Technological advancements have fundamentally transformed healthcare systems and significantly altered the interactions between medical professionals and information interfaces. This study provides a comprehensive review of the role of human–computer interaction (HCI) in healthcare, emphasizing the importance of user-centered design and the integration of emerging technologies. The paper reviews the evolution of healthcare interfaces, exploring key assumptions in foundational HCI principles and theoretical frameworks that guide the design processes. The analysis delves into the application of HCI principles, particularly user-centered approaches, to enhance feedback mechanisms, ensure consistency, and improve visibility within medical settings, all of which contribute to creating practical, usable, and memorable interfaces. The review provides an overview of successful and unsuccessful cases, demonstrating what determines efficacy in healthcare interface design. The discussion extends to cover the role of interactive interfaces in streamlining clinical workflows, facilitating communication and collaboration, and supporting informed decision-making among healthcare providers. This paper focuses on historical views and milestones of interface design, emphasizing the significance of interactive interfaces. The discussion extends to cover the role of interactive interfaces in streamlining clinical workflows, facilitating communication and collaboration, and supporting informed decision-making among healthcare providers. Further, the review concludes with an examination of future trends in HCI for healthcare, particularly focusing on the rapid integration of emerging technologies and their implications for the ongoing evolution of interface design in this critical field.
Citation: Meher Langote, Saniya Saratkar, Praveen Kumar, Prateek Verma, Chetan Puri, Swapnil Gundewar, Palash Gourshettiwar. Human–computer interaction in healthcare: Comprehensive review[J]. AIMS Bioengineering, 2024, 11(3): 343-390. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2024018
[1] | Charles A. Downs, Abdel A. Alli, Nicholle M. Johnson, My N. Helms . Cigarette smoke extract is a Nox agonist and regulates ENaC in alveolar type 2 cells. AIMS Molecular Science, 2016, 3(3): 439-453. doi: 10.3934/molsci.2016.3.439 |
[2] | James R. Lambert, Steven K. Nordeen . A role for the non-conserved N-terminal domain of the TATA-binding protein in the crosstalk between cell signaling pathways and steroid receptors. AIMS Molecular Science, 2015, 2(2): 64-76. doi: 10.3934/molsci.2015.2.64 |
[3] | Qingle Zeng, Fuhai Li, Xianjie Yin . Transition metal-catalyzed construction of C-X bonds via cleavage of C-N bond of quaternary ammonium salts. AIMS Molecular Science, 2023, 10(3): 153-170. doi: 10.3934/molsci.2023011 |
[4] | Abdulrahman Mahmoud Dogara, Ateeq Ahmed Al-Zahrani, Sarwan W. Bradosty, Saber W. Hamad, Aisha Abdullahi Mahmud, Hussain D. Almalki, Mustapha Abdullahi, Abubakar Abdullahi Lema, Hasan Nudin Nur Fatihah . In-vitro biological activity and in-silico studies of some volatile phytochemicals from the ethanol extract of Eugenia uniflora. AIMS Molecular Science, 2024, 11(3): 303-321. doi: 10.3934/molsci.2024018 |
[5] | Chenwei Li, John A. Williams . Regulation of CCK-induced ERK1/2 activation by PKC epsilon in rat pancreatic acinar cells. AIMS Molecular Science, 2017, 4(4): 463-477. doi: 10.3934/molsci.2017.4.463 |
[6] | Edith Debroas, Carine Ali, Dominique Duval . Dexamethasone enhances glutamine synthetase activity and reduces N-methyl-D-aspartate neurotoxicity in mixed cultures of neurons and astrocytes. AIMS Molecular Science, 2015, 2(2): 175-189. doi: 10.3934/molsci.2015.2.175 |
[7] | Amena W. Smith, Swapan K. Ray, Arabinda Das, Kenkichi Nozaki, Baerbel Rohrer, Naren L. Banik . Calpain inhibition as a possible new therapeutic target in multiple sclerosis. AIMS Molecular Science, 2017, 4(4): 446-462. doi: 10.3934/molsci.2017.4.446 |
[8] | Sandrine Bouchet, Marion Piedfer, Santos Susin, Daniel Dauzonne, Brigitte Bauvois . In vitro activity of some flavonoid derivatives on human leukemic myeloid cells: evidence for aminopeptidase-N (CD13) inhibition, antiproliferative and cell death properties. AIMS Molecular Science, 2016, 3(3): 368-385. doi: 10.3934/molsci.2016.3.368 |
[9] | Bhuvana Selvaraj, Sangeetha Soundararajan, Shettu Narayanasamy, Ganesan Subramanian, Senthil Kumar Ramanathan . Frequency of hereditary hemochromatosis gene mutations and their effects on iron overload among beta thalassemia patients of Chennai residents. AIMS Molecular Science, 2021, 8(4): 233-247. doi: 10.3934/molsci.2021018 |
[10] | Duraimani Shanthi Lakshmi, Sati Bhawna, Ahmed Khan Ghori Junaid, Selvanathan Abinaya, Saikia Katherine, Lote Ishita, Ahluwalia Geetika, Gosar Hetal, Dharmaraj Swetha, Bhatt Dhivya, Kocharekar Akshada, Salat Raunaq, Ramesh Aarthi, AR Balamurali, Ranganathan Rahul . Unlocking weight loss potential: Investigating the impact of personalized nutrigenetic-based diet in an Indian population. AIMS Molecular Science, 2024, 11(1): 21-41. doi: 10.3934/molsci.2024002 |
Technological advancements have fundamentally transformed healthcare systems and significantly altered the interactions between medical professionals and information interfaces. This study provides a comprehensive review of the role of human–computer interaction (HCI) in healthcare, emphasizing the importance of user-centered design and the integration of emerging technologies. The paper reviews the evolution of healthcare interfaces, exploring key assumptions in foundational HCI principles and theoretical frameworks that guide the design processes. The analysis delves into the application of HCI principles, particularly user-centered approaches, to enhance feedback mechanisms, ensure consistency, and improve visibility within medical settings, all of which contribute to creating practical, usable, and memorable interfaces. The review provides an overview of successful and unsuccessful cases, demonstrating what determines efficacy in healthcare interface design. The discussion extends to cover the role of interactive interfaces in streamlining clinical workflows, facilitating communication and collaboration, and supporting informed decision-making among healthcare providers. This paper focuses on historical views and milestones of interface design, emphasizing the significance of interactive interfaces. The discussion extends to cover the role of interactive interfaces in streamlining clinical workflows, facilitating communication and collaboration, and supporting informed decision-making among healthcare providers. Further, the review concludes with an examination of future trends in HCI for healthcare, particularly focusing on the rapid integration of emerging technologies and their implications for the ongoing evolution of interface design in this critical field.
Proteolytic enzymes have emerged out as promising targets for novel therapeutic treatment strategies seeking to impede cancer progression and metastasis. Cathepsin L, a lysosomal cysteine protease, composed of disulfide-linked heavy and light chains, produced from a single protein precursor, procathepsin L has been found upregulated in a variety of cancers. The elevated levels of cathepsin L has been widely correlated with metastatic aggressiveness and poor patient prognosis. Cathepsin L has also been implicated to contribute to cancer-associated osteolysis, a debilitating morbidity affecting both life expectancy and the quality of life.
A direct correlation between tumor progression, cathepsins level and decreased inhibitor concentration indicate the significance of identification of novel cathepsin inhibitors. Though a large work has been reported on peptide based inhibitors, recent focus on non-peptidyl inhibitors of cathepsins has brought into light various molecules belonging to different classes as potential inhibitors of cathepsins [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]. Most of these compounds including pyrazolines and pyrazoles [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16] are reported to possess anticancer and anti-inflammatory activities. Pyrazolines have been found to inhibit cathepsins B and H [17].
Literature survey suggests that a large work has been accomplished on peptidyl or peptidyl analogues as inhibitors to cysteine proteases [18,19]. However, these inhibitors are not considered to be viable drug candidates for treating diseases like cancer, apoptosis etc. because of gastric instability or the possibility of immunogenic reactions. Therefore, research on non-peptidyl drugs has become an important aspect in drug research and development [20,21]. Keeping in view the involvement of cathepsin L in different cancerous conditions various compounds such as semicarbazones and hydrazones (I-II), schiff bases and their cyclized derivatives [22] pyrazolines [5,7] (III-IV), chalcones and bischalcones (V-VI) [7,23,24,25] as non-peptidyl inhibitors are reported as shown in Figure 1.
In continuation of our previous work [17], the present work reports the inhibition studies of N-formylpyrazolines and N-benzoylpyrazolines on cathepsin L.
All the chemicals (analytical grade) and biochemicals, Fast Garnet GBC (o-aminoazotoluene diazonium salt, substrate Z-Phe-Arg-4mβNA were purchased either from Sigma Chemical Co., USA or from Bachem Feinchemikalien AG, Switzerland. The protein sample was concentrated using Amicon stirred cells with YM 10 membrane under nitrogen pressure of 4-5 psi. The source of enzyme, fresh goat liver, was obtained from local slaughter house.
ELISA plate reader was used for measuring absorbance in the visible range. Refrigerated ultracentrifuge Remi C-24BL was used for centrifugation purpose.
The synthesis (Scheme 1) and characterization of designed compounds, N-formylpyrazolines (1a-1j) and N-benzoylpyrazolines (2a-2j) has been accomplished by the method previously reported [17].
All the purification steps were carried out at 4 °C. Cathepsin L was isolated, separated and purified from goat liver using the following procedure [26]. The steps included acetone powder preparation, homogenization in cold 0.1 M acetate buffer pH 5.5 containing 0.2 M NaCl and 1 mM EDTA, acid-autolysis at pH 4.0 and 30-80% ammonium sulphate fractionation, molecular sieve chromatography on Sephadex G-100 column chromatography and finally ion-exchange chromatography on CM-Sephadex C-50 column. The specific activity of the cathepsin L was~16.78 nmol/min/mg.
The activities of cathepsin L were estimated by the usual enzyme assay [27] at pH 6.0 using Z-Phe-Arg-4mβNA as substrate in presence of reducing agent cysteine. First of all, 100 µL of preactivated enzyme (1.678 units) was equilibrated in 0.855 µL 0.1 M phosphate buffer, pH 6.0 at 37 °C, at varying concentrations of synthesized N-formylpyrazolines and N-benzoylpyrazolines (Figure 2i-ii), separately. The stock solutions of synthesized N-formylpyrazolines and N-benzoylpyrazolines (2a-2j) were prepared in DMSO. Appropriate amount of stock solutions of individual compounds and corresponding amount of DMSO (total 20 µL with a final concentration of DMSO 2%) was added in the reaction mixture to effect different concentrations of each compound as indicated in Figures 2i-ii, separately. After incubation time of 30 min. residual enzyme activity was estimated using 25 µL using Z-Phe-Arg-4mβNA as substrate.
The experiments were performed in triplicate for each concentration and averaged before further calculations. The % activity in each case has been calculated with respect to the control where no compound was added but an equivalent amount of DMSO (20 µL) was present. The results are presented in Table 1.
S. No. | Compound Name | % residual activity at (Z) × 10-7 M concentration of compounds | Ki (10-9 M) |
Control | 100.0 ± 1.33 | ||
1. | N-formyl-3,5-diphenylpyrazoline (1a) | 58.81 ± 5.84 (0.1) | 1.32 |
2. | N-formyl-5-(-2’-chlorophenyl)-3-phenylpyrazoline (1b) | 55.35 ± 5.50 (0.1) | 1.20 |
3. | N-formyl-5-(-3’-chlorophenyl)-3-phenylpyrazoline (1c) | 33.68 ± 3.33 (0.1) | 0.86 |
4. | N-formyl-5-(-4’-chlorophenyl)-3-phenylpyrazoline (1d) | 63.36 ± 6.21 (0.1) | 1.52 |
5. | N-formyl-5-(-2’-methoxyphenyl)-3-phenyl pyrazoline (1e) | 90.86 ± 9.05 (0.1) | 6.6 |
6. | N-formyl-5-(-3’-methoxyphenyl)-3-phenyl pyrazoline (1f) | 87.40 ± 8.58 (0.1) | 3.6 |
7. | N-formyl-5-(-4’-methoxyphenyl)-3-phenyl pyrazoline (1g) | 80.12 ± 7.85 (0.1) | 1.77 |
8. | N-formyl-5-(-2’-nitrophenyl)-3-phenylpyrazoline(1h) | 27.20 ± 2.70 (0.1) | 0.77 |
9. | N-formyl-5-(-3’-nitrophenyl)-3-phenylpyrazoline (1i) | 9.47 ± 0.93 (0.1) | 0.64 |
10. | N-formyl-5-(-4’-nitrophenyl)-3-phenylpyrazoline (1j) | 22.58 ± 2.22 (0.1) | 0.70 |
11. | N-benzoyl-3,5-diphenylpyrazoline(2a) | 37.34 ± 3.66 | 16.65 |
12. | N-benzoyl-5-(-2’-chloro phenyl)-3-phenylpyrazoline (2b) | 26.01 ± 2.57 | 11.33 |
13. | N-benzoyl-5-(-3’-chloro phenyl)-3-phenylpyrazoline (2c) | 24.49 ± 2.40 | 10.66 |
14. | N-benzoyl-5-(-4’-chloro phenyl)-3-phenylpyrazoline (2d) | 30.08 ± 2.99 | 13.69 |
15. | N-benzoyl-5-(-2’-methoxyphenyl)-3-phenyl pyrazoline (2e) | 80.49 ± 8.03 | 112.00 |
16. | N-benzoyl-5-(-3’-methoxy phenyl)-3-phenyl pyrazoline (2f) | 54.82 ± 5.48 | 56.60 |
17. | N-benzoyl-5-(-4’-methoxy phenyl)-3-phenyl pyrazoline (2g) | 49.01 ± 4.86 | 26.71 |
18. | N-benzoyl-5-(-2’-nitrophenyl)-3-phenylpyrazoline (2h) | 24.41 ± 2.40 | 8.49 |
19. | N-benzoyl-5-(-3’-nitrophenyl)-3-phenylpyrazoline (2i) | 18.46 ± 1.86 | 5.73 |
20. | N-benzoyl-5-(-4’-nitrophenyl)-3-phenylpyrazoline (2j) | 18.62 ± 1.84 | 7.09 |
28. | Leupeptin | 90.98 ± 0.89 (0.01) | – |
The % residual activity has been calculated with respect to control where no compound was added but an equal amount of solvent was added. The results are SMD of experiment conducted in triplicate. In order to determine Ki values, experiments were conducted in triplicates in presence and absence of a fixed concentration of different compound, separately. The results were then plotted between 1/V and 1/S to obtain Line-weaver Burk plots and all the compounds were established as competitive inhibitors. The Ki values were calculated using Line-weaver Burk equations for competitive inhibition. |
After establishing the inhibitory action of compounds on cathepsin L, experiments were designed to evaluate the type of inhibition and to determine the Ki value of these compounds on cathepsin L. For that, enzyme activities were evaluated at different substrate concentrations in presence and absence of a fixed concentration of inhibitor. The enzyme concentration was kept constant in all the experiments. Line-weaver Burk plot were drawn between 1/S and 1/V in presence and absence of different series of compounds on cathepsin L, Figure 2iii-iv. And the Ki values were calculated using the line-weaver burk equation for competitive inhibition Km’=Km (1+I/ Ki).
All docking studies were performed using iGemdock. For these studies, small molecular weight ligands and enzyme active site structure is required. The structure of cathepsin L was retrieved from Protein Data Bank (http://www.rcsb.org/) as 3BC3 [28]. The structures were prepared in Marvin sketch minimized and were saved as MDL Mol File. The prepared ligands and the binding site were loaded in the iGemdock software and docking was started by setting the GA-parameters at drug screening setting. The results presented in Table 2 pertain to the interaction data. Fitness is the total energy of a predicted pose in the binding site. The empirical scoring function of iGemdock is the sum total of Van der Waal, H-bonding and electrostatic energy. The docked poses of substrate Z-Phe-Arg-4mβNA, standard inhibitor leupeptin, most inhibitory compounds of each series 1i and 2i in the active site of cathepsin L are shown in Figure 3.
Compound | Total Energy (Kcal/mol) | VDW | H Bond | Electronic |
Leupeptin | −114.04 | −98.44 | −15.59 | 0 |
Z-Phe-Arg-4mβNA | −137.75 | −99.32 | −40.23 | 1.80 |
1a | −86.23 | −72.56 | −13.68 | 0 |
1b | −90.94 | −77.23 | −13.70 | 0 |
1c | −86.28 | −75.44 | −10.83 | 0 |
1d | −88.92 | −74.94 | −13.98 | 0 |
1e | −99.29 | −86.32 | −12.97 | 0 |
1f | −95.39 | −85.81 | −9.58 | 0 |
1g | −90.60 | −81.28 | −9.32 | 0 |
1h | −113.75 | −84.09 | −30.07 | 0.41 |
1i | −98.43 | −80.56 | −17.86 | 0 |
1j | −92.95 | −84.83 | −8.12 | 0 |
2a | −92.78 | −85.78 | −7 | 0.84 |
2b | −98.39 | −84.85 | −13.54 | 0 |
2c | −94.99 | −87.99 | −7 | 0.80 |
2d | −97.96 | −90.39 | −7.57 | 0 |
2e | −100.31 | −87.50 | −12.08 | 0 |
2f | −99.97 | −81.46 | −18.51 | 0 |
2g | −93.36 | −86.36 | −7 | 0 |
2h | −114.33 | −95.19 | −19.94 | 0 |
2i | −100.56 | −79.12 | −21.43 | 0 |
2j | −111.17 | −92.93 | −19.08 | 0 |
The results are one of the docking experiments run using iGemdock under drug screening settings. The ligands were loaded as MDL mol file. The active site was extracted from the structure of cathepsin B, H and L retrieved from Protein Data Bank (http://www.rcsb.org/) as 3BC3. |
The biological activities exhibited by N-formylpyrazolines and N-benzoylpyrazolines like anticancer and anti-inflammatory where role of cathepsins has been established motivated us to screen the effect of some N-formylpyrazolines (1a-1j) and N-benzoylpyrazolines (2a-2j) on cathepsins. Their inhibitory effect on cathepsins B and H has already been reported in our previous published data [17] where we found that cathepsins B and H were inhibited appreciably and exhibited Ki values of the order of 10−8 M. Cathepsin L another significant related enzyme also contributes significantly to the above mentioned diseased conditions and therefore in the present work we have explored the inhibitory effect of title compounds on cathepsin L. The results obtained are discussed below.
Table 1 shows the % residual activities of cathepsin L in presence of different compounds (1a-1j and 2a-2j). Various trends in inhibitory potential of compounds can be visualized. First is that N-formylpyrazolines are significantly better inhibitors than N-benzoylpyrazolines. In general the-NO2 substituted compounds were more potent inhibitors than-Cl and unsubstituted followed by-OCH3 in that order. The results clearly indicate that enzyme activity is greatly reduced in presence of electron withdrawing group than electron releasing group. It can further be observed that in each similarly substituted compounds m-positioned substitution exhibited more inhibition than o-or p-position.
Figure 1i-ii depict the activity of cathepsin L at varying concentrations of title compounds. The plots of % residual activities versus the concentrations of different compounds gave a relationship where increased compound concentration caused more inhibition. Among the various compounds tested, N-formyl-5-(-3’-nitrophenyl)-3-phenylpyrazoline(1i) was found to be most inhibitory to cathepsin L activity. Similar trend was observed in N-benzoylpyrazolines. The compounds have been found to be most inhibitory to cathepsin B and H also. However the inhibitory potential for cathepsin L has been found of the order of 10−9 M as compared to 10−8 M for cathepsins B and H. The results illustrated the significance of present study that the title compounds are better inhibitors to cathepsin L than cathepsin B and H.
After establishing the inhibitory action of synthesized compounds on cathepsin L, experiments were designed to evaluate the type of inhibition and to determine the Ki value of these compounds on cathepsin L. For that, enzyme activities were evaluated at different substrate concentrations in presence and absence of a fixed concentration of different compounds. The enzyme concentration was kept constant in all the experiments. Line-weaver Burk plots were drawn in 1/S and 1/V in presence and absence of inhibitor for cathepsin L, Figure 1iii-iv. It was found that the plots of 1/V and 1/S were straight lines intersecting at the Y-axis and showed that value of V remained constant in all the compounds whereas the value of K changes with each compound. These studies suggested a competitive type of inhibition exhibited by these compounds [29]. Using the Line-weaver Burk equation for competitive inhibition the Ki values were calculated, which has been presented in Table 1. The Ki value of most inhibiting compound cathepsin L in the corresponding series i.e. N-formylpyrazolines and N-benzoylpyrazolines has been evaluated ~6.4×10−10 and 5.7×10−9 M for 1i and 2i, respectively. The compound, 1i, has been evaluated as an effective inhibitor of cathepsin L with inhibitory potency approaching that of specific peptidyl inhibitor leupeptin, having the Ki value of 1.45×10−9 M for goat brain cathepsin L [27]. The Ki values for cathepsins B have been reported as~1.1×10−9 and 19.5×10−8M for compounds 1i and 2i, respectively; similarly for cathepsin H, these compound showed maximum inhibition with Ki values~5.19×10−8 and 9.8×10−7M respectively [17]. This has been interesting to find out that the title compounds are better inhibitors of cathepsin L in comparison to cathepsin B and H. The inhibitory studies of chalcones and corresponding flavonoids also emphasize a similar trend on these enzymes [23,25]. Similar inhibitory potential of 1i and 2i to cathepsins B [17] and L (present study) can be explained on the basis of the binding sites. The binding sites in proteases are designated as S1, S2, …. Sn corresponding to enzyme site designated as P1, P2, …. Pn. These binding sites account for the reaction specificities of proteases [30]. The substrate specificity of catehpsins B and L corresponding to S1 binding site is similar as both these enzymes show a good acceptability of arginine amino acid (Figure 4). Therefore both these enzymes are usually inhibited by similarly substituted compounds [7,22,23,25,31]. The similar behavior of cathepsins B and L toward potential inhibitors 1i and 2i, can be due to similar binding site S1.
On the basis of the interaction data of docking experiments that include total energy and individual energy terms, an indicative of the fitness of a predicted pose in the binding site, it is suggested that the level of interaction is highest for N-formyl-5-(-3’-nitrophenyl)-3-phenylpyrazoline(1i) followed by N-benzoyl-5-(-3’-nitrophenyl)-3-phenylpyrazoline (2i) within the active site of cathepsin L (Table 2). Leupeptin, the peptidyl inhibitor of cathepsin L, interact with the enzyme and showed higher interaction energy than all the compounds. Decrease in total energy for leupeptin-cathepsin L has come out be −114.04 which is nearest to substrate BANA, −137.75 when compared to the maximum inhibitory compound in each series. As compared to this the binding energy of title compounds are less (Table 2). N-formylpyrazolines show a higher interaction than N-benzoylpyrazolines (Table 2) in that order. The in-silico predictable behavior of enzyme-ligand interaction can give an idea about the interaction. From the Figure 3i it is clear that out of the six amino acids, Glu-19, Asp-162, His-163, Glu-164, Asn-187 and Ser-188 that bind to the substrate Z-Phe-Arg-4mβNA through H-bonding only two i.e. Asp-162 and His-163 binds to leupeptin, a potential peptidyl inhibitor of cathepsin L, Figure 3ii. However, binding pattern of 1i (Figure 3iii) suggests that in addition to Asp-162 and His-163, Gln-19 and Asp-162 are also common amino acids that bind to substrate as well as 1i. The energy of binding for leupeptin-cathepsin L has been found to be more but the effective binding through H-bonds is more in case of 1i, suggesting a better inhibition by the compound 1i as compared to leupeptin. The in-silico results are justified by the in-vitro inhibition studies. Having four common amino acids in the binding of 1i and Z-Phe-Arg-4mβNA also support the enzyme kinetic study where we have evaluated that the compound 1i is a competitive inhibitor to the cathepsin L. Molecular docking results of 2i also support the in-vitro study. The compound 2i is comparatively less inhibitory than 1i. We can see from Figure 3iv that only two amino acids, Asp-162 and His-163 of total six substrate binding amino acids bind to the compound 2i. Here again we observed that the binding energy of 2i is more than 1i. From these results we can conclude that the occupancy of active site by the number of common amino acids for substrate and the inhibitor through H-bonds can be one of the important deciding factors to determine the extent of inhibition.
Cysteine proteases have been reported as valuable targets for the development of various antiparasitic agents. A direct co-relation between various diseased conditions such as inflammation, cancer etc. with enhanced level of cathepsin L encouraged us to look for various inhibitors of this enzyme. Although a large number of peptidyl inhibitors to thiol enzymes are well reported in literature, but due to some stability and immunogenic problem related with peptidyl inhibitors; in the recent past, non-peptidyl inhibitors of these enzymes are being searched. The present study adds to the existing knowledge of non-peptidyl inhibitors of cathepsins L, where we have reported that N-formylpyrazolines and N-benzoylpyrazolines act as inhibitors of these cysteine proteases. All the compounds were evaluated as competitive inhibitors of enzymes and the results are well documented with in silico experiments.
One of the authors, Shweta Garg is thankful to UGC New Delhi, India for award of SRF and also to Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra for providing necessary research laboratory facilities.
The authors have declared no conflict of interest.
[1] | Sawesi S, Rashrash M, Phalakornkule K, et al. (2016) The impact of information technology on patient engagement and health behavior change: A systematic review of the literature. JMIR Med Inf 4: e4514. https://doi.org/10.2196/medinform.4514 |
[2] |
Søgaard Neilsen A, Wilson RL (2019) Combining e-mental health intervention development with human computer interaction (HCI) design to enhance technology-facilitated recovery for people with depression and/or anxiety conditions: An integrative literature review. Int J Ment Health Nu 28: 22-39. https://doi.org/10.1111/inm.12527 ![]() |
[3] | Mishra R, Satpathy R, Pati B (2023) Human computer interaction applications in healthcare: An integrative review. EAI Endorsed T Pervas Health Technol 9. https://doi.org/10.4108/eetpht.9.4186 |
[4] |
Melles M, Albayrak A, Goossens R (2021) Innovating health care: Key characteristics of human-centered design. Int J Qual Health C 33: 37-44. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzaa127 ![]() |
[5] | He X, Hong Y, Zheng X, et al. (2023) What are the users' needs? Design of a user-centered explainable artificial intelligence diagnostic system. Int J Hum–Comput Int 39: 1519-1542. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2095093 |
[6] |
Cornelio P, Haggard P, Hornbaek K, et al. (2022) The sense of agency in emerging technologies for human–computer integration: A review. Front Neurosci 16: 949138. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2022.949138 ![]() |
[7] | Sadeghi Milani A, Cecil-Xavier A, Gupta A, et al. (2024) A systematic review of human–computer interaction (HCI) research in medical and other engineering fields. Int J Hum–Comput Int 40: 515-536. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2116530 |
[8] |
Reimer YJ, Douglas SA (2003) Teaching HCI design with the studio approach. Comput Sci Educ 13: 191-205. https://doi.org/10.1076/csed.13.3.191.14945 ![]() |
[9] |
Siek KA (2018) Expanding human computer interaction methods to understand user needs in the design process of personal health systems. Yearb Med Inf 27: 74-78. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1667073 ![]() |
[10] | Jimison HB, Pavel M, Parker A, et al. (2023) Correction to: The role of human computer interaction in consumer health applications: Current state, challenges and the future. Cognitive Informatics for Biomedicine. Health Informatics . Berlin: Springer 259-278. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17272-9_15 |
[11] |
Saliba V, Legido-Quigley H, Hallik R, et al. (2012) Telemedicine across borders: A systematic review of factors that hinder or support implementation. Int J Med Inform 81: 793-809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2012.08.003 ![]() |
[12] |
Almathami HKY, Win KT, Vlahu-Gjorgievska E (2020) Barriers and facilitators that influence telemedicine-based, real-time, online consultation at patients' homes: Systematic literature review. J Med Internet Res 22: e16407. https://doi.org/10.2196/16407 ![]() |
[13] | Wang D, Yang Q, Abdul A, et al. (2019) Designing theory-driven user-centric explainable AI. Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems : 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300831 |
[14] |
Dearden A, Finlay J (2006) Pattern languages in HCI: A critical review. Hum–Comput Interact 21: 49-102. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci2101_3 ![]() |
[15] |
Mackay WE, Fayard AL (1997) HCI, natural science and design: A framework for triangulation across disciplines. Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques : 223-234. https://doi.org/10.1145/263552.263612 ![]() |
[16] |
Gulliksen J, Göransson B, Boivie I, et al. (2003) Key principles for user-centred systems design. Behav Inform Technol 22: 397-409. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290310001624329 ![]() |
[17] |
Pacini Naumovich ER, Mateos Diaz CM, Garcia Garino CG (2015) Balancing throughput and response time in online scientific Clouds via Ant Colony Optimization (SP2013/2013/00006). Adv Eng Softw 84: 31-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2015.01.005 ![]() |
[18] | Frangoudes F, Hadjiaros M, Schiza EC, et al. (2021) An overview of the use of chatbots in medical and healthcare education. International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction : 170-184. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77943-6_11 |
[19] |
Pavlovic VI, Sharma R, Huang TS (1997) Visual interpretation of hand gestures for human-computer interaction: A review. IEEE T Pattern Anal 19: 677-695. https://doi.org/10.1109/34.598226 ![]() |
[20] |
Spruit M, Lytras M (2018) Applied data science in patient-centric healthcare: Adaptive analytic systems for empowering physicians and patients. Telemat Inform 35: 643-653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.04.002 ![]() |
[21] | Hegner SM, Beldad AD, Brunswick GJ (2019) In automatic we trust: Investigating the impact of trust, control, personality characteristics, and extrinsic and intrinsic motivations on the acceptance of autonomous vehicles. Int J Hum–Comput Int 35: 1769-1780. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2019.1572353 |
[22] |
Ekstrand MD, Das A, Burke R, et al. (2022) Fairness in information access systems. Found Trends Inf Ret 16: 1-177. https://doi.org/10.1561/1500000079 ![]() |
[23] |
Finstad K (2010) The usability metric for user experience. Interact Comput 22: 323-327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2010.04.004 ![]() |
[24] |
Ke JXC, George RB, Wozney L, et al. (2021) Application mobile périopératoire destinée aux mères avec un accouchement par césarienne: Une étude de cohorte prospective sur l'intérêt des patientes. Can J Anesth 68: 505-513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-020-01907-x ![]() |
[25] |
Robbins DA, Curro FA, Fox CH (2013) Defining patient-centricity: Opportunities, challenges, and implications for clinical care and research. Ther Innov Regul Sci 47: 349-355. https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479013484159 ![]() |
[26] | Visell Y (2009) Tactile sensory substitution: Models for enaction in HCI. Int Comput 21: 38-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2008.08.004 |
[27] | Bukht TFN, Rahman H, Shaheen M, et al. (2024) A review of video-based human activity recognition: Theory, methods and applications. Multimed Tools Appl : 1-47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-024-19711-w |
[28] |
Holden RJ, Abebe E, Hill JR, et al. (2022) Human factors engineering and human-computer interaction: Supporting user performance and experience. Clinic Inf Stu Guide : 119-132. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-93765-2_9 ![]() |
[29] |
Dino MJS, Davidson PM, Dion KW, et al. (2022) Nursing and human-computer interaction in healthcare robots for older people: An integrative review. Int J Nurs Stu Adv 4: 100072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnsa.2022.100072 ![]() |
[30] |
Luo Y, Li M, Tang J, et al. (2021) Design of a virtual reality interactive training system for public health emergency preparedness for major emerging infectious diseases: Theory and framework. JMIR Serious Games 9: e29956. https://doi.org/10.2196/29956 ![]() |
[31] | Ahmed A, Xi R, Hou M, et al. (2023) Harnessing big data analytics for healthcare: A comprehensive review of frameworks, implications, applications, and impacts. IEEE Access . https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3323574 |
[32] | Pierce J, Sengers P, Hirsch T, et al. (2015) Expanding and refining design and criticality in HCI. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems : 2083-2092. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702438 |
[33] |
Bachmann D, Weichert F, Rinkenauer G (2018) Review of three-dimensional human-computer interaction with focus on the leap motion controller. Sensors 18: 2194. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18072194 ![]() |
[34] |
Šumak B, Brdnik S, Pušnik M (2021) Sensors and artificial intelligence methods and algorithms for human–computer intelligent interaction: A systematic mapping study. Sensors 22: 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22010020 ![]() |
[35] |
Shah SA, Fioranelli F (2019) RF sensing technologies for assisted daily living in healthcare: A comprehensive review. IEEE Aero El Sys Mag 34: 26-44. https://doi.org/10.1109/MAES.2019.2933971 ![]() |
[36] |
Omaghomi TT, Elufioye OA, Akomolafe O, et al. (2024) Health apps and patient engagement: A review of effectiveness and user experience. World J Adv Res Rev 21: 432-440. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2024.21.2.0476 ![]() |
[37] |
Oulasvirta A, Hornbæk K (2016) HCI research as problem-solving. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems : 4956-4967. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858283 ![]() |
[38] |
Hekler EB, Klasnja P, Froehlich JE, et al. (2013) Mind the theoretical gap: Interpreting, using, and developing behavioral theory in HCI research. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems : 3307-3316. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2466452 ![]() |
[39] | Su T, Ding Z, Cui L, et al. (2024) System development and evaluation of human–computer interaction approach for assessing functional impairment for people with mild cognitive impairment: A pilot study. Int J Hum–Comput Int 40: 1906-1920. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2228529 |
[40] |
Sin J, Munteanu C (2020) An empirically grounded sociotechnical perspective on designing virtual agents for older adults. Hum–Comput Int 35: 481-510. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2020.1731690 ![]() |
[41] | Mentler T, Berndt H, Herczeg M (2016) Optical head-mounted displays for medical professionals: Cognition-supporting human-computer interaction design. Proceedings of the European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics : 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1145/2970930.2970957 |
[42] |
Girju R, Girju M (2022) Design considerations for an NLP-driven empathy and emotion interface for clinician training via telemedicine. Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Bridging Human--Computer Interaction and Natural Language Processing : 21-27. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.hcinlp-1.3 ![]() |
[43] |
Dix A (2017) Human–computer interaction, foundations and new paradigms. J Visual Lang Comput 42: 122-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvlc.2016.04.001 ![]() |
[44] |
Prasad S, Smith A, Joshi A, et al. (2005) Report on the first all-India human-computer interaction conference. Interact 12: 67-69. https://doi.org/10.1145/1082369.1082417 ![]() |
[45] |
Balcombe L, De Leo D (2022) Human-computer interaction in digital mental health. Informatics 9: 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics9010014 ![]() |
[46] |
Chen S, Epps J, Ruiz N, et al. (2011) Eye activity as a measure of human mental effort in HCI. Proceedings of the 16th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces : 315-318. https://doi.org/10.1145/1943403.1943454 ![]() |
[47] |
Webster J, Trevino LK, Ryan L (1993) The dimensionality and correlates of flow in human-computer interactions. Comput Hum Behav 9: 411-426. https://doi.org/10.1016/0747-5632(93)90032-N ![]() |
[48] |
Ghani JA, Deshpande SP (1994) Task characteristics and the experience of optimal flow in human—computer interaction. J Psychol 128: 381-391. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1994.9712742 ![]() |
[49] |
Middleton B, Bloomrosen M, Dente MA, et al. (2013) Enhancing patient safety and quality of care by improving the usability of electronic health record systems: Recommendations from AMIA. J Am Med Inform Asso 20: e2-e8. https://doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001458 ![]() |
[50] |
Zheng K, Ratwani RM, Adler-Milstein J (2020) Studying workflow and workarounds in electronic health record–supported work to improve health system performance. Ann Intern Med 172: S116-S122. https://doi.org/10.7326/M19-0871 ![]() |
[51] |
Zhang J, Johnson TR, Patel VL, et al. (2003) Using usability heuristics to evaluate patient safety of medical devices. J Biomed Inform 36: 23-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1532-0464(03)00060-1 ![]() |
[52] |
Bolgova KV, Kovalchuk SV, Balakhontceva MA, et al. (2020) Human computer interaction during clinical decision support with electronic health records improvement. Int J E-Health Med C 11: 93-106. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-9023-2.ch062 ![]() |
[53] | Mansur SH, Moran K (2023) Toward automated tools to support ethical GUI design. 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings : 294-298. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE-Companion58688.2023.00079 |
[54] |
Aronson AR, Lang FM (2010) An overview of MetaMap: Historical perspective and recent advances. J Am Med Inform Asso 17: 229-236. https://doi.org/10.1136/jamia.2009.002733 ![]() |
[55] |
Rossi S, Hallett M, Rossini PM, et al. (2009) Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research. Clin Neurophysiol 120: 2008-2039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2009.08.016 ![]() |
[56] |
Doebelin N, Kleeberg R (2015) Profex: A graphical user interface for the rietveld refinement program BGMN. J Appl Crystallogr 48: 1573-1580. https://doi.org/10.1107/S1600576715014685 ![]() |
[57] |
Kokalj A (2003) Computer graphics and graphical user interfaces as tools in simulations of matter at the atomic scale. Comput Mater Sci 28: 155-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-0256(03)00104-6 ![]() |
[58] |
Xierali IM, Hsiao CJ, Puffer JC, et al. (2013) The rise of electronic health record adoption among family physicians. Annal Fam Med 11: 14-19. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1461 ![]() |
[59] |
Park A, Wilson M, Robson K, et al. (2023) Interoperability: Our exciting and terrifying Web3 future. Bus Horizons 66: 529-541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2022.10.005 ![]() |
[60] |
Keshta I, Odeh A (2021) Security and privacy of electronic health records: Concerns and challenges. Egypt Inform J 22: 177-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eij.2020.07.003 ![]() |
[61] |
Nazar M, Alam MM, Yafi E, et al. (2021) A systematic review of human–computer interaction and explainable artificial intelligence in healthcare with artificial intelligence techniques. IEEE Access 9: 153316-153348. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3127881 ![]() |
[62] | Ledo D, Houben S, Vermeulen J, et al. (2018) Evaluation strategies for HCI toolkit research. Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems : 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173610 |
[63] | Barricelli BR, Fogli D (2024) Digital twins in human-computer interaction: A systematic review. Int J Hum–Comput Int 40: 79-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2118189 |
[64] |
Blandford A (2019) HCI for health and wellbeing: Challenges and opportunities. Int J Hum-Comput St 131: 41-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.06.007 ![]() |
[65] |
Hornbæk K (2006) Current practice in measuring usability: Challenges to usability studies and research. Int J Hum-Comput St 64: 79-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.06.002 ![]() |
[66] | Lewis JR (1995) IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: Psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. Int J Hum–Comput Int 7: 57-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447319509526110 |
[67] |
Jaspers MW (2009) A comparison of usability methods for testing interactive health technologies: Methodological aspects and empirical evidence. Int J Med Inform 78: 340-353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.10.002 ![]() |
[68] | Sadeghi Milani A, Cecil-Xavier A, Gupta A, et al. (2024) A systematic review of human–computer interaction (HCI) research in medical and other engineering fields. Int J Hum–Comput Int 40: 515-536. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2116530 |
[69] | Chandra S, Sharma G, Malhotra S, et al. (2015) Eye tracking based human computer interaction: Applications and their uses. 2015 International Conference on Man and Machine Interfacing : 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1109/MAMI.2015.7456615 |
[70] |
Newell AF, Gregor P (1997) Human computer interfaces for people with disabilities. Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction . Holland: North-Holland 813-824. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-044481862-1.50101-1 ![]() |
[71] |
Aggarwal JK, Ryoo MS (2011) Human activity analysis: A review. Acm Comput Surv 43: 1-43. https://doi.org/10.1145/1922649.1922653 ![]() |
[72] | Maes P (1995) Agents that reduce work and information overload. Readings in Human–Computer Interaction . Manhattan: Morgan Kaufmann 811-821. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-051574-8.50084-4 |
[73] | Judd T, Ehinger K, Durand F, et al. (2009) Learning to predict where humans look. 2009 IEEE 12th International Conference on Computer Vision : 2106-2113. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV.2009.5459462 |
[74] |
Dalsgaard P, Dindler C (2014) Between theory and practice: Bridging concepts in HCI research. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems : 1635-1644. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557342 ![]() |
[75] | Stephanidis C, Salvendy G, Antona M, et al. (2019) Seven HCI grand challenges. Int J Hum–Comput Int 35: 1229-1269. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2019.1619259 |
[76] |
Fukizi KY (2023) Collaborative decision-making assistant for healthcare professionals: A human-centered AI prototype powered by azure open AI. Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCAS/SIGCHI Conference on Computing and Sustainable Societies : 118-119. https://doi.org/10.1145/3588001.3609370 ![]() |
[77] |
Ala A, Simic V, Pamucar D, et al. (2024) Enhancing patient information performance in internet of things-based smart healthcare system: Hybrid artificial intelligence and optimization approaches. Eng Appl Artif Intel 131: 107889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2024.107889 ![]() |
[78] |
Han E, DeVeaux C, Miller MR, et al. (2024) Alone together, together alone: The effects of social context on nonverbal behavior in virtual reality. Presence-Virtual Aug 33: 425-451. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres_a_00432 ![]() |
[79] |
Greenberg S, Boring S, Vermeulen J, et al. (2014) Dark patterns in proxemic interactions: A critical perspective. Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive systems : 523-532. https://doi.org/10.1145/2598510.2598541 ![]() |
[80] | Epstein DA, O'Kane AA, Miller AD (2023) Symposium: Workgroup on interactive systems in healthcare (WISH). Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems : 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544549.3573804 |
[81] | Yarmand M, Chen C, Cheng K, et al. (2024) “I'd be watching him contour till 10 o'clock at night”: Understanding tensions between teaching methods and learning needs in healthcare apprenticeship. Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems : 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642453 |
1. | Ravinder Kaur, Neera Raghav, Some thiocarbamoyl based novel anticathepsin agents, 2020, 104, 00452068, 104174, 10.1016/j.bioorg.2020.104174 | |
2. | Neera Raghav, Mamta Singh, SAR studies of some acetophenone phenylhydrazone based pyrazole derivatives as anticathepsin agents, 2017, 75, 00452068, 38, 10.1016/j.bioorg.2017.08.006 |
S. No. | Compound Name | % residual activity at (Z) × 10-7 M concentration of compounds | Ki (10-9 M) |
Control | 100.0 ± 1.33 | ||
1. | N-formyl-3,5-diphenylpyrazoline (1a) | 58.81 ± 5.84 (0.1) | 1.32 |
2. | N-formyl-5-(-2’-chlorophenyl)-3-phenylpyrazoline (1b) | 55.35 ± 5.50 (0.1) | 1.20 |
3. | N-formyl-5-(-3’-chlorophenyl)-3-phenylpyrazoline (1c) | 33.68 ± 3.33 (0.1) | 0.86 |
4. | N-formyl-5-(-4’-chlorophenyl)-3-phenylpyrazoline (1d) | 63.36 ± 6.21 (0.1) | 1.52 |
5. | N-formyl-5-(-2’-methoxyphenyl)-3-phenyl pyrazoline (1e) | 90.86 ± 9.05 (0.1) | 6.6 |
6. | N-formyl-5-(-3’-methoxyphenyl)-3-phenyl pyrazoline (1f) | 87.40 ± 8.58 (0.1) | 3.6 |
7. | N-formyl-5-(-4’-methoxyphenyl)-3-phenyl pyrazoline (1g) | 80.12 ± 7.85 (0.1) | 1.77 |
8. | N-formyl-5-(-2’-nitrophenyl)-3-phenylpyrazoline(1h) | 27.20 ± 2.70 (0.1) | 0.77 |
9. | N-formyl-5-(-3’-nitrophenyl)-3-phenylpyrazoline (1i) | 9.47 ± 0.93 (0.1) | 0.64 |
10. | N-formyl-5-(-4’-nitrophenyl)-3-phenylpyrazoline (1j) | 22.58 ± 2.22 (0.1) | 0.70 |
11. | N-benzoyl-3,5-diphenylpyrazoline(2a) | 37.34 ± 3.66 | 16.65 |
12. | N-benzoyl-5-(-2’-chloro phenyl)-3-phenylpyrazoline (2b) | 26.01 ± 2.57 | 11.33 |
13. | N-benzoyl-5-(-3’-chloro phenyl)-3-phenylpyrazoline (2c) | 24.49 ± 2.40 | 10.66 |
14. | N-benzoyl-5-(-4’-chloro phenyl)-3-phenylpyrazoline (2d) | 30.08 ± 2.99 | 13.69 |
15. | N-benzoyl-5-(-2’-methoxyphenyl)-3-phenyl pyrazoline (2e) | 80.49 ± 8.03 | 112.00 |
16. | N-benzoyl-5-(-3’-methoxy phenyl)-3-phenyl pyrazoline (2f) | 54.82 ± 5.48 | 56.60 |
17. | N-benzoyl-5-(-4’-methoxy phenyl)-3-phenyl pyrazoline (2g) | 49.01 ± 4.86 | 26.71 |
18. | N-benzoyl-5-(-2’-nitrophenyl)-3-phenylpyrazoline (2h) | 24.41 ± 2.40 | 8.49 |
19. | N-benzoyl-5-(-3’-nitrophenyl)-3-phenylpyrazoline (2i) | 18.46 ± 1.86 | 5.73 |
20. | N-benzoyl-5-(-4’-nitrophenyl)-3-phenylpyrazoline (2j) | 18.62 ± 1.84 | 7.09 |
28. | Leupeptin | 90.98 ± 0.89 (0.01) | – |
The % residual activity has been calculated with respect to control where no compound was added but an equal amount of solvent was added. The results are SMD of experiment conducted in triplicate. In order to determine Ki values, experiments were conducted in triplicates in presence and absence of a fixed concentration of different compound, separately. The results were then plotted between 1/V and 1/S to obtain Line-weaver Burk plots and all the compounds were established as competitive inhibitors. The Ki values were calculated using Line-weaver Burk equations for competitive inhibition. |
Compound | Total Energy (Kcal/mol) | VDW | H Bond | Electronic |
Leupeptin | −114.04 | −98.44 | −15.59 | 0 |
Z-Phe-Arg-4mβNA | −137.75 | −99.32 | −40.23 | 1.80 |
1a | −86.23 | −72.56 | −13.68 | 0 |
1b | −90.94 | −77.23 | −13.70 | 0 |
1c | −86.28 | −75.44 | −10.83 | 0 |
1d | −88.92 | −74.94 | −13.98 | 0 |
1e | −99.29 | −86.32 | −12.97 | 0 |
1f | −95.39 | −85.81 | −9.58 | 0 |
1g | −90.60 | −81.28 | −9.32 | 0 |
1h | −113.75 | −84.09 | −30.07 | 0.41 |
1i | −98.43 | −80.56 | −17.86 | 0 |
1j | −92.95 | −84.83 | −8.12 | 0 |
2a | −92.78 | −85.78 | −7 | 0.84 |
2b | −98.39 | −84.85 | −13.54 | 0 |
2c | −94.99 | −87.99 | −7 | 0.80 |
2d | −97.96 | −90.39 | −7.57 | 0 |
2e | −100.31 | −87.50 | −12.08 | 0 |
2f | −99.97 | −81.46 | −18.51 | 0 |
2g | −93.36 | −86.36 | −7 | 0 |
2h | −114.33 | −95.19 | −19.94 | 0 |
2i | −100.56 | −79.12 | −21.43 | 0 |
2j | −111.17 | −92.93 | −19.08 | 0 |
The results are one of the docking experiments run using iGemdock under drug screening settings. The ligands were loaded as MDL mol file. The active site was extracted from the structure of cathepsin B, H and L retrieved from Protein Data Bank (http://www.rcsb.org/) as 3BC3. |
S. No. | Compound Name | % residual activity at (Z) × 10-7 M concentration of compounds | Ki (10-9 M) |
Control | 100.0 ± 1.33 | ||
1. | N-formyl-3,5-diphenylpyrazoline (1a) | 58.81 ± 5.84 (0.1) | 1.32 |
2. | N-formyl-5-(-2’-chlorophenyl)-3-phenylpyrazoline (1b) | 55.35 ± 5.50 (0.1) | 1.20 |
3. | N-formyl-5-(-3’-chlorophenyl)-3-phenylpyrazoline (1c) | 33.68 ± 3.33 (0.1) | 0.86 |
4. | N-formyl-5-(-4’-chlorophenyl)-3-phenylpyrazoline (1d) | 63.36 ± 6.21 (0.1) | 1.52 |
5. | N-formyl-5-(-2’-methoxyphenyl)-3-phenyl pyrazoline (1e) | 90.86 ± 9.05 (0.1) | 6.6 |
6. | N-formyl-5-(-3’-methoxyphenyl)-3-phenyl pyrazoline (1f) | 87.40 ± 8.58 (0.1) | 3.6 |
7. | N-formyl-5-(-4’-methoxyphenyl)-3-phenyl pyrazoline (1g) | 80.12 ± 7.85 (0.1) | 1.77 |
8. | N-formyl-5-(-2’-nitrophenyl)-3-phenylpyrazoline(1h) | 27.20 ± 2.70 (0.1) | 0.77 |
9. | N-formyl-5-(-3’-nitrophenyl)-3-phenylpyrazoline (1i) | 9.47 ± 0.93 (0.1) | 0.64 |
10. | N-formyl-5-(-4’-nitrophenyl)-3-phenylpyrazoline (1j) | 22.58 ± 2.22 (0.1) | 0.70 |
11. | N-benzoyl-3,5-diphenylpyrazoline(2a) | 37.34 ± 3.66 | 16.65 |
12. | N-benzoyl-5-(-2’-chloro phenyl)-3-phenylpyrazoline (2b) | 26.01 ± 2.57 | 11.33 |
13. | N-benzoyl-5-(-3’-chloro phenyl)-3-phenylpyrazoline (2c) | 24.49 ± 2.40 | 10.66 |
14. | N-benzoyl-5-(-4’-chloro phenyl)-3-phenylpyrazoline (2d) | 30.08 ± 2.99 | 13.69 |
15. | N-benzoyl-5-(-2’-methoxyphenyl)-3-phenyl pyrazoline (2e) | 80.49 ± 8.03 | 112.00 |
16. | N-benzoyl-5-(-3’-methoxy phenyl)-3-phenyl pyrazoline (2f) | 54.82 ± 5.48 | 56.60 |
17. | N-benzoyl-5-(-4’-methoxy phenyl)-3-phenyl pyrazoline (2g) | 49.01 ± 4.86 | 26.71 |
18. | N-benzoyl-5-(-2’-nitrophenyl)-3-phenylpyrazoline (2h) | 24.41 ± 2.40 | 8.49 |
19. | N-benzoyl-5-(-3’-nitrophenyl)-3-phenylpyrazoline (2i) | 18.46 ± 1.86 | 5.73 |
20. | N-benzoyl-5-(-4’-nitrophenyl)-3-phenylpyrazoline (2j) | 18.62 ± 1.84 | 7.09 |
28. | Leupeptin | 90.98 ± 0.89 (0.01) | – |
The % residual activity has been calculated with respect to control where no compound was added but an equal amount of solvent was added. The results are SMD of experiment conducted in triplicate. In order to determine Ki values, experiments were conducted in triplicates in presence and absence of a fixed concentration of different compound, separately. The results were then plotted between 1/V and 1/S to obtain Line-weaver Burk plots and all the compounds were established as competitive inhibitors. The Ki values were calculated using Line-weaver Burk equations for competitive inhibition. |
Compound | Total Energy (Kcal/mol) | VDW | H Bond | Electronic |
Leupeptin | −114.04 | −98.44 | −15.59 | 0 |
Z-Phe-Arg-4mβNA | −137.75 | −99.32 | −40.23 | 1.80 |
1a | −86.23 | −72.56 | −13.68 | 0 |
1b | −90.94 | −77.23 | −13.70 | 0 |
1c | −86.28 | −75.44 | −10.83 | 0 |
1d | −88.92 | −74.94 | −13.98 | 0 |
1e | −99.29 | −86.32 | −12.97 | 0 |
1f | −95.39 | −85.81 | −9.58 | 0 |
1g | −90.60 | −81.28 | −9.32 | 0 |
1h | −113.75 | −84.09 | −30.07 | 0.41 |
1i | −98.43 | −80.56 | −17.86 | 0 |
1j | −92.95 | −84.83 | −8.12 | 0 |
2a | −92.78 | −85.78 | −7 | 0.84 |
2b | −98.39 | −84.85 | −13.54 | 0 |
2c | −94.99 | −87.99 | −7 | 0.80 |
2d | −97.96 | −90.39 | −7.57 | 0 |
2e | −100.31 | −87.50 | −12.08 | 0 |
2f | −99.97 | −81.46 | −18.51 | 0 |
2g | −93.36 | −86.36 | −7 | 0 |
2h | −114.33 | −95.19 | −19.94 | 0 |
2i | −100.56 | −79.12 | −21.43 | 0 |
2j | −111.17 | −92.93 | −19.08 | 0 |
The results are one of the docking experiments run using iGemdock under drug screening settings. The ligands were loaded as MDL mol file. The active site was extracted from the structure of cathepsin B, H and L retrieved from Protein Data Bank (http://www.rcsb.org/) as 3BC3. |