (10–13) bearing a –NO2 substituent at the 5-position of the benzimidazole ring and various groups, like –NO2, –Ph, –OCH3 and –CH3, at the variable position of the other aryl ring were identified as encouraging the inhibition of AChE and BuChE enzymes. Among these analogs, analog 10 was shown as a potent inhibitor of the targeted enzymes. Further, the comparison of analog 12 (which has a 5-NO2 substitution at the benzimidazole ring and a p-OCH3 substituted at the aryl ring) with compounds 11 (which has a 5-NO2 substitution at the benzimidazole ring and a p-Ph moiety at the aryl ring) and 13 (which has a 5-NO2 substitution at the benzimidazole ring and a p-CH3 group on the aryl ring) demonstrated that analog 12 showed a better inhibitory potential than its counterparts. This difference in inhibitory potential may perhaps be owing to the different nature of the attached substituents around the aryl ring, which cause an alteration in the inhibitory potential (Table 1).
Among the series (14–26), compound 26 (which has a NO2 at the 5-position of the benzimidazole ring and a m-NO2 substitution on the aryl ring) emerged as the most active inhibitor of AChE and BuChE enzymes, followed by compound 17, bearing a OCH3 at the 5-position of the benzimidazole ring and a m-NO2 substitution on the aryl ring). Compounds 15 and 16, which have the same 5-OCH3 group on the benzimidazole ring and o-OCH3 and p-OCH3 substitutions on the aryl ring, also exhibited good inhibition against both AChE and BuChE. When the substituents on the aryl ring were replaced by p-CH3 and p-phenyl in compounds 18 and 14, respectively, a slight change in their inhibitory activities was observed. Compound 20, bearing a benzimidazole ring and a m-NO2 group on the phenyl ring showed good inhibition. When the m-NO2 group was replaced by p-CH3, o-OCH3 and p-OCH3 in compounds 19, 21 and 22, respectively, a decline in inhibitory activities was observed. Among compounds 23–26 (which have the same 5-NO2 substitution at the benzimidazole ring but different substituents, like p-Ph, p-OCH3, p-CH3 and m-NO2, at the phenyl ring), compound 26 exhibited significant inhibitory potential, while the remaining three compounds exhibited inhibition levels in the following order: 24 > 25 > 23 (Table 1). The variation in inhibitory potential could be attributed to the distinct characteristics of the substituents attached around the aryl ring, which potentially led to alterations in inhibitory effectiveness.

2.3. In Silico Molecular Docking Approach

2.3.1. Docking Study for Benzimidazole-Based Pyrrole Analogs

Molecular docking studies were performed for the compounds (bioactive moieties) in the synthesized series. Different software packages were used in order to sketch out the molecules in the protein complexes, namely, the auto dock tool, Pymol (2.5.2) and the Discovery studio visualizer (DSV). Our research groups have already worked on a similar package while using varied heterocyclic moieties [33,34,35]. Ligands were docked in the same places on the amino acids, where co-crystallized ligands were present in order to check the binding interactions of the synthesized moieties. For the purpose of docking, proteins were downloaded from the RCSB protein data bank (PDB) using the code 1ACL for AChE and 1P0P for BuChE, and both the proteins and ligand molecules were prepared in the DSV and the files were transferred to the auto dock tool, where polar hydrogens and charges were added, and the configuration files were saved in PDBQT format. Upon completion of these steps, the docking procedures were run and all the poses were visualized. After the successful completion of the procedures, nine different poses were obtained for each molecule along with binding affinities. Among these, the poses with very negative values (binding affinity) were selected. All the biologically potent molecules were docked into the binding pocket of the corresponding protein (Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure 10). Docking scores and binding distances were also calculated (Table 2). Two- and three-dimensional binding visualizations are shown in the figures below.

2.3.2. Docking Study for Benzimidazole-Based Piperidine Analogs

The selected compounds (bioactive moieties) in the synthesized series were subjected to molecular docking experiments. To draw out the molecules in the protein complexes, various software packages were employed, including the auto dock tool, PyMol and Discovery studio visualizer (DSV). Our research groups have previously worked on a comparable package with other heterocyclic moieties [33,34,35]. This type of study is used to investigate protein–ligand interactions (PLIs) and is one of the simplest ways to detect the fundamental interaction of molecules with a certain amino acid in a protein complex. Ligands were docked in the same amino acid position as the co-crystallized ligand to test the binding interactions of the synthesized moieties. Proteins were retrieved using the code 1ACL for AChE and 1P0P for BuChE from the RCSB protein data bank (PDB) for docking purposes, and both protein and ligand molecules were created in the DSV before being transferred to the auto dock tool, where polar hydrogen and charges were added and configuration files were produced in PDBQT format. After completing these steps, the docking operations were conducted, and all the positions were visualized. After successfully completing the task, nine different poses for each molecule were obtained along with binding affinities (Table 3). Among them, the pose with the most negative value (binding affinity) was chosen for binding visualization. All the potent molecules were docked into the binding pocket of the corresponding protein. Docking scores and binding distances were also calculated. Two- and three-dimensional representations are shown in the figures below.

2.4. ADME Analysis

Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism and Excretion (ADME) analysis was conducted to evaluate the drug likeness properties of the synthesized potent benzimidazole-bearing pyrrole and piperidine hybrid derivatives using an online tool, Swiss ADME (Web online server). Significant outcomes of the ADME analysis further enhanced the molecular docking and biological activity studies. The ADME analysis also showed that marketed drugs violate drug likeness, whereas the potent compounds of the current novel series were reported with violations. These rules include PAINS, log Kp, lead likeness, Brenk alert, Veber, Ghose, Lipinski, Egan, bioavailability score and Muegge violations. The active compounds 2, 4, 10 and 13 of the novel series exhibited excellent inhibitory potency and showed remarkable drug likeness properties, which are illustrated in Figure 11, Figure 12, Figure 13 and Figure 14.

3. Material and Methods

3.1. General Information

All the chemicals were purchased from Sigma Aldrich®, St. Louis, MO, USA. For NMR experiments, an Advance Bruker AM-500 MHz instrument was used. To obtain high-resolution electron impact mass spectra (HR-EIMS), a Finnigan MAT-311A (Bremen, Germany) mass spectrometer was used. Thin-layer chromatography (TLC) was performed on pre-coated silica gel aluminum plates (Kieselgel 60, 254, E. Merck, Darmstadt, Germany). To visualize the chromatograms, UV at 254 and 365 nm was used. The solvent that was used for the reaction was of analytical grade (Merck, Germany), while commercial solvents (for washing purposes) were purchased from a local supplier and were distilled before use.

3.2. General Procedure for the Synthesis of Benzimidazole-Based Pyrrole/Piperidine Derivatives

Targeted pyrrole/piperidine derivatives (1–26) based on benzimidazole were afforded via several steps. 2-Marcaptobenzimidazole (I, 1 equivalent) was treated with variously substituted phenacyl bromides (1 equivalent) in ethanol (10 mL) and triethylamine (catalyst), and the resulting reaction mixture was then refluxed for 4 h to offer S-substituted benzimidazole (II, 1 equivalent), which was then further redissolved in hydrazine hydrate (5 mL) solution while being agitated in acetic acid (10 mL). The solvent was evaporated after 3 h of refluxing, and the resultant solid residue (III) underwent two distinct reactions. Substrate (III, 1 equivalent) was first placed in ethanol (10 mL) and triethylamine (catalyst), and then 1H-pyrrole-3-carbaldehyde (1 equivalent) was added. For seven hours, the reaction mixture was refluxed and stirred to form the desired pyrrole derivatives (1–13) based on benzimidazole. Additionally, for the benzimidazole-based piperidine derivatives (14–26), the intermediate (III, 1 equivalent) was again reacted with piperidine-1-carbaldehyde (1 equivalent) in ethanol (10 mL) along with catalytic amounts of triethylamine.

3.3. Spectral Analysis (1–26)

3.3.1. 2-(((E)-2-(((E)-(1H-pyrrol-3-yl)methylene)hydrazono)-2-(p-tolyl)ethyl)thio)-5-methoxy-1H-benzo[d]imidazole (1)

Yield: 62%, 1H-NMR (600 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 7.71 (d, J = 7.8 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.51 (m, J = 7.6, 1.7 Hz 1H, NH), 7.49 (m, J = 7.6 Hz, J = 1.3 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.30 (d, J = 7.9 Hz, 2Hs, Ar-H), 6.99 (d, J = 7.4 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 6.8 (m, J = 7.8 Hz, J = 3.1, 2Hs, NH), 6.1 (t, J = 7.3 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 5.1 (s, 2H, NH), 3.79 (s, 3H), 3.20 (s, 2H), 2.30 (s, 3H). 13C-NMR (150 MHz, DMSO-d6): 167.9, 155.7, 145.7, 139.2, 138.9, 133.0, 130.4, 129.4, 128.4, 128.4, 127, 127, 122.9, 120.4, 119.8, 116.2, 115, 108.2, 55.8, 55.8, 37.7, 37.7, 21.17, 21.17. HREI-MS: m/z calcd for C22H21N5OS [M]+ 403.1698, found 403.1707.

3.3.2. 2-(((E)-2-(((E)-(1H-pyrrol-3-yl)methylene)hydrazono)-2-(4-methoxyphenyl)ethyl)thio)-5-methoxy-1H-benzo[d]imidazole (2)

Yield: 60%, 1H-NMR (600 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 7.9 (d, J = 7.4 Hz, 2Hs, Ar-H), 7.52 (s, 1H, Ar-H), 7.49 (dd, J = 7.8, 1.8 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.14 (s, 1H, Ar-H), 7.08 (d, J = 7.3 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 6.91 (d = 7.2 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 5.9 (d, J = 7.3 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 5.1 (s, 2H, NH), 3.70 (s, 3H), 3.16 (s, 2H). 13C-NMR (150 MHz, DMSO-d6): 164.7, 156.4, 149.3, 147.4, 140.4, 139.5, 131.3, 131.3, 129.2, 129.2, 127.3, 127.3, 122.3, 120.4, 119.4, 116.2, 111.2, 108.1, 100.4, 55.2, 37.3, 21.5. HREI-MS: m/z calcd for C22H21N5OS [M]+ 419.1698, found 419.1707.

3.3.3. 2-(((E)-2-(((E)-(1H-pyrrol-3-yl)methylene)hydrazono)-2-([1,1′-biphenyl]-4-yl)ethyl)thio)-5-methoxy-1H-benzo[d]imidazole (3)

Yield: 64%, 1H-NMR (600 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 12.11 (s, 1H, NH), 8.78 (d, J = 7.4 Hz, 2H, Ar-H), 8.05 (d, J = 7.4 Hz, 2H, Ar-H), 7.93 (d, J = 7.5 Hz, 2H, Ar-H), 7.87 (d, J = 7.3 Hz, 2H, Ar-H), 7.72 (s, 1H), 7.49 (d, J = 7.6 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.40 (m, J = 7.6, 1.3 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.19 (s, 1H, Ar-H), 7.08 (d, J = 7.4 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.03 (m, J = 7.4, 1.3 Hz, 2H, Ar-H), 6.92 (d, J = 7.4 Hz), 6.84 (s, 2H, NH), 4.80 (s, 3H), 3.78 (s, 2H). 13C-NMR (150 MHz, DMSO-d6): 164.5, 156.5, 149.5, 147.2, 143.2, 140.7, 139.8, 132.7, 131.5, 129.5, 129.4, 129.4, 129.4, 128.4, 128.4, 127.8, 127.8, 127.5, 122.5, 120.6, 119.6, 116.6, 111.6, 108.6, 100.6, 55.5, 37.4; HREI-MS: m/z calcd for C27H23N5OS [M]+ 465.1698, found 467.1707.

3.3.4. 2-(((E)-2-(((E)-(1H-pyrrol-3-yl)methylene)hydrazono)-2-(2-methoxyphenyl)ethyl)thio)-5-methoxy-1H-benzo[d]imidazole (4)

Yield: 61%, 1H-NMR (600 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 7.61 (m, J = 7.6, 1.3 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.49 (s, 1H, Ar-H), 7.46 (d, J = 7.4, 1H, Ar-H), 7.42 (m, J = 7.8, 1.4 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.29 (m, J = 7.4, 1.3 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.16 (s, 1H, Ar-H), 7.01 (m, J = 7.8, 1.7 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 6.9 (d, J = 7.4, 1.3, 2H, Ar-H), 6.0 (d, J = 7.4, 1H, Ar-H), 5.0 (s, 2H, NH), 3.90 (s, 3H), 3.12 (s, 2H). 13C-NMR (150 MHz, DMSO-d6): 147.2, 122.7, 119.3, 139.3, 131.3, 120.5, 108.4, 156.4, 160.4, 100.4, 116.4, 117.3, 111.4, 111.4, 131.6, 132.1, 121.1, 38.1, 55.9, 55.9, 149.3, 164.0 HREI-MS: m/z calcd for C22H21N5OS [M]+ 419.1698, found 419.1707.

3.3.5. 2-(((E)-2-(((E)-(1H-pyrrol-3-yl)methylene)hydrazono)-2-([1,1′-biphenyl]-4-yl)ethyl)thio)-1H-benzo[d]imidazole (5)

Yield: 65%, 1H-NMR (600 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 7.90 (d, J = 7.4, 2H, Ar-H), 7.88 (d, J = 7.6, 2H, Ar-H), 7.61 (m, J = (7.7, 1.3 Hz, 2H, Ar-H), 7.5 (m, J = 7.6, 1.3 Hz, 2H, Ar-H), 7.49 (m, J = 7.5, 1.3, 2H, Ar-H), 7.43 (m, J = 7.5, 1.7 Hz, 2H, Ar-H), 7.24 (m, J = 7.5, 1.3 Hz, 2H, Ar-H), 6.8 (m, 2H, Ar-H), 6.2 (d, J = 7.3 Hz, 1H, ArH), 5.2 (s, 2H, NH), 3.14 (s, 2H). 13C-NMR (150 MHz, DMSO-d6): 147.2, 143.2, 140.7, 138.8, 138.8, 132.8, 129.8, 128.2, 128.2, 127.7, 127.7, 123.8, 123.8, 122.5, 120.5, 119.7, 115.6, 115.6, 108.4. HREI-MS: m/z calcd for C26H21N5OS [M]+ 45,355.198, found 455.5507.

3.3.6. 2-(((E)-2-(((E)-(1H-pyrrol-3-yl)methylene)hydrazono)-2-(3-nitrophenyl)ethyl)thio)-1H-benzo[d]imidazole (6)

Yield: 69%, 1H-NMR (600 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 8.54 (m, J = 7.8, 1.4 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 8.36, (m, J = 7.8, 1.3 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 8.16 (m, J = 7.8, 1.2 Hz, 1H, Ar-H, 7.80 (m, J = 7.4, 1.2 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.61 (m, J = 7.4, 1.2 Hz, 2H, Ar-H), 7.51 (s, 1H), 7.23 (m, J = 7.1, 1.7 Hz, 2H, Ar-H), 6.8 (d, J = 7.3 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 6.7 (t, J = 7.3 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 5.9 (d, J = 7.5 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 3.14 (s, 1H). 13C-NMR (150 MHz, DMSO-d6): 168.0, 156.3, 148.0, 139.0, 138.7, 134.8, 134.6, 132.9, 132.9, 129.6, 124.4, 123.7, 122.2, 120.8, 119.7, 115.6, 115.6, 108.9, 39.1. HREI-MS: m/z calcd for C20H16N6O2S [M]+ 404.198, found 405.5507.

3.3.7. 2-(((E)-2-(((E)-(1H-pyrrol-3-yl)methylene)hydrazono)-2-(p-tolyl)ethyl)thio)-1H-benzo[d]imidazole (7)

Yield: 72%, 1H-NMR (600 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 7.89 (d, J = 7.8 Hz, 2H, Ar-H), 7.86 (d, J = 7.9 Hz, 2H, Ar-H), 7.60 (d, J = 7.7 Hz, 2H, Ar-H), 7.56 (m, J = 7.4 Hz, 1.9 Hz, 2H, Ar-H), 7.54 (m, J = 7.8 Hz, 1.9 Hz, 2H, Ar-H), 7.52 (s, 1H, Ar-H), 7.44 (m, J = 7.6 Hz, 1.8 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.24 (d, J = 7.9 Hz, 2H, Ar-H). 13C-NMR (150 MHz, DMSO-d6): 164.7, 149.5, 147.8, 143.8, 140.9, 138.7, 138.7, 132.7, 129.8, 129.8, 129.3, 129.3, 128.1, 128.1, 127.8, 127.8, 127.7, 123.1, 123.1, 122.9, 120.7, 119.7, 115.2, 115.2, 108.2 HREI-MS: m/z calcd for C21H19N S [M]+ 405.198, found 405.5507.

3.3.8. 2-(((E)-2-(((E)-(1H-pyrrol-3-yl)methylene)hydrazono)-2-(2-methoxyphenyl)ethyl)thio)-1H-benzo[d]imidazole (8)

Yield: 70%, 1H-NMR (600 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 7.60 (m, J = 7.7, 1.5 Hz, 2H, Ar-H), 7.57 (m, J = 7.6, 1.3 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.52 (s, 1H, Ar-H), 7.43 (m, J = 7.4, 1.3 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.26 (m, J = 7.6, 1.7 Hz, 2H, Ar-H), 6.99 (m, J = 7.6, 1.9 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 6.7 (m, J = 7.8, 1.6 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 6.2 (d, J = 7.6 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 5.0 (s, 2H, NH), 3.86 (s, 2H), 3.20 (s, 3H). 13C-NMR (150 MHz, DMSO-d6): 164.5, 160.8, 149.9, 147.2, 138.7, 138.7, 132.1, 131.8, 123.7, 123.7, 122.7, 121.8, 120.7, 119.6, 117.5, 115.2, 115.6, 111.7, 108.6. HREI-MS: m/z calcd for C21H19N S [M]+ 389.138, found 389.1507.

3.3.9. 2-(((E)-2-(((E)-(1H-pyrrol-3-yl)methylene)hydrazono)-2-(4-methoxyphenyl)ethyl)thio)-1H-benzo[d]imidazole (9)

Yield: 62%, 1H-NMR (600 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 7.89 (d, J = 7.8 Hz, 2H, Ar-H), 7.61 (m, J = 7.6, 1.5 Hz, 2H, Ar-H), 7.23 (m, J = 7.9, 1.9 Hz, 2H, Ar-H), 7.10 (d, J = 7.5 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 6.8 (m, J = 7.6, 2.1 Hz, 2H, Ar-H), 6.0 (d, J = 7.6 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 5.0 (s, 2H, NH, Ar-H), 3.90 (s, 3H), 3.20 (s, 2H). 13C-NMR (150 MHz, DMSO-d6): 164.8, 162.7, 149.5, 147.7, 138.8, 138.8, 128.8, 128.8, 126.2, 123.1, 123.1, 122.6, 120.5, 119.7, 115.4, 115.4, 114.6, 114.6, 108.4, 55.6, 37.8 HREI-MS: m/z calcd for C20H15N7O4 S [M]+ 449.038, found 449.94.

3.3.10. 2-(((E)-2-(((E)-(1H-pyrrol-3-yl)methylene)hydrazono)-2-(3-nitrophenyl)ethyl)thio)-5-nitro-1H-benzo[d]imidazole (10)

Yield: 68%, 1H-NMR (600 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 8.54 (s, 1H, Ar-H) 8.40 (s, 1H, Ar-H), 8.36 (d, J = 7.5, 2.8 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 8.17 (m, J = 7.9, 3.1 Hz, NH), 8.12 (m, J = 7.3, 1.8 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.80 (t, J = 7.5 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.66 (d, J = 7.9 Hz, 1H, NH), 7.55 (s, 1H, Ar-H), 6.7 (m, J = 7.5, 2.1 Hz, 2H, Ar-H), 6.1 (d, J = 7.6, 1H, Ar-H), 5.1 (s, 2H, NH, Ar-H), 3.18 (s, 2H). 13C-NMR (150 MHz, DMSO-d6): 171.7, 164.5, 149.5, 147.4, 145.4, 142.5, 137.3, 132.2, 132.2, 131.2, 131.2, 126.1, 125.3, 122.8, 120.3, 119.7, 118.9, 116.2, 112.8, 109.2, 45.7. HREI-MS: m/z calcd for C20H15N7O4 S [M]+ 449.038, found 449.94.

3.3.11. 2-(((E)-2-(((E)-(1H-pyrrol-3-yl)methylene)hydrazono)-2-([1,1′-biphenyl]-4-yl)ethyl)thio)-5-nitro-1H-benzo[d]imidazole (11)

Yield: 67%, 1H-NMR (600 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 8.40 (s, 1H, Ar-H), 8.1 (d, J = 7.6 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.88 (d, J = 7.6 Hz, 2H, Ar-H), 7.86 (d, J = 7.8 Hz, 2H, Ar-H), 7.70 (d, J = 7.6 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.54 (m, J = 7.5, 2.8 Hz, 2H, Ar-H), 7.53 (m, J = 7.7, 1.8 Hz, 2H, Ar-H), 7.54 (s, 1H, Ar-H), 7.41 (m, 7.8, 1.9 Hz, 2H, Ar-H), 6.5 (m, J = 7.4, 1.8 Hz 2H, Ar-H), 6.2 (d, J = 7.5 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 5.1 (s, 2H, NH Ar-H), 3.18 (s, 2H). 13C-NMR (150 MHz, DMSO-d6): 164.5, 149.4, 147.7, 145.6, 144.6, 143.4, 140.5, 139.7, 132.8, 129.8, 129.7, 129.8, 129.7, 128.8, 128.6, 127.7, 127.7, 127.7, 122.9, 120.7, 119.7, 118.7, 116.7, 112.6, 108.7, 37.5. HREI-MS: m/z calcd for C26H20N6O2 S [M]+ 480.138, found 480.59.

3.3.12. 2-(((E)-2-(((E)-(1H-pyrrol-3-yl)methylene)hydrazono)-2-(p-tolyl)ethyl)thio)-5-methoxy-1H-benzo[d]imidazole (12)

Yield: 65%, 1H-NMR (600 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 8.38 (s, 1H, Ar-H), 8.12 (d, J = 7.5 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.93 (d, J = 7.4 Hz, 2H, Ar-H), 7.68 (d, 7.3 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.53 (s, 1H, Ar-H), 7.11 (d, J = 7.5 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 6.7 (m, J = 7.6, 1.8 Hz, 2H, Ar-H), 5.9 (d, J = 7.5 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 5.1 (s, 2H, NH, Ar-H), 3.84 (s, 3H), 3.18 (s, 2H). 13C-NMR (150 MHz, DMSO-d6): 171.7, 162.9, 149.4, 147.1, 145.0, 142.5, 137.3, 135.3, 132.2, 126.3, 122.9, 120.4, 118.9, 118.6, 116.1, 114.4, 114.4, 112.9, 109.2, 55.8, 45.6. HREI-MS: m/z calcd for C21H18N6O34S [M]+ 434.1, found 434.4.

3.3.13. 2-(((E)-2-(((E)-(1H-pyrrol-3-yl)methylene)hydrazono)-2-(p-tolyl)ethyl)thio)-5-nitro-1H-benzo[d]imidazole (13)

Yield: 70%, 1H-NMR (600 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 8.40 (s, 1H, Ar-H), 8.13 (d, J = 7.4 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.74 (d, J = 7.5 Hz, 2H, Ar-H), 7.52 (s, 1H, Ar-H), 7.30 (d, J = 7.6 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 6.5 (m, 2H, Ar-H), 5.9 (d, J = 7.5 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 5.1 (s, 2H, NH, Ar-H), 3.18 (s, 2H), 2.84 (s, 3H). 13C-NMR (150 MHz, DMSO-d6): 147.8, 122.8, 119.7, 164.8, 149.7, 145.5, 144.8, 140.8, 139.7, 131.7, 129.6, 129.6, 127.1, 127.1, 120.1, 118.7, 116.2, 112.2, 108.2, 37.6, 21.5. HREI-MS: m/z calcd for C21H18N6O2S [M]+ 418.1, found 418.4.

3.3.14. 2-(((E)-2-([1,1′-biphenyl]-4-yl)-2-(((E)-piperidin-1-ylmethylene)hydrazono)ethyl)thio)-5-methoxy-1H-benzo[d]imidazole (14)

Yield: 63%, 1H NMR (600 MHz, DMSO-d6):δ 7.59 (m, 1H, Ar-H), 7.52 (s, 1H, Ar-H), 7.47 (d, J = 7.6 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.42 (m, J = 7.7, 1.9 Hz 1H, Ar-H), 7.30 (m, J = 7.4, 1.7 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.17 (d, J = 7.4 Hz 1H, Ar-H), 7.0 (d, J = 7.6 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.4 (m, J = 7.6, 1.9 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 5.1 (s, 1H, NH, Ar-H), 3.86 (s, 1H), 3.52 (dd, J = 7.6, 1.9 Hz, 3H), 1.60 (dd, 7.8, 1.7 Hz 1H), 1.56 (dd, 7.8, 1.8 Hz 2H). 13C-NMR (150 MHz, DMSO-d6): 164.5, 156.2, 155.1, 147.4, 143.7, 140.8, 139.8, 132.8, 131.3, 129.7, 129.8, 129.6, 129.7, 128.6, 128.6, 127.6, 127.6, 127.6, 116.3, 111.7, 100.9, 48.8, 48.6, 25.6, 25.6, 24.4, 37.6, 55.7. HREI-MS: m/z calcd for C28H29N5OS [M]+ 483.2, found 483.4.

3.3.15. 5-methoxy-2-(((E)-2-(2-methoxyphenyl)-2-(((E)-piperidin-1-ylmethylene)hydrazono) ethyl)thio)-1H-benzo[d]imidazole (15)

Yield: 66%, 1H-NMR (600 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 7.60 (m, J = 7.6, 1.9 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.51 (s, 1H, Ar-H), 7.45 (d, J = 7.6 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.43 (m, J = 7.4, 1.6 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.30 (m, J = 7.7, 1.9 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.17 (d, J = 7.4 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.0 (d, 7.6 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.4 (m, J = 7.8, 1.9 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 5.1 (s, 1H, NH, Ar-H), 3.86 (s, 1H), 3.51 (m, 3H), 1.60 (m, 1H), 1.56 (m, 2H). 13C-NMR (150 MHz, DMSO-d6): 164.7, 160.8, 156.4, 155.6, 147.5, 139. 1, 132.8, 131.7, 131.8, 121.6, 117.4, 116.7, 111.8, 111.9, 100.7, 55.7, 55.7, 48.8, 48.8, 38.7, 25.7, 24.6, 25.8; HREI-MS: m/z calcd for C23H27N5OS [M]+ 437.2, found 437.4.

3.3.16. 5-methoxy-2-(((E)-2-(4-methoxyphenyl)-2-(((E)-piperidin-1ylmethylene) hydrazono)ethyl)thio)-1H-benzo[d]imidazole (16)

Yield: 68%, 1H-NMR (600 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 7.60 (m, 1H, Ar-H), 7.5 1 (s, 1H, Ar-H), 7.45 (d, J = 7.6 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.43 (m, J = 7.8, 1.7 Hz 1H, Ar-H), 7.30 (m J = 7.7, 1.8 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.17 (d, J = 7.4 Hz 1H, Ar-H), 7.0 (d, J = 7.6 Hz, 1.4 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.4 (m, J = 7.8, 1.9 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 5.1 (s, 1H, NH, Ar-H), 3.86 (s, 3H), 3.51 (dd, J = 7.8, 2.9 Hz, 1H), 1.60 (dd, J = 7.7, 1.9 Hz, 1H), 1.56 (m J = 7.6, 1.8 Hz, 2H). 13C-NMR (150 MHz, DMSO-d6): 164.5, 162.8, 156.2, 155.1, 147.2, 139.8, 131.3, 128.8, 128.8, 126.4, 116.5, 114.6, 114.6, 111.7, 100.6, 55.6, 55.6, 48.8, 48.9, 37.7, 25.7, 24.2, 25.7. HREI-MS: m/z calcd for C23H27N5OS [M]+ 437.2, found 437.4.

3.3.17. 5-methoxy-2-(((E)-2-(3-nitrophenyl)-2-(((E)-piperidin-1-ylmethylene)hydrazono)ethyl) thio)-1H-benzo[d]imidazole (17)

Yield: 60%, 1H NMR (600 MHz, DMSO-d6):δ 7.93 (d, J = 7.6 Hz Ar-H), 7.51 (s, 1H, Ar-H), 7.46 (d, J = 7.6 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.17 (d, J = 7.4 Hz 1H, Ar-H), 7.08 (d, J = 7.5 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.0 (d, J = 7.6 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 5.1 (s, 1H, NH, Ar-H), 3.86 (s, 3H), 3.51 (m, J = 7.8, 1.9 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 3.16 (s, 2H), 1.61 (m, J = 7.9, 1.7 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 1.56 (m, 2H). 13C-NMR (150 MHz, DMSO-d6): 164.8, 156.5, 155.6, 147.8, 139.7, 134.8, 134.8, 131.6, 131.4, 126.6, 125.7, 116.0, 111.7, 100.6, 55.7, 48.8, 48.8, 37.8, 25.6, 25.6, 24.3. HREI-MS: m/z calcd for C22H24N6O3S [M]+ 452.2, found 452.4.

3.3.18. 5-methoxy-2-(((E)-2-(((E)-piperidin-1-ylmethylene)hydrazono)-2-(p-tolyl)ethyl)thio)-1H-benzo[d]imidazole (18)

Yield: 63%, 1H-NMR (600 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 8.54 (m, 1H, Ar-H), 8.34 (m, 1H, Ar-H), 7.80 (t, 1H, Ar-H), 7.50 (s, 1H, Ar-H), 7.46 (d, J = 7.5 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.0 (d, J = 7.5 Hz 1H, Ar-H), 5.2 (s, 1H, NH, Ar-H), 3.53 (m J = 7.8, 1.9 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 3.16 (s, 2Hs), 1.61 (m, J = 7.7, 1.6 Hz, 1H 1H), 1.56 (m J = 7.7, 1.9 Hz, 1H, Ar-H). 13C-NMR (150 MHz, DMSO-d6): 164.5, 156.3, 155.4, 147.6, 140.6, 139.7, 131.5, 131.8, 129.7, 129.7, 127.8, 127.8, 116.6, 111.7, 100.7, 55.7, 48.8, 48.0, 37.8, 25.9, 25.9, 24.6, 21.4. HREI-MS: m/z calcd for C23H27N5OS [M]+ 421.2, found 421.4

3.3.19. 2-(((E)-2-(((E)-piperidin-1-ylmethylene)hydrazono)-2-(p-tolyl)ethyl)thio)-1H-benzo[d]imidazole (19)

Yield: 66%, 1H-NMR (600 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 7.74 (d, J = 7.5 Hz, Ar-H), 7.51 (d, J = 7.5, 1H), 7.36 (d, J = 7.7 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.16 (d, J = 7.4 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.02 (d, J = 7.5 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 5.1 (s, 1H, NH, Ar-H), 3.86 (s, 3H), 3.51 (m, J = 7.6, 1.7 Hz, 1H, 2H), 3.16 (s, 2H), 1.60 (m, J = 7.6, 1.3 Hz, 1H), 1.54 (m, J = 7.2, 1.6 Hz, 1H, 2H). 13C-NMR (150 MHz, DMSO-d6): 164.0, 155.0, 147.1, 140.7, 139.9, 138.9, 138.9, 131.2, 131.0, 129.1, 129.1, 127.0, 127.0, 123.0, 123.0, 116.2, 115.5, 48.7, 48.7, 37.7, 25.7, 25.7, 24.2, 21.3.HREI-MS: m/z calcd for C22H25N5S [M]+ 391.2, found 391.4

3.3.20. 2-(((E)-2-(3-nitrophenyl)-2-(((E)-piperidin-1-ylmethylene)hydrazono)ethyl)thio)-1H-benzo[d]imidazole (20)

Yield: 65%, 1H-NMR (600 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 8.54 (d, J = 7.5 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 8.34 (m, 1H, Ar-H), 8.17 (m, 1H, Ar-H), 7.80 (m, 2H, Ar-H), 7.61 (d, J = 7.5 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.28 (m, J = 7.2, 1.6 Hz 1H, Ar-H), 5.1 (s, 1H, NH Ar-H), 3.51 (m, J = 7.2, 1.9 Hz, 2H), 3.15 (s, 2H), 1.60 (m, J = 7.2, 1.3 Hz, 1H), 1.56 (m, J = 7.3, 1.3 Hz, 2H). 13C-NMR (150 MHz, DMSO-d6): 164.8, 155.0, 147.1, 140.7, 138.9, 138.9, 138.9, 134.3, 134.9, 131.2, 131.0, 126.1, 125.1, 123.0, 123.0, 116.2, 115.5, 48.7, 48.7, 37.7, 25.7, 25.7, 24.2, 21.3. HREI-MS: m/z calcd for C21H22N6O2S [M]+ 422.2, found 422.4.

3.3.21. 2-(((E)-2-(2-methoxyphenyl)-2-(((E)-piperidin-1-ylmethylene)hydrazono)ethyl)thio)-1H-benzo[d]imidazole (21)

Yield: 62%, 1H-NMR (600 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 7.60 (m, 2H, Ar-H), 7.57 (m, J = 7.5, 1.6 Hz, 1H), 7.46 (m, J = 7.5, 1.3 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.29 (m, J = 7.5 Hz, 1.7 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.24 (m, J = 7.2 Hz, 1.7 Hz, 2H, Ar-H), 7.0 (d, J = 7.5 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 5.1 (s, 1H, NH), 3.86 (s, 3H), 3.51 (m J = 7.2, 1.6 Hz, 2H), 3.16 (s, 2H), 1.60 (m, J = 7.2, 1.6 Hz, 1H), 1.54 (m, J = 7.2, 1.6 Hz, 2H). 13C-NMR (150 MHz, DMSO-d6): 164.3, 160.3, 155.3, 147.3, 140.7, 138.8, 138.7, 138.7, 132.1, 131.1, 131.1, 123.2, 123.2, 123.2, 121.2, 117.3, 116.3, 115.3, 111.4, 55.4, 48.4, 48.4, 37.4, 25.4, 25.6, 24.1, HREI-MS: m/z calcd for C22H25N5OS [M]+ 407.2, found 407.18.

3.3.22. 2-(((E)-2-(4-methoxyphenyl)-2-(((E)-piperidin-1-ylmethylene)hydrazono)ethyl)thio)-1H-benzo[d]imidazole (22)

Yield: 61%, 1H-NMR (600 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 7.94 (d, J = 7.5 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.60 (m, 2H, Ar-H), 7.7 (m, J = 7.3 Hz, 1.2 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.10 (d, J = 7.5 Hz, 2H, Ar-H), 5.1 (s, 1H, NH), 3.85 (s, 3Hs), 3.51 (m, J = 7.3 Hz, 1.2 Hz, 2H), 3.15 (s, 2H), 1.60 (m, J = 7.3 Hz, 1.4 Hz, 1H), 1.56 (m, J = 7.9 Hz, 1.2 Hz, 2H). 13C-NMR (150 MHz, DMSO-d6): 164.5, 162.8, 155.1, 147.2, 138.4, 128.5, 128.5, 126.4, 123.4, 123.1, 115.3, 115.3, 114.3, 114.3, 55.8, 48.7, 48.7, 37.7, 25.6, 25.6, 24.1. HREI-MS: m/z calcd for C22H25N5OS [M]+ 407.2, found 407.18

3.3.23. 2-(((E)-2-([1,1′-biphenyl]-3-yl)-2-(((E)-piperidin-1-ylmethylene)hydrazono)ethyl)thio)-5-nitro-1H-benzo[d]imidazole (23)

Yield: 63%, 1H-NMR (600 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 8.44 (d, J = 7.5 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 8.14 (d, J = 7.5, 1H, Ar-H), 8.09 (s, 1H, Ar-H), 7.96 (m, J = 7.4 Hz, 1.8 Hz, 2H, Ar-H), 7.86 (m, J = 7.9 Hz, 1.3 Hz 2H, Ar-H), 7.61 (d, J = 7.5 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.53 (m, J = 7.4 Hz, 1.5 Hz, 2H, Ar-H), 7.5 (m, J = 7.4 Hz, 1.3 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.51 (d, J = 7.5 Hz, 1H), 7.42 (m, J = 7.3 Hz, 1.6 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 5.1 (s, 1H, NH, Ar-H), 3.51 (m, J = 7.1 Hz, 1.2 Hz, 2H), 3.15 (s, 2H), 1.60 (m, J = 7.4 Hz, 1.3 Hz 1H), 1.56 (m, J = 7.6 Hz, 1.9 Hz, 2H). 13C-NMR (150 MHz, DMSO-d6): 164.4, 155.1, 147.4, 145.3, 144.4, 141.8, 140.9, 139.8, 134.8, 130.1, 127.8, 127.8, 127.8, 118.7, 37.8, 25.8, 25.9, 24.8. HREI-MS: m/z calcd for C27H26N6O2S [M]+ 498.2, found 489.68

3.3.24. 2-(((E)-2-(4-methoxyphenyl)-2-(((E)-piperidin-1-ylmethylene)hydrazono)ethyl)thio)-5-nitro-1H-benzo[d]imidazole (24)

Yield: 58%, 1H-NMR (600 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 8.44 (d, J = 7.5 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 8.10 (d, J = 7.5 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.93 (d, J = 7.5, 1H), 7.67 (d, J = 7.5 Hz, 1H, Ar-H), 7.10 (d, J = 7.5 Hz, 2H, Ar-H), 7.51 (s, 2H, Ar-H), 5.1 (s, 1H, NH, Ar-H), 3.85 (s, 3Hs), 3.51 (m, J = 7.2 Hz, 1.9 Hz, 2H), 3.15 (s, 2Hs), 1.60 (m, J = 7.4 Hz, 1.3 Hz, 1H), 1.56 (m, J = 7.2 Hz, 1.6 Hz, 2H). 13C-NMR (150 MHz, DMSO-d6): 164.3, 162.3, 155.1, 147.2, 138.2, 128.7, 128.7, 126.8, 123.8, 123.8, 115.5, 115.5, 114.3, 114.3, 55.9, 48.8, 48.8, 37.6, 25.5, 25.5, 24.6. HREI-MS: m/z calcd for C22H24N6O3S [M]+ 452.2, found 452.68

3.3.25. 5-nitro-2-(((E)-2-(((E)-piperidin-1-ylmethylene)hydrazono)-2-(p-tolyl)ethyl)thio)-1H-benzo[d]imidazole (25)

Yield: 71%, 1H-NMR (600 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 8.40 (s, 1H, Ar-H), 8.12 (d, J = 7.5, 1H, Ar-H), 7.73 (d, J = 7.5, 2H, Ar-H), 7.51 (s, 2H, Ar-H), 7.69 (d, J = 7.5, 1H, Ar-H), 7.27 (d, J = 7.5 Hz, 2H, Ar-H), 7.10 (d, J = 7.5 Hz, 2H, Ar-H), 5.1 (s, 1H, NH), 3.85 (s, 3H), 3.51 (m, J = 7.4 Hz, 1.3 Hz, 2H), 3.15 (s, 2Hs), 2.38 (s, 3H), 1.60 (m, J = 7.5 Hz, 1.4 Hz, 1H), 1.56 (m, J = 7.3 Hz, 1.4 Hz, 2H). 13C-NMR (150 MHz, DMSO-d6):164.3, 155.3, 147.3, 145.1, 144.1, 140.1, 139.1, 131.1, 129.4, 129.4, 127.4, 127.4, 118.7, 116.2, 112.2, 48.2, 48.2, 37.2, 25.6, 25.6, 21.5, 24.3 HREI-MS: m/z calcd for C22H24N6O2S [M]+ 436.2, found 436.68.

3.3.26. 5-nitro-2-(((E)-2-(2-nitrophenyl)-2-(((E)-piperidin-1-ylmethylene)hydrazono)ethyl)thio)-1H-benzo[d]imidazole (26)

Yield: 69%, 1H-NMR (600 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 8.41 (s, 1H, Ar-H), 8.11 (d, J = 7.5, 1H, Ar-H), 8.09 (m, 1H, Ar-H), 7.99 (m, 1H, Ar-H), 7.93 (m, 1H, Ar-H), 7.69 (d, J = 7.5, 1H), 7.57 (m, J = 7.5 Hz, 1.6 Hz 1H, Ar-H), 7.51 (s, 2H, Ar-H), 5.1 (s, 1H, NH), 3.85 (s, 3H), 3.51 (m, J = 7.6 Hz, 1.2 Hz, 2H), 3.15 (s, 2H), 2.38 (s, 3H), 1.60 (m, J = 7.5 Hz, 1.4 Hz, 1H), 1.56 (m, J = 7.4 Hz, 1.3 Hz, 2H). 13C-NMR (150 MHz, DMSO-d6): 164.6, 155.0, 147.1, 145.0, 144.3, 141.7, 140.8, 139.8, 134.5, 130.2, 130.0, 129.2, 129.2, 127.9, 127.9, 127.6, 127.1, 126.3, 118.6, 116.0, 112.0, 48.7, 48.7, 37.7, 25.7, 24.2, 25.7. HREI-MS: m/z calcd for C21H21N7O4S [M]+ 436.2, found 467.68.

3.4. Acetylcholinesterase and Butyrylcholinesterase Inhibition Assays

The enzyme inhibition activities for acetylcholinesterase and butyrylcholinesterase were determined using the method of Ellman et al. [36] with slight modifications. The 62.0 mM sodium phosphate buffer (pH 8.0, 880 μL) used contained 0.002 M of DTNB (5,5′-dithiobis-2-nitrobenzoic acid). AChE and BuChE solutions (40 μL) were added with the test compounds (40 μL) and kept at 25 °C for 10–15 min. The acetylthiocholine or butyrylthiocholine (40 μL) were added just before the initiation of the catalytic reaction. The enzymatic hydrolysis of the substrates encompassing the formation of yellow 5-thio-2-nitrobenzoate anion products was monitored at 412 nm (15 min). The inhibition reactions were repeated in triplicate with a Shimadzu spectrophotometer (Kyoto, Japan).

3.5. Assay Protocol for Molecular Docking Study

This assay was carried out according to our previously reported work [37,38,39].

4. Conclusions

In the present study, a series of benzimidazole-based pyrrole and piperidine derivatives (1–26) were synthesized and characterized through 1H NMR, 13C NMR and HRMS (EI) analysis and evaluated for in vitro AChE and BuChE inhibitory potential. The evaluation results for these synthesized derivatives showed that compound 10 revealed good inhibitory potential against AChE and BuChE, with an IC50 even lower than the standard. Moreover, it binds with the active regions of target proteins with good binding affinity. So, based on the in vitro inhibitory and molecular docking results, it can be concluded that compound 10 might be a potential lead candidate for further studies in the development of AChE and BuChE inhibitors.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.U.; methodology, S.T.; software, R.H.; validation, S.K., M.S. and N.I.; formal analysis, M.U.K. and M.K.F.; writing—original draft preparation, H.U. and F.R.; writing—review and editing, W.R., A.H. and M.A.B.; visualization, S.A.A.S.; supervision, F.R.; project administration, F.R.; funding acquisition, M.A.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Researchers supporting project number (RSPD2024R740), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

We are thankful to the researchers supporting project number (RSPD2024R740), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Jann, M.W. Preclinical pharmacology of metrifonate. Pharmacotherapy 1998, 18, 55–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Adams, R.L.; Craig, P.L.; Parsons, O.A. Neuropsychology of dementia. Neurol. Clin. 1986, 4, 387–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Aisen, P.S.; Davis, K.L. The search for disease-modifying treatment for Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 1997, 48 (Suppl. 6), 35S–41S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bachman, D.L.; Wolf, P.A.; Linn, R.; Knoefel, J.E.; Cobbs, J.; Belanger, A.; D’agostino, R.B.; White, L.R. Prevalence of dementia and probable senile dementia of the Alzheimer type in the Framingham Study. Neurology 1992, 42, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Terry, R.D.; Katzman, R.K. Senile dementia of the Alzheimer type. Ann. Neurol. 1983, 14, 497–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Hebert, L.E.; Scherr, P.A.; Beckett, L.A.; Albert, M.S.; Pilgrim, D.M.; Chown, M.J.; Funkenstein, H.H.; Evans, D.A. Age-specific incidence of Alzheimer’s disease in a community population. JAMA 1995, 273, 1354–1359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Beard, C.M.; Kokmen, E.; O’brien, P.C.; Kurland, L.T. The prevalence of dementia is changing over time in Rochester, Minnesota. Neurology 1995, 45, 75–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Arnold, S.E.; Kumar, A. Reversible dementias. Med. Clin. North Am. 1993, 77, 215–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Schneider, L.S. Treatment of Alzheimer’s disease with cholinesterase inhibitors. Clin. Geriatr. Med. 2001, 17, 337–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Francis, P.T.; Nordberg, A.; Arnold, S.E. A preclinical view of cholinesterase inhibitors in neuroprotection: Do they provide more than symptomatic benefits in Alzheimer’s disease? Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 2005, 26, 104–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Sethy, S.; Mandal, S.K.; Ewies, E.F.; Dhiman, N.; Garg, A. Synthesis, Characterization and Biological Evaluation of Benzimidazole and Benzindazole Derivatives as Anti-hypertensive Agents. Egypt J. Chem. 2021, 64, 3659–3664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wu, Z.; Xia, M.B.; Bertsetseg, D.; Wang, Y.H.; Bao, X.L.; Zhu, W.B.; Chen, P.R.; Tang, H.S.; Yan, Y.J.; Chen, Z.L. Design, synthesis and biological evaluation of novel fluoro-substituted benzimidazole derivatives with anti-hypertension activities. Bioorg. Chem. 2020, 101, 104042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hussain, R.; Rahim, F.; Ullah, H.; Khan, S.; Sarfraz, M.; Iqbal, R.; Suleman, F.; Al-Sadoon, M.K. Design, Synthesis, In Vitro Biological Evaluation and In Silico Molecular Docking Study of Benzimidazole-Based Oxazole Analogues: A Promising Acetylcholinesterase and Butyrylcholinesterase Inhibitors. Molecules 2023, 28, 7015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Marinescu, M. Benzimidazole-Triazole Hybrids as Antimicrobial and Antiviral Agents: A Systematic Review. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 1220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Patagar, D.N.; Batakurki, S.R.; Kusanur, R.; Patra, S.M.; Saravanakumar, S.; Ghate, M. Synthesis, antioxidant and anti-diabetic potential of novel benzimidazole substituted coumarin-3-carboxamides. J. Mol. Struct. 2023, 1274, 134589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hayat, S.; Ullah, H.; Rahim, F.; Ullah, I.; Taha, M.; Iqbal, N.; Khan, F.; Khan, M.S.; Shah, S.A.A.; Wadood, A.; et al. Synthesis, biological evaluation and molecular docking study of benzimidazole derivatives as α-glucosidase inhibitors and anti-diabetes candidates. J. Mol. Struct. 2023, 1276, 134774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Rashid, M. Design, synthesis and ADMET prediction of bis-benzimidazole as anticancer agent. Bioorg. Chem. 2020, 96, 103576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Bansal, Y.; Silakari, O.; Lapinsky, D.J.; Kusayanagi, T.; Tsukuda, S.; Shimura, S.; Manita, D.; Iwakiri, K.; Kamisuki, S.; Takakusagi, Y.; et al. The therapeutic journey of benzimidazoles: A review. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2012, 20, 6199–6236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Carvalho, R.C.; Martins, W.A.; Silva, T.P.; Kaiser, C.R.; Bastos, M.M.; Pinheiro, L.C.; Krettli, A.U.; Boechat, N. New pentasubstituted pyrrole hybrid atorvastatin–quinoline derivatives with antiplasmodial activity. Bioorg Med. Chem. Lett. 2016, 26, 1881–1884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ramadan, A.A.; Elbakry, A.M.; Esmaeil, A.H.; Khaleel, S.A. Pharmaceutical and pharmacokinetic evaluation of novel rectal mucoadhesive hydrogels containing tolmetin sodium. J. Pharm. Investig. 2018, 48, 673–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wang, Z.; Li, B.; Zhou, L.; Yu, S.; Su, Z.; Song, J.; Sun, Q.; Sha, O.; Wang, X.; Jiang, W.; et al. Prodigiosin inhibits Wnt/β-catenin signaling and exerts anticancer activity in breast cancer cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 13150–13155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Vardanyan, R. Classes of Piperidine-Based Drugs. In Piperidine-Based Drug Discovery; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 299–332. [Google Scholar]
  23. Goel, P.; Alam, O.; Naim, M.J.; Nawaz, F.; Iqbal, M.; Alam, M.I. Recent advancement of piperidine moiety in treatment of cancer- A review. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2018, 157, 480–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Martens, U.M. (Ed.) Small Molecules in Hematology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; p. 1. [Google Scholar]
  25. Milling, R.V.; Grimm, D.; Krüger, M.; Grosse, J.; Kopp, S.; Bauer, J.; Infanger, M.; Wehland, M. Pazopanib, Cabozantinib, and Vandetanib in the Treatment of Progressive Medullary Thyroid Cancer with a Special Focus on the Adverse Effects on Hypertension. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 3258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Coricello, A.; Mesiti, F.; Lupia, A.; Maruca, A.; Alcaro, S. Inside Perspective of the Synthetic and Computational Toolbox of JAK Inhibitors: Recent Updates. Molecules 2020, 25, 3321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Shaw, V.; Srivastava, S.; Srivastava, S.K. Repurposing antipsychotics of the diphenylbutylpiperidine class for cancer therapy. Semin. Cancer Biol. 2021, 68, 75–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ezelarab, H.A.A.; Abbas, S.H.; Hassan, H.A.; Abuo-Rahma, G.E.-D.A. Recent updates of fluoroquinolones as antibacterial agents. Arch. Pharm. 2018, 351, 1800141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Ye, N.; Qin, W.; Tian, S.; Xu, Q.; Wold, E.A.; Zhou, J.; Zhen, X.-C. Small Molecules Selectively Targeting Sigma-1 Receptor for the Treatment of Neurological Diseases. J. Med. Chem. 2020, 63, 15187–15217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Friedman, J.H. Pharmacological interventions for psychosis in Parkinson’s disease patients. Expert Opin. Pharmacother. 2018, 19, 499–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Kantrowitz, J.T. Targeting Serotonin 5-HT2A Receptors to Better Treat Schizophrenia: Rationale and Current Approaches. CNS Drugs 2020, 34, 947–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Rk, M.; Begum, S.; Begum, A.; Koganti, B. Antioxidant potential of piperidine containing compounds—A short review. Asian J. Pharm. Clin. Res. 2018, 11, 66. [Google Scholar]
  33. Khan, S.; Ullah, H.; Taha, M.; Rahim, F.; Sarfraz, M.; Iqbal, R.; Iqbal, N.; Hussain, R.; Ali Shah, S.A.; Ayub, K.; et al. Synthesis, DFT Studies, molecular docking and biological activity evaluation of thiazole-sulfonamide derivatives as potent Alzheimer’s inhibitors. Molecules 2023, 28, 559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Khan, S.; Ullah, H.; Rahim, F.; Nawaz, M.; Hussain, R.; Rasheed, L. Synthesis, in vitro α-amylase, α-glucosidase activities and molecular docking study of new benzimidazole bearing thiazolidinone derivatives. J. Mol. Struct. 2022, 1269, 133812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Khan, S.; Ullah, H.; Hussain, R.; Khan, Y.; Khan, M.U.; Khan, M.; Sattar, A.; Khan, M.S. Synthesis, in vitro bio-evaluation, and molecular docking study of thiosemicarbazone-based isatin/bis-Schiff base hybrid analogues as effective cholinesterase inhibitors. J. Mol. Struct. 2023, 1284, 135351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Rahim, F.; Ullah, H.; Taha, M.; Hussain, R.; Sarfraz, M.; Iqbal, R.; Iqbal, N.; Khan, S.; Ali Shah, S.A.; Albalawi, M.A.; et al. Synthesis of new triazole-based thiosemicarbazone derivatives as anti-Alzheimer’s disease candidates: Evidence-based in vitro study. Molecules 2022, 28, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Kshatriya, R.; Kambale, D.; Mali, S.; Jejurkar, V.P.; Lokhande, P.; Chaudhari, H.K.; Saha, S. Brønsted acid catalyzed domino synthesis of functionalized 4H-chromens and their ADMET, molecular docking and antibacterial studies. Chem. Select. 2019, 4, 7943–7948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Jejurkar, V.P.; Mali, S.N.; Kshatriya, R.; Chaudhari, H.K.; Saha, S. Synthesis, antimicrobial screening and in silico appraisal of iminocarbazole derivatives. Chem. Select. 2019, 4, 9470–9475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mishra, V.R.; Ghanavatkar, C.W.; Mali, S.N.; Qureshi, S.I.; Chaudhari, H.K.; Sekar, N. Design, synthesis, antimicrobial activity and computational studies of novel azo linked substituted benzimidazole, benzoxazole and benzothiazole derivatives. Comput. Biol. Chem. 2019, 78, 330–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Pharmaceuticals 17 00410 g001
Figure 1. Available drugs for AD with AChE activity.
Figure 1. Available drugs for AD with AChE activity.
Pharmaceuticals 17 00410 g001
Pharmaceuticals 17 00410 g002
Figure 2. Benzimidazole analogs bearing bioactive drugs.
Figure 2. Benzimidazole analogs bearing bioactive drugs.
Pharmaceuticals 17 00410 g002
Pharmaceuticals 17 00410 sch001
Scheme 1. Synthesis of targeted benzimidazole-based hybrid compounds (1–26).
Scheme 1. Synthesis of targeted benzimidazole-based hybrid compounds (1–26).
Pharmaceuticals 17 00410 sch001
Pharmaceuticals 17 00410 g003
Figure 3. Representations of the protein–ligand interaction (PLI) profile of compound 2 in the AChE complex.
Figure 3. Representations of the protein–ligand interaction (PLI) profile of compound 2 in the AChE complex.
Pharmaceuticals 17 00410 g003
Pharmaceuticals 17 00410 g004
Figure 4. Representations of the protein–ligand interaction (PLI) profile of compound 2 in the BuChE complex.
Figure 4. Representations of the protein–ligand interaction (PLI) profile of compound 2 in the BuChE complex.
Pharmaceuticals 17 00410 g004
Pharmaceuticals 17 00410 g005
Figure 5. Representations of the protein–ligand interaction (PLI) profile of compound 10 in the AChE complex.
Figure 5. Representations of the protein–ligand interaction (PLI) profile of compound 10 in the AChE complex.
Pharmaceuticals 17 00410 g005
Pharmaceuticals 17 00410 g006
Figure 6. Representations of the protein–ligand interaction (PLI) profile of compound 10 in the BuChE complex.
Figure 6. Representations of the protein–ligand interaction (PLI) profile of compound 10 in the BuChE complex.
Pharmaceuticals 17 00410 g006
Pharmaceuticals 17 00410 g007
Figure 7. Representations of the protein–ligand interaction (PLI) profile of compound 4 in the AChE complex.
Figure 7. Representations of the protein–ligand interaction (PLI) profile of compound 4 in the AChE complex.
Pharmaceuticals 17 00410 g007
Pharmaceuticals 17 00410 g008
Figure 8. Representations of the protein–ligand interaction (PLI) profile of compound 4 in the BuChE complex.
Figure 8. Representations of the protein–ligand interaction (PLI) profile of compound 4 in the BuChE complex.
Pharmaceuticals 17 00410 g008
Pharmaceuticals 17 00410 g009
Figure 9. Representations of the protein–ligand interaction (PLI) profile of compound 13 in the AChE complex.
Figure 9. Representations of the protein–ligand interaction (PLI) profile of compound 13 in the AChE complex.
Pharmaceuticals 17 00410 g009
Pharmaceuticals 17 00410 g010
Figure 10. Representations of the protein–ligand interaction (PLI) profile of compound 13 in the BuChE complex.
Figure 10. Representations of the protein–ligand interaction (PLI) profile of compound 13 in the BuChE complex.
Pharmaceuticals 17 00410 g010
Pharmaceuticals 17 00410 g011
Figure 11. ADME predictions of analog 2.
Figure 11. ADME predictions of analog 2.
Pharmaceuticals 17 00410 g011
Pharmaceuticals 17 00410 g012
Figure 12. ADME predictions of analog 4.
Figure 12. ADME predictions of analog 4.
Pharmaceuticals 17 00410 g012
Pharmaceuticals 17 00410 g013
Figure 13. ADME predictions of analog 10.
Figure 13. ADME predictions of analog 10.
Pharmaceuticals 17 00410 g013
Pharmaceuticals 17 00410 g014
Figure 14. ADME predictions of analog 13.
Figure 14. ADME predictions of analog 13.
Pharmaceuticals 17 00410 g014
Table 1. Different substituents (R1 and R2) and in vitro acetylcholinesterase and butyrylcholinesterase inhibitory activities of synthesized benzimidazole-based pyrrole/piperidine derivatives (1–26).
Table 1. Different substituents (R1 and R2) and in vitro acetylcholinesterase and butyrylcholinesterase inhibitory activities of synthesized benzimidazole-based pyrrole/piperidine derivatives (1–26).
Pharmaceuticals 17 00410 i001
S. No.R1R2AChE Inhibition IC50 ± SEM (µM)BuChE Inhibition IC50 ± SEM (µM)
15-OCH34-CH327.11 ± 0.0231.03 ± 0.11
25-OCH34-OCH320.04 ± 0.1523.22 ± 0.15
35-OCH34-Ph30.11 ± 0.2334.06 ± 0.14
45-OCH32-OCH326.22 ± 0.4129.23 ± 0.80
5H4-Ph34.16 ± 0.0337.21 ± 0.23
6H3-NO228.12 ± 0.0932.14 ± 0.21
7H4-CH336.05 ± 0.4139.55 ± 0.03
8H2-OCH321.03 ± 0.1125.12 ± 0.44
9H4-OCH324.16 ± 0.2128.01 ± 0.13
105-NO23-NO219.44 ± 0.6021.57 ± 0.61
115-NO24-Ph32.13 ± 0.1837.76 ± 0.08
125-NO24-OCH323.11 ± 0.3527.35 ± 0.06
135-NO24-CH327.08 ± 0.2533.27 ± 0.42
Standard allanzanthane a drug16.11 ± 0.3318.14 ± 0.05 µM
Standard galanthamine b drug19.34 ± 0.6221.45 ± 0.21 µM
Pharmaceuticals 17 00410 i002
S. No.R1R2AChE Inhibition IC50 ± SEM (µM)BuChE Inhibition IC50 ± SEM (µM)
145-OCH34-Ph42.01 ± 0.0247.03 ± 0.15
155-OCH32-OCH326.03 ± 0.1529.11 ± 0.14
165-OCH34-OCH328.13 ± 0.2330.01 ± 0.23
175-OCH33-NO223.09 ± 0.4127.30 ± 0.50
185-OCH34-CH336.15 ± 0.0339.11 ± 0.13
19H4-CH333.19 ± 0.0936.22 ± 0.11
20H3-NO229.04 ± 0.2231.25 ± 0.03
21H2-OCH330.07 ± 0.4138.02 ± 0.04
22H4-OCH334.02 ± 0.1134.31 ± 0.12
235-NO24-Ph38.24 ± 0.4042.27 ± 0.41
245-NO24-OCH332.05 ± 0.1439.66 ± 0.24
255-NO24-CH335.01 ± 0.2532.25 ± 0.12
265-NO23-NO222.07 ± 0.1326.32 ± 0.13
Standard allanzanthane a drug20.01 ± 0.12 µM22.12 ± 0.04 µM
Standard galanthamine b drug18.05 ± 0.31 µM24.25 ± 0.11 µM
Note: a expressed the standard drug Allanzanthane where b expressed the standard drug Galanthamine.
Table 2. The interaction profiles of the subjected analogs (2 and 10) in AChE and BuChE complexes along with docking scores.
Table 2. The interaction profiles of the subjected analogs (2 and 10) in AChE and BuChE complexes along with docking scores.
Active AnalogsReceptorTypes of InteractionsDistance (A°)Docking Score
Analog (2) in AChE complexGLN-A-63
TRP-A-59
TRP-A-59
TRP-A-62
HIS-A-201
ILE-A-235
LYS-A-200
LEU-A-162
HIS-A-299		H–B
Pi–pi stacked
Pi–pi stacked
Pi–R
Pi–S
Pi–sigma
Pi–R
Pi–R
Pi–S		5.88
4.31
5.51
4.37
5.58
5.31
5.65
5.81
6.81		−10.50
Analog (2) in BChE complexSER-A-505
LYS-A-506
LYS-A-506
TYR-A-243
ALA-A-243
ALA-A-243
ASP-A-568
ASP-A-568
PHE-A-601
TRP-A-329
ILE-A-233		HB
Pi–cation
Pi–cation
Unfavorable A–A HB
HB
HB
C–H
Pi–alkyl
Pi–alkyl
Pi–alkyl		4.67
6.07
4.75
6.09
3.65
6.15
5.48
5.58
6.57
5.08
5.32		−8.97
Analog (10) in AChE complexPHE-A-476
PHE-A-476
ALA-A-602
ALA-A-628
ASP-A-630
PHE-A-601
PHE-A-601
ASP-A-568
ASP-A-469
TRP-A-329		Pi–pi T-shaped
Pi–pi T-shaped
Pi–alkyl
Pi–alkyl
C–H
Pi–pi T-shaped
Pi–pi T-shaped
C–H
C–H
Pi–pi T-shaped		5.10
4.27
6.96
7.61
5.35
7.15
7.00
5.55
5.91
6.17		−7.73
Analog (10) in BChE complexLEU-A-162
HIS-A-299
TRP-A-58
TRP-A-59
GLY-A-306
HIS-A-305		Pi–alkyl
Pi–sulfur
Pi–sulfur
Pi–pi stacked
HB
HB		5.80
6.68
6.33
5.56
3.87
3.75		−8.20
Table 3. The interaction profiles of the subjected analogs (4 and 13) in AChE and BuChE complexes along with docking scores.
Table 3. The interaction profiles of the subjected analogs (4 and 13) in AChE and BuChE complexes along with docking scores.
Active AnalogsReceptorTypes of InteractionsDistance (A°)Docking Score
Analog (4) in AchE complexILE-A-235
LYS-A-200
HIS-A-201
LEU-A-162
HIS-A-305
GLY-A-306
HIS-A-299
GLN-A-63
TRP-A-59
TRP-A-59		Pi–R
Pi–R
Pi–R
Pi–R
H–B
H–B
Pi–S
H–B
Pi–pi stacked
Pi–pi stacked		5.59
6.01
5.78
5.83
3.68
4.05
6.87
5.89
4.34
5.36		−9.3
Analog (4) in BuChE complexPHE-A-476
PHE-A-476
PHE-A-476
TRP-A-329
PHE-A-601
PHE-A-601
ASP-A-568
ALA-A-602		Pi–pi stacked
Pi–pi stacked
C–H
Pi–R
Pi–R
Pi–pi stacked
Pi–anion
Pi–R		5.11
3.97
4.90
5.32
6.68
7.48
5.39
7.05		−8.2
Analog (13) in AchE complexTRP-A-59
HIS-A-305
HIS-A-299
GLY-A-306
LEU-A-162
HIS-A-201
ILE-A-235
LYS-A-200
GLU-A-233
TRP-A-58
TYR-A-62		Pi–R
Pi–pi stacked
H–B
Pi–anion
H–B
Pi–R
Pi–R
Pi–R
C–H
Pi–anion
Pi–R		5.76
3.80
6.38
3.46
5.82
5.13
4.55
4.41
5.76
6.30
5.92		−7.8
Analog (13) in BuChE complexTRP-A-329
PHE-A-601
ASP-A-568
ASP-A-568
ALA-A-234
ALA-A-234
TYR-A-243
LYS-A-506
LYS-A-506
SER-A-505
ILE-A-233		Pi–R
Pi–R
C–H
Pi–anion
H–B
Unacceptable D–D
Pi–anion
Pi–anion
H–B
Pi–R		5.08
6.57
5.58
5.48
6.15
3.65
6.02
6.07
4.75
4.67
5.32		−7.6
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tariq, S.; Rahim, F.; Ullah, H.; Sarfraz, M.; Hussain, R.; Khan, S.; Khan, M.U.; Rehman, W.; Hussain, A.; Bhat, M.A.; et al. Synthesis, In Vitro Biological Evaluation and Molecular Modeling of Benzimidazole-Based Pyrrole/Piperidine Hybrids Derivatives as Potential Anti-Alzheimer Agents. Pharmaceuticals 2024, 17, 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph17040410

AMA Style

Tariq S, Rahim F, Ullah H, Sarfraz M, Hussain R, Khan S, Khan MU, Rehman W, Hussain A, Bhat MA, et al. Synthesis, In Vitro Biological Evaluation and Molecular Modeling of Benzimidazole-Based Pyrrole/Piperidine Hybrids Derivatives as Potential Anti-Alzheimer Agents. Pharmaceuticals. 2024; 17(4):410. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph17040410

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tariq, Sundas, Fazal Rahim, Hayat Ullah, Maliha Sarfraz, Rafaqat Hussain, Shoaib Khan, Misbah Ullah Khan, Wajid Rehman, Amjad Hussain, Mashooq Ahmad Bhat, and et al. 2024. "Synthesis, In Vitro Biological Evaluation and Molecular Modeling of Benzimidazole-Based Pyrrole/Piperidine Hybrids Derivatives as Potential Anti-Alzheimer Agents" Pharmaceuticals 17, no. 4: 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph17040410

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop