Aim: The primary objective of this investigation was the synthesis, spectral interpretation and evaluation of the α-amylase inhibition of rationally designed thiazolidinedione–triazole conjugates (7a–7aa). Materials & methods: The designed compounds were synthesized by stirring a mixture of thiazolidine-2,4-dione, propargyl bromide, cinnamaldehyde and azide derivatives in polyethylene glycol-400. The α-amylase inhibitory activity of the synthesized conjugates was examined by integrating in vitro and in silico studies. Results: The investigated derivatives exhibited promising α-amylase inhibitory activity, with IC₅₀ values ranging between 0.028 and 0.088 μmol ml^-1. Various computational approaches were employed to get detailed information about the inhibition mechanism. Conclusion: The thiazolidinedione–triazole conjugate 7p, with IC₅₀ = 0.028 μmol ml^-1, was identified as the best hit for inhibiting α-amylase.

Graphical abstract

Keywords:

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

References

1. Tomic D, Shaw JE, Magliano DJ. The burden and risks of emerging complications of diabetes mellitus. Nat. Rev. Endocrinol. 18(9), 525–539 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
2. Pasmans K, Meex RCR, van Loon LJC, Blaak EE. Nutritional strategies to attenuate postprandial glycemic response. Obes. Rev. 23(9), e13486 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
3. Selman A, Burns S, Reddy AP, Culberson J, Reddy PH. The role of obesity and diabetes in dementia. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 23(16), 9267 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
4. Uuh Narvaez JJ, Segura Campos MR. Combination therapy of bioactive compounds with acarbose: a proposal to control hyperglycemia in Type 2 diabetes. J. Food Biochem. 46(10), e14268 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
5. Yasmin S, Jayaprakash V. Thiazolidinediones and PPAR orchestra as antidiabetic agents: from past to present. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 126, 879–893 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
6. Lesyk R, Kaminskyy D, Kryshchyshyn A. Design and development of new thiazolidinone-based drug-like molecules. Biopolym. Cell 35(3), 222–222 (2019).
Google Scholar
7. Bin Ahmad Kamar AKD, Yin LJ, Liang CT, Fung GT, Avupati VR. Rhodanine scaffold: a review of antidiabetic potential and structure–activity relationships (SAR). Med. Drug Discov. 15, doi: 10.1016/j.medidd.2022.100131 (2022) (Epub ahead of print).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
8. Singh R, Kumar P, Sindhu J et al. Parsing structural fragments of thiazolidin-4-one based α-amylase inhibitors: a combined approach employing in vitro colorimetric screening and GA-MLR based QSAR modelling supported by molecular docking, molecular dynamics simulation and ADMET studies. Comput. Biol. Med. 157, doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2023.106776 (2023) (Epub ahead of print). •• This study reveals the application of in vitro and in silico methods for the identification of structural fragments necessary for inhibitory activity.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
9. Kumar P, Duhan M, Sindhu J, Kadyan K, Saini S, Panihar N. Thiazolidine-4-one clubbed pyrazoles hybrids: potent α-amylase and α-glucosidase inhibitors with NLO properties. J. Heterocycl. Chem. 57(4), 1573–1587 (2020).
CASGoogle Scholar
10. Duhan M, Singh R, Devi M et al. Thiazolidine-2,4-dione framework containing spiropyrrolidine-oxindole and 1,2,3-triazole scaffold: synthesis, in vitro α-amylase inhibition and in silico studies. New J. Chem. 47(11), 5399–5412 (2023).
CASGoogle Scholar
11. Thari FZ, Fettach S, Anouar EH et al. Synthesis, crystal structures, α-glucosidase and α-amylase inhibition, DFT and molecular docking investigations of two thiazolidine-2,4-dione derivatives. J. Mol. Struct. 1261, doi: 10.1016/j.molstruc.2022.132960 (2022) (Epub ahead of print).
Google Scholar
12. Sameeh MY, Khowdiary MM, Nassar HS et al. Thiazolidinedione derivatives: in silico, in vitro, in vivo, antioxidant and anti-diabetic evaluation. Molecules 27(3), 830 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
13. Sameeh MY, Khowdiary MM, Nassar HS, Abdelall MM, Alderhami SA, Elhenawy AA. Discovery potent of thiazolidinedione derivatives as antioxidant, α-amylase inhibitor, and antidiabetic agent. Biomedicines 10(1), 24 (2022).
CASGoogle Scholar
14. Naeem F, Nadeem H, Muhammad A, Zahid MA, Saeed A. Synthesis, α-amylase inhibitory activity and molecular docking studies of 2, 4-thiazolidinedione derivatives. Open Chem. J. 5(1), 134–144 (2018).
Google Scholar
15. Zhao H, Wu H, Duan M et al. Cinnamaldehyde improves metabolic functions in streptozotocin-induced diabetic mice by regulating gut microbiota. Drug Des. Dev. Ther. 15, 2339–2355 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
16. Zhu R, Liu H, Liu C et al. Cinnamaldehyde in diabetes: a review of pharmacology, pharmacokinetics and safety. Pharmacol. Res. 122, 78–89 (2017). • This article highlights the role of cinnamaldehyde in diabetes management.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
17. Jawale A, Datusalia AK, Bishnoi M, Sharma SS. Reversal of diabetes-induced behavioral and neurochemical deficits by cinnamaldehyde. Phytomedicine 23(9), 923–930 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
18. Subash Babu P, Prabuseenivasan S, Ignacimuthu S. Cinnamaldehyde – a potential antidiabetic agent. Phytomedicine 14(1), 15–22 (2007).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
19. Bozorov K, Zhao J, Aisa HA. 1,2,3-Triazole-containing hybrids as leads in medicinal chemistry: a recent overview. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 27(16), 3511–3531 (2019). • This article presents the utility of 1,2,3-triazoles in medicinal chemistry.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
20. Khouzani MA, Mogharabi M, Faramarzi MA et al. Development of coumarin tagged 1,2,3-triazole derivatives targeting α-glucosidase inhibition: synthetic modification, biological evaluation, kinetic and in silico studies. J. Mol. Struct. 1282, doi: 10.1016/j.molstruc.2023.135194 (2023) (Epub ahead of print).
Google Scholar
21. Kumar P, Duhan M, Kadyan K, Sindhu J, Kumar S, Sharma H. Synthesis of novel inhibitors of α-amylase based on the thiazolidine-4-one skeleton containing a pyrazole moiety and their configurational studies. MedChemComm 8(7), 1468–1476 (2017). • This study demonstrates the applications of thiazolidinones in inhibiting α-amylase.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
22. Duhan M, Sindhu J, Kumar P et al. Quantitative structure activity relationship studies of novel hydrazone derivatives as α-amylase inhibitors with index of ideality of correlation. J. Biomol. Struct. Dyn. 40(11), 4933–4953 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
23. Duhan M, Singh R, Devi M et al. Synthesis, molecular docking and QSAR study of thiazole clubbed pyrazole hybrid as α-amylase inhibitor. J. Biomol. Struct. Dyn. 39(1), 91–107 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
24. Duhan M, Kumar P, Sindhu J et al. Exploring biological efficacy of novel benzothiazole linked 2,5-disubstituted-1,3,4-oxadiazole hybrids as efficient α-amylase inhibitors: synthesis, characterization, inhibition, molecular docking, molecular dynamics and Monte Carlo based QSAR studies. Comput. Biol. Med. 138, doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2021.104876 (2021) (Epub ahead of print).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
25. Duhan M, Singh R, Devi M et al. Thiazolidin-2,4-dione framework containing spiropyrrolidine-oxindole and 1,2,3-triazole scaffold: synthesis, in vitro α-amylase inhibition and in silico studies. New J. Chem. 47, 5399–5412 (2023).
CASGoogle Scholar
26. Gontijo VS, Viegas FPD, Ortiz CJC et al. Molecular hybridization as a tool in the design of multi-target directed drug candidates for neurodegenerative diseases. Curr. Neuropharmacol. 18(5), 348–407 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
27. Toropov AA, Toropova AP, Raska I, Leszczynska D, Leszczynski J. Comprehension of drug toxicity: software and databases. Comput. Biol. Med. 45, 20–25 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
28. Batool M, Ahmad B, Choi S. A structure-based drug discovery paradigm. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 20(11), 2783 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
29. Dellafiora L, Gonaus C, Streit B et al. An in silico target fishing approach to identify novel ochratoxin A hydrolyzing enzyme. Toxins 12(4), 258 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
30. Ballard C, Aarsland D, Cummings J et al. Drug repositioning and repurposing for Alzheimer disease. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 16(12), 661–673 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
31. Tan Z, Chaudhai R, Zhang S. Polypharmacology in drug development: a minireview of current technologies. ChemMedChem 11(12), 1211–1218 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
32. Galati S, Di Stefano M, Martinelli E, Poli G, Tuccinardi T. Recent advances in in silico target fishing. Molecules 26(17), 5124 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
33. Behera SK, Vhora N, Contractor D et al. Computational drug repurposing study elucidating simultaneous inhibition of entry and replication of novel corona virus by grazoprevir. Sci. Rep. 11(1), 7307 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
34. Kar S, Leszczynski J. Open access in silico tools to predict the ADMET profiling of drug candidates. Expert Opin. Drug Discov. 15(12), 1473–1487 (2020). • This study demonstrates the various tools available for the prediction of pharmacokinetic properties and drug likeliness behavior.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
35. Kumar P, Singh R, Kumar A et al. Identifications of good and bad structural fragments of hydrazone/2,5-disubstituted-1,3,4-oxadiazole hybrids with correlation intensity index and consensus modelling using Monte Carlo based QSAR studies, their molecular docking and ADME analysis. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 33(9), 677–700 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
36. De P, Kar S, Ambure P, Roy K. Prediction reliability of QSAR models: an overview of various validation tools. Arch. Toxicol. 96(5), 1279–1295 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
37. Cherkasov A, Muratov EN, Fourches D et al. QSAR modeling: where have you been? Where are you going to? J. Med. Chem. 57(12), 4977–5010 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
38. Király P, Kiss R, Kovács D, Ballaj A, Tóth G. The relevance of goodness-of-fit, robustness and prediction validation categories of OECD-QSAR principles with respect to sample size and model type. Mol. Inf. 41(11), doi: 10.1002/minf.202200072 (2022) (Epub ahead of print).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
39. Kulkarni AS, Kasabe AJ, Bhatia MS, Bhatia NM, Gaikwad VL. Quantitative structure–property relationship approach in formulation development: an overview. AAPS PharmSciTech 20(7), 268 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
40. Mauri A, Consonni V, Todeschini R. Molecular descriptors. In: Handbook of Computational Chemistry. Leszczynski JKaczmarek-Kedziera APuzyn TPapadopoulos MGReis HShukla MK (Eds). Springer International Publishing, NY, USA, 2065–2093 (2017). • This study describes the role of descriptors in quantitative structure–activity relationship modeling and the mechanistic interpretation from the descriptors.
Google Scholar
41. Raies AB, Bajic VB. In silico toxicology: computational methods for the prediction of chemical toxicity. WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci. 6(2), 147–172 (2016).
CASGoogle Scholar
42. Yap CW. PaDEL-Descriptor: an open source software to calculate molecular descriptors and fingerprints. J. Comput. Chem. 32(7), 1466–1474 (2011).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
43. Ulenberg S, Ciura K, Georgiev P et al. Use of biomimetic chromatography and in vitro assay to develop predictive GA-MLR model for use in drug-property prediction among anti-depressant drug candidates. Microchem. J. 175, doi: 10.1016/j.microc.2022.107183 (2022) (Epub ahead of print).
Google Scholar
44. Tomic A, Cvetnic M, Kovacic M, Kusic H, Karamanis P, Bozic AL. Structural features promoting adsorption of contaminants of emerging concern onto TiO2 P25: experimental and computational approaches. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 29(58), 87628–87644 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
45. Zaki MEA, Al-Hussain SA, Masand VH et al. Identification of anti-SARS-CoV-2 compounds from food using QSAR-based virtual screening, molecular docking, and molecular dynamics simulation analysis. Pharmaceuticals 14(4), 357 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
46. Asadollahi-Baboli M, Dehnavi S. Docking and QSAR analysis of tetracyclic oxindole derivatives as α-glucosidase inhibitors. Comput. Biol. Chem. 76, 283–292 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
47. De Jong M, Chen W, Notestine R et al. A statistical learning framework for materials science: application to elastic moduli of k-nary inorganic polycrystalline compounds. Sci. Rep. 6(1), doi: 10.1038/srep34256 (2016) (Epub ahead of print).
Google Scholar
48. Garima, Sharma S, Sindhu J, Kumar P. QSAR study of tetrahydropteridin derivatives as polo-like kinase 1 (PLK1) Inhibitors with molecular docking and dynamics study. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 34(2), 91–116 (2023).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
49. Hammoudi N-E-H, Sobhi W, Attoui A, Lemaoui T, Erto A, Benguerba Y. In silico drug discovery of acetylcholinesterase and butyrylcholinesterase enzymes inhibitors based on quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) and drug-likeness evaluation. J. Mol. Struct. 1229, doi: 10.1016/j.molstruc.2020.129845 (2021) (Epub ahead of print).
Google Scholar
50. Papa E, Dearden JC, Gramatica P. Linear QSAR regression models for the prediction of bioconcentration factors by physicochemical properties and structural theoretical molecular descriptors. Chemosphere 67(2), 351–358 (2007).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
51. Gramatica P. On the development and validation of QSAR models. In: Computational Toxicology: Volume II. Reisfeld BMayeno AN (Eds). Humana Press, NJ, USA, 499–526 (2013). •• This study demonstrates the method for quantitative structure–activity relationship model building and validation.
Google Scholar
52. Roy K, Kar S, Ambure P. On a simple approach for determining applicability domain of QSAR models. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 145, 22–29 (2015).
CASGoogle Scholar
53. Amin SA, Adhikari N, Baidya SK, Gayen S, Jha T. Structural refinement and prediction of potential CCR2 antagonists through validated multi-QSAR modeling studies. J. Biomol. Struct. Dyn. 37(1), 75–94 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
54. Khan K, Roy K, Benfenati E. Ecotoxicological QSAR modeling of endocrine disruptor chemicals. J. Hazard. Mater. 369, 707–718 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
55. Kovatcheva A, Golbraikh A, Oloff S, Feng J, Zheng W, Tropsha A. QSAR modeling of datasets with enantioselective compounds using chirality sensitive molecular descriptors. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 16(1–2), 93–102 (2005).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
56. Sanabria P, Cuervo Lumbaque E, Wielens Becker R et al. Use of multi-criteria ranking method for environmental risk assessment of antineoplastic agents and their transformation products. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 11(2), doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2023.109588 (2023) (Epub ahead of print).
Google Scholar
57. Li F, Sun G, Fan T et al. Ecotoxicological QSAR modelling of the acute toxicity of fused and non-fused polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (FNFPAHs) against two aquatic organisms: consensus modelling and comparison with ECOSAR. Aquat. Toxicol. 255, doi: 10.1016/j.aquatox.2022.106393 (2023) (Epub ahead of print).
Google Scholar
58. Zhou L, Wang B, Jiang J, Pan Y, Wang Q. Predicting the gas-liquid critical temperature of binary mixtures based on the quantitative structure property relationship. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 167, 190–195 (2017).
CASGoogle Scholar
59. Zhong S, Lambeth DR, Igou TK, Chen Y. Enlarging applicability domain of quantitative structure–activity relationship models through uncertainty-based active learning. ACS EST Engg. 2(7), 1211–1220 (2022).
CASGoogle Scholar
60. Lévêque L, Tahiri N, Goldsmith M-R, Verner M-A. Quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) modeling to predict the transfer of environmental chemicals across the placenta. Comput. Toxicol. 21, doi: 10.1016/j.comtox.2021.100211 (2022) (Epub ahead of print).
Google Scholar
61. Cañizares-Carmenate Y, Mena-Ulecia K, Perera-Sardiña Y, Torrens F, Castillo-Garit JA. An approach to identify new antihypertensive agents using thermolysin as model: in silico study based on QSARINS and docking. Arab. J. Chem. 12(8), 4861–4877 (2019).
CASGoogle Scholar
62. Hadni H, Elhallaoui M. 3D-QSAR, docking and ADMET properties of aurone analogues as antimalarial agents. Heliyon 6(4), e03580 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
63. Cassani S, Kovarich S, Papa E, Roy PP, Van Der Wal L, Gramatica P. Daphnia and fish toxicity of (benzo)triazoles: validated QSAR models, and interspecies quantitative activity–activity modelling. J. Hazard. Mater. 258–259, 50–60 (2013).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
64. Gramatica P. Principles of QSAR modeling: comments and suggestions from personal experience. Int. J. Quant. Struct. Prop. Relatsh. 5(3), 61–97 (2020). •• This study presents the key steps and principles in quantitative structure–activity relationship modeling.
Google Scholar
65. Zhao J, Zhou Y, Li C et al. Development of a quantitative structure-activity relationship model for mechanistic interpretation and quantum yield prediction of singlet oxygen generation from dissolved organic matter. Sci. Total Environ. 712, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136450 (2020) (Epub ahead of print).
Google Scholar
66. Hewitt M, Cronin MTD, Madden JC et al. Consensus QSAR models: do the benefits outweigh the complexity? J. Chem. Inf. Model. 47(4), 1460–1468 (2007).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
67. Jillella GK, Ojha PK, Roy K. Application of QSAR for the identification of key molecular fragments and reliable predictions of effects of textile dyes on growth rate and biomass values of Raphidocelis subcapitata. Aquat. Toxicol. 238, doi: 10.1016/j.aquatox.2021.105925 (2021) (Epub ahead of print).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
68. Nguyen NT, Nguyen TH, Pham TNH et al. Autodock Vina Adopts More Accurate Binding Poses but Autodock4 Forms Better Binding Affinity. J. Chem. Inf. Model 60(1), 204–211 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
69. Al Musayeib NM, Amina M, Al-Hamoud GA, Mohamed GA, Ibrahim SRM, Shabana S. Plectrabarbene, a new abietane diterpene from Plectranthus barbatus aerial parts. Molecules 25(10), 2365 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
70. Magklaras A-DC, Banti CN, Hadjikakou SK. Antiproliferative activity of antibiotics through DNA binding mechanism: evaluation and molecular docking studies. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 24(3), 1–14 (2023).
Google Scholar
71. Omar AM, Alkharboush DF, Mohammad KA, Mohamed GA, Abdallah HM, Ibrahim SRM. Mangosteen metabolites as promising alpha-amylase inhibitor candidates: in silico and in vitro evaluations. Metabolites 12(12), 1229 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
72. Hafner R, Guevara-Carrion G, Vrabec J, Klein P. Sampling the bulk viscosity of water with molecular dynamics simulation in the canonical ensemble. J. Phys. Chem. B 126(48), 10172–10184 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
73. Alanazi MM, Eissa IH, Alsaif NA et al. Design, synthesis, docking, ADMET studies, and anticancer evaluation of new 3-methylquinoxaline derivatives as VEGFR-2 inhibitors and apoptosis inducers. J. Enzyme Inhib. Med. Chem. 36(1), 1760–1782 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
74. Eswaramoorthy R, Hailekiros H, Kedir F, Endale M. In silico molecular docking, DFT analysis and ADMET studies of carbazole alkaloid and coumarins from roots of Clausena anisata: a potent inhibitor for quorum sensing. Adv. Appl. Bioinform. Chem. 14, 13–24 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
75. Bakchi B, Krishna AD, Sreecharan E et al. An overview on applications of SwissADME web tool in the design and development of anticancer, antitubercular and antimicrobial agents: a medicinal chemist's perspective. J. Mol. Struct. 1259, doi: 10.1016/j.molstruc.2022.132712 (2022) (Epub ahead of print).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
76. Banerjee P, Ulker OC. Combinative ex vivo studies and in silico models ProTox-II for investigating the toxicity of chemicals used mainly in cosmetic products. Toxicol. Mech. Methods 32(7), 542–548 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
77. Hall LH, Kier LB. Electrotopological state indices for atom types: a novel combination of electronic, topological, and valence state information. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 35(6), 1039–1045 (1995).
CASGoogle Scholar
78. Hall LH, Kier LB, Brown BB. Molecular similarity based on novel atom-type electrotopological state indices. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 35(6), 1074–1080 (1995).
CASGoogle Scholar
79. Antanasijević D, Antanasijević J, Pocajt V, Ušćumlić G. A GMDH-type neural network with multi-filter feature selection for the prediction of transition temperatures of bent-core liquid crystals. RSC Adv. 6(102), 99676–99684 (2016).
CASGoogle Scholar
80. Arthur DE, Uzairu A, Mamza P, Abechi SE, Shallangwa G. In silico modelling of quantitative structure–activity relationship of multi-target anticancer compounds on k-562 cell line. Netw. Model. Anal. Health Inform. Bioinform. 7(1), 11 (2018).
Google Scholar
81. Metibemu DS, Oyeneyin OE, Metibemu AO, Adeniran OY, Omotuyi IO. vHTS, 3-D pharmacophore, QSAR and molecular docking studies for the identification of phyto-derived ATP-competitive inhibitors of the BCR-ABL kinase domain. Curr. Drug Discov. Technol. 19(2), 53–61 (2022).
Google Scholar

Vol. 15, No. 14

Supplemental Materials

Metrics

Downloaded 10 times

History

Received 17 May 2023

Accepted 4 July 2023

Published online 8 August 2023

Published in print July 2023

Information

Keywords

Supplementary data

To view the supplementary data that accompany this paper please visit the journal website at: www.future-science.com/doi/suppl/10.4155/fmc-2023-0144

Acknowledgments

The Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), New Delhi, India, provided financial assistance to Rahul Singh and Meena Devi in the form of Senior Research Fellowships (SRF). We would like to extend our thanks to Chemistry Department of Kurukshetra University for providing the facilities necessary to conduct our laboratory work. We thank DST FIST for granting funding under the FIST programme (No. SR/FST/CS-I/2017/12(C)) to set up an NMR apparatus in the department. Dr. Paola Gramatica and the QSARINS development team deserve credit for supplying the QSARINS software.

Financial & competing interests disclosure

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending or royalties.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

PDF download