Open Access Article
Mohamed H. Hekal
*a,
Abdullah Yahya Abdullah Alzahranib,
Saad Alrashdi
c,
Fatma S. M. Abu El-Azm
a and
Yasmeen M. Alia
aDepartment of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, Ain Shams University, Abbassia 11566, Cairo, Egypt. E-mail: mohamed.hekal@sci.asu.edu.eg
bDepartment of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia
cDepartment of Chemistry, College of Science, Jouf University, Sakaka 72341, Aljouf, Saudi Arabia
First published on 30th April 2026
In this study, we report the synthesis and biological evaluation of a novel series of benzochromene and benzochromenopyrimidine derivatives employingenaminonitrile compound 1 as a key synthetic precursor. The structures of the synthesized compounds were elucidated using comprehensive analytical and spectroscopic techniques. The antiproliferative activities of the prepared derivatives were evaluated against three cancer cell lines, HCT-116, MCF-7, and HepG2, as well as the normal human lung fibroblast cell line, WI-38, using the MTT assay, with doxorubicin used as the standard reference drug. Among the tested derivatives, compounds 6, 7, and 10 demonstrated notable antiproliferative activity against all examined cancer cell lines. In particular, compound 7 exhibited potent cytotoxic effects, with IC50 values of 5.98, 6.52, and 8.51 µM against HCT-116, MCF-7, and HepG2 cells, respectively, comparable with that of doxorubicin. Importantly, compound 7 displayed low cytotoxicity toward WI-38 cells, resulting in the highest selectivity index (SI = 6.7). Molecular docking analysis further revealed that compound 7 exhibited the promising binding affinity toward EGFR, with a docking score of −9.06 kcal mol−1, comparable with that of gefitinib. Collectively, these findings highlight compound 7 as a potent EGFR-targeting kinase inhibitor with notable anticancer activity.
Their potent anticancer properties have established benzochromenes as privileged scaffolds in drug discovery against a wide range of human cancers. Many derivatives induce cell-cycle arrest and apoptosis. They can bind to DNA,19 inhibit key enzymes, such as topoisomerase I and II, and regulate anti-apoptotic proteins such as Bcl-2.20 The identification of HA14-1 marked a significant advancement in the development of 4H-chromene-based anticancer agents. Evidence indicates that it acts synergistically with flavopiridol to downregulate Bcl-2 by disrupting the interaction between Bax and Bcl-2.21–23 Certain structural motifs have gained attention as potential leads in anticancer drug development (Fig. 1). Notably, benzo[f]chromene-2-carbonitrile derivatives (I) induce cell-cycle arrest and apoptosis in human cancer cells through the simultaneous inhibition of tubulin and topoisomerases,24 while 9-hydroxy/methoxy-1H-benzo[f]chromenes (II) show activity against resistant breast cancer cells via P-glycoprotein inhibition and apoptosis.25 Moreover, chromene-based derivatives have gained considerable research attention as attractive and versatile scaffolds for the design of potent antitumour agents.26 Several representatives highlight their therapeutic potential; for instance, 2-amino-4-(3-bromo-4,5-dimethoxyphenyl)-7-(dimethylamino)-4H-chromene-3-carbonitrile (III) has been identified as an effective tubulin polymerization inhibitor.27 In addition, Crolibulin™ (IV) has progressed to phase I/II clinical trials for the treatment of advanced solid tumors,28 while SP-6-27 (V) demonstrates strong antitumour activity against both cisplatin-sensitive and cisplatin-resistant ovarian cancer cell lines.29
Pyrimidine-based heterocycles complement this strategy, being key motifs in clinically used anticancer drugs such as gefitinib, afatinib, idelalisib, ibrutinib, and pralatrexate (Fig. 2).30 These scaffolds modulate diverse molecular targets involved in cancer progression, including kinases and DNA synthesis enzymes, and apoptotic pathways. Pyrimidinones, in particular, have been validated as effective chemotherapeutic agents due to their ability to inhibit tumor cell proliferation, induce apoptosis, and overcome drug resistance.31–33 The incorporation of pyrimidine moieties into chromene-based derivatives thus represents a promising approach for the development of novel multitargeted anticancer agents, providing a clear rationale for the design and synthesis of the compounds investigated in this study. In view of the promising anticancer activities of both benzochromene and pyrimidine scaffolds, this study focuses on the design, synthesis, and biological evaluation of novel chromene–pyrimidine hybrid derivatives. By combining these two pharmacophores, we aim to develop multitargeted agents capable of inhibiting key cancer-related pathways, providing potential leads for further anticancer drug development.
Motivated by the reported anticancer potential of these scaffolds, and as part of our ongoing efforts to synthesize and biologically evaluate a variety of heterocyclic systems,34–62 we herein report the development of a facile synthetic approach to benzochromene-based derivatives, with the aim of assessing their cytotoxic properties and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) kinase inhibitory activity.
![]() | ||
| Fig. 3 Design rationale of benzochromene-based scaffolds (A and B), highlighting key substitutions for optimized EGFR binding and selectivity. | ||
Treatment of 1 with formamide under heating promotes cyclocondensation involving the amino and cyano groups, resulting in the formation of a fused pyrimidinone-containing naphthopyran derivative 2 (Scheme 1). The suggested structure was corroborated by the IR spectrum, which showed no absorption band corresponding to the CN group. Furthermore, the 1H NMR and 13C NMR spectra were consistent with the proposed structure of 2.
Heating intermediate 1 in formic acid resulted in deamination of the NH2 group, affording the unexpected compound 1-(3,4-dimethoxyphenyl)-3-hydroxy-1H-benzo[f]chromene-2-carbonitrile (3) instead of the anticipated fused pyrimidinone derivative.
To increase the reactivity of the less active amino group in the enaminonitrile intermediate 1, it was refluxed for 12 hours with triethyl orthoformate in the presence of freshly distilled acetic anhydride. This reaction resulted in the formation of the corresponding ethyl formimidate derivative 4, as illustrated in Scheme 1.
Ethyl formimidate 4 was reacted with different N-nucleophiles in an effort to synthesize novel benzochromenopyrimidines. Thus, treatment of compound 4 with hydrazine hydrate in absolute ethanol at room temperature for 6 hours produced the corresponding amino–imino derivative 5 in 78% yield (Scheme 2), and refluxing compound 4 with p-toluenesulfonohydrazide in 1,4-dioxane for 10 h produced benzochromenopyrimidine 6 as white crystals. The cyclized structure of 6 was confirmed by the expected elemental and spectroscopic analyses. The IR spectrum displayed an absorption band for the NH group at 3328 cm−1, while the absence of the nitrile absorption band was in accordance with the assigned structure 6.
Similarly, heating the tri-heterocyclic compound 4 with heterocyclic amines, such as 4-aminoantipyrine, in boiling 1,4-dioxane afforded the corresponding benzochromenopyrimidine derivative 7 in 68% yield, as illustrated in Scheme 2.
In this study, polyfunctionalized binary and fused triazole scaffolds were synthesized to facilitate the incorporation of functional groups that are known to enhance biological activity. The design of these scaffolds was guided by structure–activity relationship (SAR) insights, and earlier studies have emphasized the insecticidal properties of 1,2,4-triazoles and related heterocyclic compounds.34 The reactivity of compound 4 toward selected acid hydrazides, namely semicarbazide hydrochloride and 2-cyanoacetohydrazide, was subsequently investigated (Scheme 3). In this regard, the triheterocyclic compound 4 acted as a key precursor for the construction of tetra- and penta-heterocyclic systems. Thus, heating the ethyl formimidate derivative 4 with semicarbazide hydrochloride in acetic acid containing fused sodium acetate yielded the corresponding benzochromenotriazolopyrimidine derivative 8 as the sole product in 87% yield. The structure of compound 8 was determined from its spectroscopic data; notably, the IR spectrum lacked the characteristic C
N absorption band.
Similarly, reaction of 4 with 2-cyanoacetohydrazide in refluxing 1,4-dioxane yielded acetonitrile derivative 9 as yellow crystals in 78% yield. Its structure was proposed from analytical and spectral data: the IR spectrum exhibited a characteristic ν(C
N) absorption at 2262 cm−1, and the 1H NMR spectrum displayed a singlet signal at δ 4.52 ppm, attributable to the –CH2CN protons, confirming the successful cyclization.
Importantly, the base-catalyzed condensation of active methylene candidates with aromatic aldehydes yielded the corresponding Knoevenagel products. In a similar manner, the reaction of compound 9 with 3,4-dimethoxybenzaldehyde in refluxing ethanol in the presence of a catalytic amount of piperidine led to the formation of the desired arylidene derivative 10 (84%), as illustrated in Scheme 3. The structure of compound 10 was verified through elemental analysis and spectroscopic data.
Among the tested compounds, derivatives 6, 7, and 10 demonstrated the most potent cytotoxic effects. In particular, compound 7 emerged as the most active candidate, displaying IC50 values of 5.98 ± 0.4 µM, 6.52 ± 0.4 µM, and 8.51 ± 0.6 µM against HCT-116, MCF-7, and HepG2 cells, respectively. These values approach those of doxorubicin, suggesting that compound 7 possesses strong anticancer potential. Importantly, compound 7 showed relatively low toxicity toward WI-38 cells (IC50 = 47.42 ± 3.8 µM), resulting in the highest selectivity index (SI = 6.7) among the tested compounds. This indicates that compound 7 preferentially targets cancer cells over normal cells, a desirable property for anticancer drug candidates.
Similarly, compounds 6 and 10 also demonstrated notable cytotoxic activities. Compound 6 exhibited IC50 values of 12.33 ± 1.4 µM, 10.66 ± 0.7 µM, and 7.26 ± 0.5 µM against HCT-116, MCF-7, and HepG2 cells, respectively, with an SI value of 5.4. Compound 10 also showed strong inhibition of cancer cell growth, particularly against MCF-7 (IC50 = 9.25 ± 0.6 µM) and HCT-116 (IC50 = 11.72 ± 1.2 µM), while maintaining relatively low toxicity toward WI-38 cells (IC50 = 67.32 ± 4.4 µM), leading to an SI of 5.6. These findings suggest that compounds 6 and 10 possess promising anticancer selectivity and may serve as valuable lead structures for further optimization (Table 1).
| Compounds | HCT-116 | MCF-7 | HepG2 | WI-38 | SIb |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| a IC50 values are presented as the mean ± standard deviation (SD) from three independent experiments.b SI: selectivity index, calculated as IC50 for WI-38 divided by the mean IC50 for the cancer cell lines. | |||||
| 2 | 65.17 ± 3.6 | 47.12 ± 2.8 | 71.24 ± 4.2 | 52.46 ± 4.2 | 0.9 |
| 3 | 56.88 ± 3.4 | 88.14 ± 4.6 | >100 | 36.16 ± 3.8 | 0.4 |
| 4 | 75.38 ± 4.7 | 62.64 ± 3.4 | 98.60 ± 4.8 | 44.54 ± 3.8 | 0.5 |
| 5 | 54.32 ± 3.2 | 71.44 ± 4.4 | 68.16 ± 3.6 | 54.84 ± 4.2 | 0.8 |
| 6 | 12.33 ± 1.4 | 10.66 ± 0.7 | 7.26 ± 0.5 | 55.23 ± 4.4 | 5.4 |
| 7 | 5.98 ± 0.4 | 6.52 ± 0.4 | 8.51 ± 0.6 | 47.42 ± 3.8 | 6.7 |
| 8 | 61.49 ± 3.3 | 55.21 ± 3.4 | 75.86 ± 4.2 | 28.61 ± 1.8 | 0.4 |
| 9 | 92.54 ± 4.9 | >100 | 81.63 ± 4.4 | 35.87 ± 2.2 | 0.3 |
| 10 | 11.72 ± 1.2 | 9.25 ± 0.6 | 15.14 ± 1.4 | 67.32 ± 4.4 | 5.6 |
| DOX | 5.23 ± 0.3 | 4.17 ± 0.2 | 4.50 ± 0.2 | 6.71 ± 0.5 | 1.4 |
In contrast, compounds 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9 displayed moderate to weak cytotoxic activities, with IC50 values generally exceeding 50 µM against most tested cancer cell lines. Compound 3 showed relatively weak activity, particularly against HepG2 cells, where the IC50 exceeded 100 µM, indicating limited efficacy. Similarly, compounds 8 and 9 exhibited poor anticancer activity and low selectivity indices (0.4 and 0.3, respectively), suggesting that these derivatives lack sufficient potency and selectivity for further consideration.
Most synthesized derivatives exhibited physicochemical properties compatible with orally active small molecules. Compounds 2–5 and 8–9 possess molecular weights ranging from 359.37 to 449.46 g mol−1, remaining within the recommended Lipinski threshold (<500 g mol−1). Compounds 6, 7, and 10 showed higher molecular weights (554.62–597.62 g mol−1), resulting in a single Lipinski violation. Nevertheless, their hydrogen-bonding capacities remained within acceptable limits (HBA = 5–9 and HBD = 0–2), indicating adequate polarity for intermolecular interactions without excessive hydrophilicity. The calculated lipophilicity values (log
P = 3.09–5.27) indicate moderate hydrophobicity across the series, a property generally favorable for passive membrane diffusion. Most compounds fall within the recommended lipophilicity range (log
P ≤ 5), with compound 10 slightly exceeding this value. All derivatives exhibited a predicted bioavailability score of 0.55, indicating a moderate probability of oral absorption.
According to Veber's criteria, TPSA values ranged from 71.71 to 123.91 Å2, well below the recommended threshold (≤140 Å2), supporting favorable intestinal permeability. The number of rotatable bonds (3–7) indicates moderate molecular flexibility, which may facilitate ligand–target interactions while preserving structural stability. Importantly, no Veber's rule violations were detected (Table 2, SI).
| Compound | MW | HBA | HBD | TPSA | Rotatable bonds | Bioavailability score | Log P ≤ 5 |
Lipinski violations | Veber violations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 385.42 | 5 | 2 | 80.22 | 3 | 0.55 | 3.68 | 0 | 0 |
| 3 | 359.37 | 5 | 1 | 71.71 | 3 | 0.55 | 3.72 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | 414.45 | 6 | 0 | 73.07 | 6 | 0.55 | 4.48 | 0 | 0 |
| 5 | 400.43 | 5 | 2 | 95.38 | 3 | 0.55 | 3.09 | 0 | 0 |
| 6 | 554.62 | 7 | 2 | 123.91 | 6 | 0.55 | 4.40 | 1 | 0 |
| 7 | 571.63 | 6 | 1 | 96.29 | 5 | 0.55 | 4.98 | 1 | 0 |
| 8 | 426.42 | 6 | 1 | 90.74 | 3 | 0.55 | 3.32 | 0 | 0 |
| 9 | 449.46 | 7 | 0 | 94.56 | 4 | 0.55 | 3.79 | 0 | 0 |
| 10 | 597.62 | 9 | 0 | 113.02 | 7 | 0.55 | 5.27 | 1 | 0 |
Among the evaluated derivatives, compound 4 displays one of the most balanced physicochemical profiles (MW = 414.45 g mol−1, log
P = 4.48, TPSA = 73.07 Å2, and six rotatable bonds), reflecting an optimal balance between lipophilicity, polarity, and conformational flexibility that may favor membrane permeability and pharmacokinetic performance.
To further evaluate absorption and brain penetration properties, the BOILED-Egg model was employed. This predictive model correlates lipophilicity (W
log
P) and TPSA to estimate passive GI absorption and blood–brain barrier permeability. In the BOILED-Egg diagram, the white area indicates compounds with a high probability of human intestinal absorption (HIA), while the yellow region (yolk) represents molecules predicted to cross the central nervous system (CNS).
The BOILED-Egg model was additionally used to predict gastrointestinal absorption and blood–brain barrier (BBB) permeability based on lipophilicity and TPSA. As illustrated in Fig. 4, most compounds (2 and 4–10) fall within the white region of the diagram, indicating a high probability of human intestinal absorption. Interestingly, compound 3 appears in the yellow region (yolk), suggesting a potential ability to penetrate the blood–brain barrier. Such behavior may indicate possible central nervous system exposure, whereas the remaining derivatives are predicted to have limited BBB permeability, which may be advantageous for peripherally acting therapeutic agents by reducing the risk of neurological side effects.
![]() | ||
| Fig. 4 BOILED-Egg model illustrating the predicted gastrointestinal absorption and brain penetration potential of the synthesized candidates. | ||
The BOILED-Egg analysis also provides insight into interactions with P-glycoprotein, a key efflux transporter involved in drug absorption and distribution. Several derivatives are predicted to behave as non-substrates, indicating a reduced probability of efflux-mediated elimination and potentially improved intracellular retention following absorption.
Overall, the integrated ADME and BOILED-Egg analyses indicate that the synthesized compounds possess generally favorable pharmacokinetic characteristics, including acceptable drug-likeness and predicted oral absorption. Most derivatives exhibit limited blood–brain barrier (BBB) permeability, whereas compound 3 is predicted to penetrate the BBB. These findings suggest that careful optimization of molecular size, lipophilicity, and polarity within this scaffold may yield compounds with promising pharmacokinetic profiles suitable for further biological evaluation.
![]() | ||
| Fig. 5 Superimposition of the docked AQ4 ligand (green) with the original ligand (pink) showing a RMSD value of 1.34 Å and a binding score of −9.12 kcal mol−1. | ||
The anticancer drug gefitinib, a clinically approved EGFR inhibitor, was used as a reference ligand to compare the binding affinity and interaction behavior of the benzochromene derivatives. Gefitinib achieved a docking score of −8.249 kcal mol−1 and established key hydrogen bonds with LEU 694 (A) and MET 769 (A), along with hydrophobic π–H interactions within the ATP-binding pocket. These residues are essential for stabilizing inhibitors within the EGFR kinase domain.
The docking scores of the investigated compounds ranged from −5.941 to −9.067 kcal mol−1, suggesting variable but generally favorable binding affinities toward the EGFR active site. Notably, most compounds established interactions with essential residues located within the ATP-binding region, including LYS 692, LEU 694, MET 769, CYS 773, and ASP 776, which are crucial for ligand recognition and stabilization (Table 3, SI).
| Ligands | S (kcal mol−1) | rmsd_refine (Å) | Binding site | Interaction | Distance (Å) | E (kcal mol−1) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Liganda | Receptor | ||||||
| a Repeated entries of “6-ring” represent the different ligand rings or functional groups interacting at distinct positions within the EGFR binding site. | |||||||
| 2 | −6.333 | 1.248 | N 31 | LYS 692 | H-Acceptor | 2.92 | −10.4 |
| 6-Ring | LEU 694 | Pi-H | 4.32, 4.07 | −1.0, −0.8 | |||
| 3 | −5.941 | 1.092 | O 1 | LYS 692 | H-Acceptor | 3.08 | −10.4 |
| N 5 | LEU 694 | H-Acceptor | 3.50 | −0.9 | |||
| O 1 | LYS 692 | Ionic | 3.08 | −3.9 | |||
| 6-Ring | LEU 694 | Pi-H | 4.11 | −0.6 | |||
| 4 | −6.731 | 1.686 | 6-Ring | LEU 694 | Pi-H | 4.02, 3.69 | −0.7, −1.0 |
| 6-Ring | GLY 772 | Pi-H | 4.00 | −0.7 | |||
| 5 | −6.031 | 1.850 | O 12 | LYS 692 | H-Acceptor | 2.94 | −0.8 |
| N 31 | ASP 776 | Ionic | 3.85 | −0.8 | |||
| 6-Ring | LEU 694 | Pi-H | 4.45, 3.98 | −0.6, −0.8 | |||
| 6 | −7.937 | 0.933 | O 49 | MET 769 | H-Acceptor | 3.51 | −0.6 |
| 6-Ring | LYS 692 | Pi-cation | 3.67, 4.31 | −1.1 | |||
| 6-Ring | LEU 694 | Pi-H | 3.97 | −0.9 | |||
| 7 | −9.067 | 1.747 | N 1 | ARG 817 | H-Donor | 2.74 | −3.4 |
| 5-Ring | THR 830 | Pi-H | 4.36 | −1.6 | |||
| 8 | −6.519 | 1.403 | 6-Ring | LEU 694 | Pi-H | 4.04, 3.75 | −1.0, −1.3 |
| 6-Ring | GLY 772 | Pi-H | 3.89 | −1.0 | |||
| 9 | −6.712 | 1.094 | N 30 | MET 769 | H-Acceptor | 3.55 | −1.6 |
| 6-Ring | CYS 773 | Pi-H | 3.82, 3.46 | −0.8 | |||
| 5-Ring | CYS 773 | Pi-H | 4.32 | −0.7 | |||
| 10 | −8.175 | 1.610 | N 28 | MET 769 | H-Acceptor | 3.17 | −3.7 |
| 6-Ring | LYS 692 | Pi-cation | 3.98 | −1.4 | |||
| Gefitinib reference | −8.249 | 1.383 | N 42 | LEU 694 | H-Donor | 3.20 | −5.9 |
| N 14 | MET 769 | H-Acceptor | 3.04 | −4.8 | |||
| 6-Ring | LEU 694 | Pi-H | 3.63 | −0.7 | |||
| Co-crystallized ligand | −8.674 | 2.039 | N 2 43 | MET 769 | H-Acceptor | 3.02 | −4.8 |
| 6-Ring | LEU 694 | Pi-H | 3.63 | −0.8 | |||
Among the evaluated compounds, compound 7 showed the most promising binding affinity, achieving a docking score of −9.067 kcal mol−1, surpassing that of the reference drug gefitinib. The ligand formed a strong hydrogen-bond donor interaction with ARG 817 at a distance of 2.74 Å, accompanied by a π–H interaction with THR 830. These interactions contribute significantly to stabilizing the ligand within the EGFR binding pocket and indicate a favorable binding orientation that may enhance inhibitory potential, as illustrated in Table 3 and Fig. 6. Compound 10 also demonstrated a promising binding profile, with a docking score of −8.175 kcal mol−1, comparable to that of gefitinib. The ligand established a hydrogen bond with MET 769 at 3.17 Å, together with a π–cation interaction with LYS 692 at 3.98 Å. Such interactions are frequently observed in potent EGFR inhibitors and suggest that compound 10 effectively occupies the ATP-binding site.
![]() | ||
| Fig. 6 Schematic of the benzochromenopyrimidine derivative 7 illustrating its 2D and 3D interactions within the active site of the EGFR tyrosine kinase. | ||
Similarly, compound 6 displayed a favorable docking score of −7.937 kcal mol−1 and a low RMSD value (0.933 Å), indicating a stable and reliable docking pose. The compound formed a hydrogen-bond interaction with MET 769 and multiple π–cation interactions with LYS 692, along with π–H interactions with LEU 694. These interactions emphasize the importance of aromatic systems in promoting hydrophobic and electrostatic contacts within the kinase active site.
Compounds 2, 3, and 5 exhibited moderate docking scores (−6.333, −5.941, and −6.031 kcal mol−1, respectively). Their binding modes were primarily stabilized through hydrogen-bond interactions with LYS 692 and π–H interactions with LEU 694. In addition, compound 3 formed an ionic interaction with LYS 692, while compound 5 showed an ionic interaction with ASP 776, suggesting that electrostatic contacts also contribute to ligand stabilization within the EGFR binding cavity.
Compounds 8 and 9 presented docking scores of −6.519 and −6.712 kcal mol−1, respectively. Their binding orientations were predominantly stabilized by hydrophobic π–H interactions with residues such as LEU 694, GLY 772, and CYS 773. Furthermore, compound 9 established a hydrogen-bond acceptor interaction with MET 769, which further enhanced the stabilization of the ligand within the active site. The interaction analysis also showed that several synthesized compounds mimic the key interactions observed for gefitinib, particularly those involving MET 769 and LEU 694, confirming that these residues are critical anchors within the EGFR ATP-binding pocket. The presence of aromatic rings and heteroatoms in the synthesized molecules appears to facilitate the formation of hydrogen bonds, π–H interactions, and π–cation contacts with these residues, thereby enhancing their binding affinity.
Importantly, while compound 7 exhibited a docking score numerically higher than that of gefitinib, the docking score alone is not sufficient to conclusively determine promising binding affinity. Therefore, additional parameters, such as RMSD values and detailed interaction profiles, were considered to support the reliability of the predicted binding modes. All reported RMSD values (<2 Å) indicate acceptable and stable docking conformations. Furthermore, several synthesized compounds mimic key interactions observed for gefitinib, particularly those involving MET 769 and LEU 694, which are critical anchors within the EGFR ATP-binding pocket. It should also be emphasized that molecular docking provides a static representation of ligand–protein interactions and does not fully account for solvent effects, protein flexibility, or binding kinetics. Consequently, further studies, such as molecular dynamics simulations and experimental kinetic validation, are required for a more comprehensive assessment of binding stability and inhibitory potential.
Overall, the docking results indicate that hydrogen bonding, hydrophobic π–interactions, and electrostatic contacts play fundamental roles in stabilizing ligand binding within the EGFR kinase domain. Among the tested compounds, 7, 10, and 6 demonstrated the most favorable binding profiles, with docking scores comparable to or better than that of the reference inhibitor gefitinib. These findings suggest that these compounds may represent promising scaffolds for further development as potential EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors.
Introducing nitrogen-rich heterocyclic systems significantly enhanced activity. Compounds 6 and 7 displayed strong antiproliferative effects, likely owing to the presence of additional heteroatoms that facilitate hydrogen bonding and electrostatic interactions with key residues such as LYS 692 and MET 769. Among them, compound 7 showed the highest activity and promising binding affinity, attributed to its extended heteroaromatic system that improves both hydrogen bonding and hydrophobic stabilization within the EGFR active site. ADME predictions indicate that compounds 6 and 7 maintain moderate lipophilicity and acceptable oral bioavailability (bioavailability score = 0.55), supporting their potential as orally active leads.
In contrast, compounds 8 and 9 exhibited weak activity, possibly due to less favorable orientations of their heterocyclic moieties within the binding pocket. Compound 10 demonstrated notable activity, which may be related to the presence of the cyano group and additional heterocyclic features that enhance interactions with residues such as MET 769 and LYS 692. Despite a slightly higher log
P (5.27) and molecular weight (597.62 g mol−1), its predicted oral absorption remains moderate, and limited BBB penetration may reduce potential CNS-related side effects. Overall, the results indicate that the incorporation of nitrogen-rich fused heterocycles, electron-withdrawing groups, and hydrogen-bonding functionalities enhances anticancer activity. Compounds 6, 7, and 10 emerge as the most promising candidates, balancing potent EGFR interactions with favorable pharmacokinetic profiles.
Molecular docking studies targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase suggested that the most active compounds (7, 10, and 6) may bind favorably within the EGFR ATP-binding pocket, showing docking scores comparable to that of gefitinib and forming key interactions with residues such as Lys692, Met769, and Leu694. However, these findings are based on computational predictions, and further experimental validation, such as enzymatic inhibition assays, is required to confirm their activity against EGFR. In addition, ADME and BOILED-Egg analyses indicated that these compounds possess generally favorable pharmacokinetic properties, including acceptable oral absorption, moderate lipophilicity, and limited blood–brain barrier penetration (with the exception of compound 3), supporting their potential for oral bioavailability.
Overall, the present study highlights benzochromene derivatives as promising scaffolds for anticancer drug development. Among the tested compounds, compound 7 emerges as a potential lead candidate for further optimization and biological investigation, particularly with respect to its mechanism of action and target validation.
N), 1648 (C
N). Anal. calcd. for C22H18N2O3 (358.13): C, 73.73; H, 5.06; N, 7.82. Found: C, 73.85; H, 5.22; N, 7.68.
N). 1H-NMR (500 MHz, DMSO-d6) δppm: 3.58 (s, 3H, OCH3), 3.65 (s, 3H, OCH3), 5.94 (s, 1H, C4H-pyran), 6.75 (d, 1H, Ar–H, J = 8.5 Hz), 6.86, 6.87 (dd, 1H, Ar–H, J = 1.5, 1.5 Hz), 7.18 (brs, 2H, NH2, exchangeable with D2O), 7.24 (d, 1H, Ar–H, J = 1.5 Hz), 7.34 (s, 1H, Ar–H), 7.43 (t, 1H, Ar–H, J = 7.5 Hz), 7.50 (d, 1H, Ar–H, J = 9 Hz), 7.57 (t, 1H, Ar–H, J = 7.5 Hz), 7.91 (d, 2H, Ar–H, J = 9 Hz), 8.10 (s, 1H, Ar–H). 13C-NMR (125 MHz, DMSO-d6) δppm: 33.8, 55.3, 55.5, 97.2, 111.9, 117.6, 119.9, 123.2, 124.8, 127.0, 128.6, 129.2, 147.4, 147.7, 148.2, 156.2, 161.9, 162.4. Anal. calcd. for C23H19N3O3 (385.14): C, 71.68; H, 4.97; N, 10.90. Found: C, 71.73; H, 4.81; N, 10.79.
N), 1678 (C
Olactone, keto form). 1H-NMR (500 MHz, DMSO-d6) δppm: 3.66 (s, 3H, OCH3), 3.72 (s, 3H, OCH3), 5.53 (s, 1H, C4-Hpyran + 1H, OH), 6.57, 6.99 (dd, 1H, Ar–H, J = 1.5 Hz), 6.85 (d, 1H, Ar–H, J = 8 Hz), 7.08 (d, 1H, Ar–H, J = 2.5 Hz), 7.49–7.52 (m, 1H, Ar–H), 7.57 (t, 1H, Ar–H, J = 7 Hz), 7.98 (d, 1H, Ar–H, J = 9 Hz), 8.05 (d, 1H, Ar–H, J = 9 Hz). 13C-NMR (125 MHz, DMSO-d6) δppm: 40.8, 55.3, 55.4, 112.1, 117.0, 117.2, 119.3, 123.4, 125.7, 127.7, 128.6, 128.9, 129.8, 130.4, 130.8, 148.2, 148.7, 162.0. Anal. calcd. for C22H17NO4 (359.12): C, 73.53; H, 4.77; N, 3.90. Found: C, 73.44; H, 4.69; N, 3.98.
N), 1652 (C
N). 1H-NMR (500 MHz, DMSO-d6) δppm: 1.30 (t, 3H, ![[C with combining low line]](https://www.rsc.org/images/entities/char_0043_0332.gif)
3CH2, J = 7.5 Hz), 3.65 (s, 3H, OCH3), 3.67 (s, 3H, OCH3), 4.31 (q, 2H, CHE3![[C with combining low line]](https://www.rsc.org/images/entities/char_0043_0332.gif)
2, J = 7 Hz), 5.50 (s, 1H, C4-Hpyran), 6.63, 6.65 (dd, 1H, Ar–H, J = 2, 1.5 Hz), 6.82 (d, 1H, Ar–H, J = 8 Hz), 6.96 (s, 1H, Ar–H), 7.41–7.46 (m, 3H, Ar–H), 7.86 (d, 1H, Ar–H, J = 8 Hz), 7.90–7.92 (m, 1H, Ar–H), 7.96 (d, 1H, Ar–H, J = 8.5 Hz), 8.70 (s, 1H, Ar–H). 13C-NMR (125 MHz, DMSO-d6) δppm: 13.9, 55.4, 55.5, 63.9, 81.3, 111.4, 112.0, 117.1, 119.7, 123.9, 125.1, 127.1, 128.5, 129.8, 131.1, 146.9, 147.8, 148.7, 156.6, 161.8. Anal. calcd. for C25H22N2O4 (414.16): C, 72.45; H, 5.35; N, 6.76. Found: C, 72.51; H, 5.29; N, 6.63.
N). 1H-NMR (500 MHz, DMSO-d6) δppm: 3.59 (s, 3H, OCH3), 3.67 (s, 3H, OCH3), 5.72 (brs, 2H, NH2, exchangeable with D2O), 5.58 (s, 1H, C4-Hpyran), 6.72 (d, 1H, Ar–H, J = 8 Hz), 6.84 (s, 1H, Ar–H), 7.29 (s, 1H, Ar–H), 7.34 (s, 1H, Ar–H), 7.41 (t, 1H, Ar–H, J = 7 Hz), 7.45–7.47 (m, 1H, Ar–H), 7.52 (t, 1H, Ar–H, J = 7 Hz), 7.88 (d, 2H, J = 8.5 Hz), 8.09 (s, 1H, N
CH), 8.25 (brs, 1H, NH, exchangeable with D2O). 13C-NMR (120 MHz, DMSO-d6) δppm: 35.4, 55.3, 55.5, 99.7, 117.4, 120.4, 124.8, 126.9, 128.5, 129.1, 130.5, 130.9, 147.3, 147.4, 148.1, 150.1, 155.1. Anal. calcd. for C23H20N4O3 (400.15): C, 68.99; H, 5.03; N, 13.99. Found: C, 68.84; H, 5.17; N, 13.78.
N). 1H-NMR (500 MHz, DMSO-d6) δppm: 2.18 (s, 3H, CH3), 3.63 (s, 3H, OCH3), 3.64 (s, 3H, OCH3), 5.99 (s, 1H, C4-Hpyran), 6.72–6.77 (m, 2H, Ar–H), 6.85 (s, 1H, Ar–H), 7.21 (s, 1H, Ar–H), 7.25 (d, 2H, Ar–H), 7.46 (t, 1H, Ar–H, J = 7 Hz), 7.54–7.91 (m, 2H, Ar–H), 7.94 (t, 2H, Ar–H, J = 7 Hz), 8.10 (d, 1H, ArH), 8.21 (brs, 1H, NH, exchangeable with D2O), 8.90 (s, 1H, N
CH), 8.99 (brs, 1H, NH, exchangeable with D2O). 13C-NMR (120 MHz, DMSO-d6) δppm: 20.6, 33.8, 55.3, 55.4, 98.5, 111.5, 111.8, 116.5, 117.3, 119.8, 123.1, 125.4, 125.8, 127.4, 128.7, 129.6, 129.9, 134.3, 140.9, 146.7, 152.4, 158.4. Anal. calcd. for C30H26N4O5S (554.16): C, 64.97; H, 4.73; N, 10.10; S, 5.78. Found: C, 64.86; H, 4.61; N, 10.23; S, 5.59.
N). 1H-NMR (500 MHz, DMSO-d6) δppm: 1.86 (s, 3H, CH3), 3.08 (s, 3H, NCH3), 3.58 (s, 3H, OCH3), 3.66 (s, 3H, OCH3), 6.18 (s, 1H, C4-Hpyran), 6.73 (s, 2H, Ar–H), 7.34 (t, 1H, Ar–H, J = 7 Hz), 7.42–7.45 (m, 4H, Ar–H), 7.51–7.55 (m, 4H, Ar–H), 7.93 (t, 2H, Ar–H, J = 8 Hz), 8.14 (d, 1H, ArH, J = 6.5 Hz), 8.68 (brs, 1H, NH, exchangeable with D2O). 13C-NMR (120 MHz, DMSO-d6) δppm: 10.2, 33.4, 55.3, 55.5, 98.8, 112.1, 117.6, 119.7, 123.7, 129.1, 129.2, 130.6, 130.8, 147.3, 147.7, 148.1, 153.3, 155.8, 160.6, 161.7, 162.5. Anal. calcd. for C34H29N5O4 (571.22): C, 71.44; H, 5.11; N, 12.25. Found: C, 71.66; H, 5.07; N, 12.11.
O), 1636 (C
N). 1H-NMR (500 MHz, DMSO-d6) δppm: 3.57 (s, 3H, OCH3), 3.66 (s, 3H, OCH3), 6.07 (s, 1H, C4-Hpyran), 6.71 (d, 2H, Ar–H, J = 8 Hz), 7.19 (s, 1H, Ar–H), 7.42 (t, 1H, Ar–H, J = 7 Hz), 7.48–7.51 (m, 1H, Ar–H), 7.55 (d, 1H, Ar–H, J = 9 Hz), 7.92 (d, 1H, ArH, J = 8 Hz), 7.97 (d, 1H, ArH, J = 9 Hz), 8.01 (d, 1H, ArH, J = 8 Hz), 9.25 (s, 1H, ArH), 12.64 (brs, 1H, NH, exchangeable with D2O). 13C-NMR (120 MHz, DMSO-d6) δppm: 36.3, 55.3, 55.5, 100.8, 111.7, 112.2, 117.5, 120.0, 125.0, 127.3, 128.6, 129.8, 147.7, 147.9, 148.4, 153.1, 139.9. Anal. calcd. for C24H18N4O4 (426.13): C, 67.60; H, 4.25; N, 13.14. Found: C, 67.88; H, 4.11; N, 13.29.
N), 1635 (C
N). 1H-NMR (500 MHz, DMSO-d6) δppm: 3.54 (s, 3H, OCH3), 3.55 (s, 3H, OCH3), 4.52 (s, 2H, ![[C with combining low line]](https://www.rsc.org/images/entities/char_0043_0332.gif)
2CN), 6.20 (s, 1H, C4-Hpyran), 6.48, 6.50 (dd, 1H, Ar–H, J = 2 Hz), 6.66 (d, 1H, Ar–H, J = 8 Hz), 7.40–7.48 (m, 3H, Ar–H), 7.57 (d, 1H, Ar–H, J = 9 Hz), 7.92 (d, 1H, ArH, J = 8 Hz), 7.98 (d, 1H, ArH, J = 9 Hz), 8.02 (d, 1H, ArH, J = 8 Hz), 9.60 (s, 1H, ArH). 13C-NMR (125 MHz, DMSO-d6) δppm: 18.0, 36.4, 55.2, 55.4, 102.6, 111.7, 112.4, 114.7, 116.6, 117.4, 119.6, 123.7, 125.1, 127.3, 128.5, 129.9, 131.1, 135.3, 140.0, 147.5, 147.9, 148.3, 160.7. Anal. calcd. for C26H19N5O3 (449.15): C, 69.48; H, 4.26; N, 15.58. Found: C, 69.55; H, 4.37; N, 15.41.
N), 1635 (C
N). 1H-NMR (500 MHz, DMSO-d6) δppm: 3.35 (s, 3H, OCH3), 3.53 (s, 3H, OCH3), 3.81 (s, 3H, OCH3), 3.82 (s, 3H, OCH3), 6.20 (s, 1H, C4-Hpyran), 6.41, 6.42 (dd, 1H, Ar–H, J = 1.5, 1.5 Hz), 6.65 (d, 1H, Ar–H, J = 9 Hz), 7.06 (d, 1H, Ar–H, J = 9 Hz), 7.38–7.41 (m, 1H, Ar–H), 7.46 (t, 1H, ArH, J = 7 Hz), 7.56 (d, 1H, ArH, J = 10 Hz), 7.64 (d, 1H, ArH, J = 2.5 Hz), 7.73 (d, 1H, ArH, J = 2 Hz), 7.90–7.93 (m, 2H, ArH), 7.98 (d, 1H, ArH, J = 9.5 Hz), 8.47 (s, 1H,
NCH), 9.53 (s, 1H,
CH). 13C-NMR (120 MHz, DMSO-d6) δppm: 36.5, 55.2, 55.3, 55.4, 55.7, 97.1, 102.3, 111.8, 117.4, 125.1, 125.5, 130.4, 131.1, 135.2, 140.1, 148.1, 148.2, 148.7, 162.6. Anal. calcd. for C35H27N5O5 (597.20): C, 70.34; H, 4.55; N, 11.72. Found: C, 70.47; H, 4.33; N, 11.68.Exponentially growing cells were detached using trypsin, counted, and seeded into 96-well plates at a density of approximately 2000 cells per well. Following a 24 hours incubation to ensure proper attachment, cells were treated with the synthesized compounds at concentrations ranging from 0.5 to 100 µM for 48 hours, while untreated cells served as controls.
Cell viability was determined using the MTT assay with full procedural details to ensure reproducibility. After treatment, the medium was removed, and 200 µL of MTT solution (5 mg mL−1) was added to each well, followed by a 4 hours incubation at 37 °C to allow formazan crystal formation. The MTT solution was then discarded, and the crystals were solubilized in DMSO for 30 minutes with continuous shaking at room temperature, protected from light, using a MaxQ 2000 plate shaker (Thermo Fisher Scientific, MA, USA). Absorbance was recorded at 570 nm using an ELISA plate reader. Cell viability was expressed as a percentage relative to the control group, and IC50 values (the concentration required to inhibit 50% of cell proliferation) were calculated.
| This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2026 |