2003
DOI: 10.1016/s0006-291x(03)00865-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Inhibition of carbonic anhydrase II by steroidal and non-steroidal sulphamates

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
90
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 72 publications
(94 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
4
90
0
Order By: Relevance
“…EMATE gives an IC 50 value of 2 nmol/L, although higher values of 9 and 42 nmol/L were reported previously (35,36). Compounds (2) and (10) are similar in potency, so the effect of a trifluoromethyl group on inhibitory activity is relatively small.…”
mentioning
confidence: 62%
“…EMATE gives an IC 50 value of 2 nmol/L, although higher values of 9 and 42 nmol/L were reported previously (35,36). Compounds (2) and (10) are similar in potency, so the effect of a trifluoromethyl group on inhibitory activity is relatively small.…”
mentioning
confidence: 62%
“…Second, as we have previously shown that steroidal sulfamates bind to carbonic anhydrase II (CA II) in red blood cells in a reversible fashion, we reasoned that this may be a mechanism whereby they can be transported to tumours and released in the more acidic environment of the tumour. [59] Hence, a steroidal sulfamate that inhibits 17b-HSD1 may be delivered to the tumour bound to CA II and released at its site of action. Third, even if the sulfamates themselves are only weak 17b-HSD1 inhibitors, it is likely that steroid sulfatase will cleave the sulfamate group in vivo to some degree to release the corresponding phenols, which are potent 17b-HSD1 inhibitors.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The opposite direction of the genetic and pharmacological effects is intriguing, and could potentially be explained by the presence of compensatory processes in the gene deletion model which cannot occur in the case of acute enzyme inhibition. Differential behavioral effects in the genetic and pharmacological mouse models could also be explained by complete lack of the STS protein in the deletion model versus incomplete (~70%) inhibition of the enzyme in the pharmacological model (Nicolas et al., 2001), or by deletion of additional genes or genetic elements other than Sts in the genetic model (Trent et al., 2013; Trent, Fry, Ojarikre, & Davies, 2014) and possible off‐target effects in the pharmacological model (Ho et al., 2003). There is a growing body of evidence that pharmacological manipulation of the STS axis can influence the aspects of cognition and the underlying neural substrates (Yue et al., 2016).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%