| Literature DB >> 25538942 |
Mariya al-Rashida1, Sajad Hussain1, Mehwish Hamayoun2, Aisha Altaf2, Jamshed Iqbal2.
Abstract
Sulfa drugs are well-known antibacterial agents containingEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25538942 PMCID: PMC4241293 DOI: 10.1155/2014/162928
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Decreasing order of ease of nucleophilic substitution on 2,4,6-trichloro-1,3,5-trizine ring, where Nu is a nucleophile [37].
Scheme 1Synthesis of 2,4,6-trichloro-1,3,5-triazine (TCT) derivatives (1a–5a) of sulfa drugs sulfamerazine (1b), sulfaquinoxaline (2b), sulfadiazine (3b), sulfadimidine (4b), and sulfachloropyrazine (5b), respectively.
Figure 2Structures of sulfa drugs, sulfamerazine (1b), sulfaquinoxaline (2b), sulfadiazine (3b), sulfadimidine (4b), and sulfachloropyrazine (5b).
bCA II inhibition data for compounds 1a–5a and their parent compounds 1b–5b.
| Compounds | IC50 ± SEM ( |
|---|---|
|
| 4.14 ± 0.02 |
|
| 105.3 ± 0.16 |
|
| 24.9 ± 0.03 |
|
| 14.9 ± 0.02 |
|
| 1.49 ± 0.006 |
|
| (19.6 ± 0.2) |
|
| (51.8 ± 0.6) |
|
| (31.2 ± 0.5) |
|
| (41.7 ± 1.2) |
|
| (42.4 ± 0.7) |
| AZM | 1.16 ± 0.02 |
a% inhibition at 0.5 mM concentration of tested compounds; AZM: acetazolamide.
Figure 3Compound 5a inside binding pocket of hCA II. 5a is shown in magenta color with sticks representation. The hydrophobic surfaces are drawn using Chimera and the color scheme is according to Kyte-Doolittle coloring scheme; blue color indicates most hydrophilic surface (hence polar residues), white for neutral, and orange for hydrophobic surface (nonpolar residues).
Figure 4Interactions of compound 5a with active site residues.
Figure 5Interaction diagrams of the selected docked conformations for compounds 1a–5a. Hydrogen bond interactions are indicated with dotted lines and hydrophobic interactions are shown with green lines.
Figure 6Interaction diagrams of the selected docked conformations for compounds 1b–5b. Hydrogen bond interactions are indicated with dotted lines and hydrophobic interactions are shown with green lines.
Docking scores and their corresponding ranks as judged by Hyde affinity assessment.
| Compound | Docking score | Rank | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| −15.96 | 7 | −6 |
|
| −19.87 | 1 | −2 |
|
| −15.04 | 9 | −5 |
|
| −16.64 | 9 | −1 |
|
| −17.06 | 6 | −15 |
|
| −20.37 | 7 | −8 |
|
| −20.37 | 7 | −8 |
|
| −20.66 | 6 | −7 |
|
| −18.18 | 7 | −11 |
|
| −15.55 | 8 | −5 |
Calculated ADME properties of compounds 1a–5a and 1b–5b.
| Compound |
|
|
| MWt | HBDH | MNO | TPSA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 2.712 | 1.523 | 1.93 | 412.259 | 2 | 9 | 122.65 |
|
| 3.346 | 2.077 | 1.69 | 448.292 | 2 | 9 | 122.65 |
|
| 2.397 | 0.965 | 1.681 | 398.232 | 2 | 9 | 122.65 |
|
| 2.997 | 2.08 | 2.173 | 426.286 | 2 | 9 | 122.65 |
|
| 2.766 | 0.588 | 1.118 | 432.677 | 2 | 9 | 122.65 |
|
| 0.542 | −0.112 | 0.779 | 264.307 | 3 | 6 | 97.97 |
|
| 1.168 | 0.676 | 0.633 | 300.341 | 3 | 6 | 97.97 |
|
| 0.169 | −0.681 | 0.487 | 250.28 | 3 | 6 | 97.97 |
|
| 0.926 | 0.484 | 1.06 | 278.334 | 3 | 6 | 97.97 |
|
| 0.811 | −0.468 | 0.235 | 284.725 | 3 | 6 | 97.97 |