| Literature DB >> 27063778 |
Yan He1, Jun Tian2, Xintao Chen1, Weiguang Sun1, Hucheng Zhu1, Qin Li1, Liang Lei1, Guangmin Yao1, Yongbo Xue1, Jianping Wang1, Hua Li1, Yonghui Zhang1.
Abstract
Four naphtho-γ-pyrones (fonsecinones A and C and aurasperones A and E) were identified as potential antibacterial agents against Escherichia coli, extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing E. coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterococcus faecalis, and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in an in vitro antibacterial screen of 218 fungal metabolites. Fonsecinone A (2) exhibited the most potent antibacterial activity, with minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of 4.26, 17.04, and 4.26 μg/mL against ESBL-producing E. coli, P. aeruginosa, and E. faecalis, respectively. The inhibitory effects of fonsecinones A (2) and C (3) against E. coli and ESBL-producing E. coli were comparable to those of amikacin. Molecular docking-based target identification of naphtho-γ-pyrones 1-8 revealed bacterial enoyl-acyl carrier protein reductase (FabI) as an antibacterial target, which was further validated by FabI affinity and inhibition assays. Fonsecinones A (2) and C (3) and aurasperones A (6) and E (7) bound FabI specifically and produced concentration-dependent inhibition effects. This work is the first report of anti-drug-resistant bacterial activities of naphtho-γ-pyrones 1-8 and their possible antibacterial mechanism of action and provides an example of the successful application of in silico methods for drug target identification and validation and the identification of new lead antibiotic compounds against drug-resistant pathogens.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27063778 PMCID: PMC4827027 DOI: 10.1038/srep24291
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Chemical structures of the investigated naphtho-γ-pyrones 1–8.
In vitro antimicrobial activities of compounds 1–8.
| 8.52 | 8.52 | 68.16 | ≥100 | ≥100 | 68.16 | |
| 4.26 | 2.13 | 17.04 | ≥100 | 34.08 | 4.26 | |
| 4.26 | 2.13 | 17.04 | ≥100 | 34.08 | 17.04 | |
| 17.04 | 17.04 | ≥100 | 34.08 | ≥100 | ≥100 | |
| 17.04 | 8.52 | ≥100 | 68.16 | ≥100 | 68.16 | |
| 8.52 | 4.26 | 34.08 | ≥100 | 34.08 | 17.04 | |
| 8.52 | 8.52 | 34.08 | ≥100 | 68.16 | 17.04 | |
| 17.04 | 17.04 | ≥100 | 68.16 | ≥100 | ≥100 | |
| 4.26 | 2.13 | 2.13 | 8.52 | – | – | |
| 8.52 | 2.13 | 2.13 | 2.13 | – | – | |
| – | – | – | – | 0.53 | 0.53 | |
Predicted binding free energies of compounds and target (ICM docking scores)a.
| 2F9Y | AccA | −22.41 | −9.62 | −25.89 | −16.63 | −11.26 | −22.15 | −16.83 | −9.48 |
| 1BDO | AccB | −16.23 | −15.36 | −16.93 | −15.33 | −14.74 | −16.93 | −25.01 | −24.79 |
| 1BIA | AccC | −9.92 | −15.96 | −6.91 | −17.24 | −21.84 | −19.17 | −19.60 | −20.82 |
| 1RQX | AccD | −12.68 | −12.68 | −13.32 | −27.73 | −3.11 | −9.72 | −14.40 | −14.32 |
| 1NM2 | FabD | −18.44 | −14.46 | −19.97 | −28.08 | −22.30 | −14.04 | −16.89 | −15.84 |
| 4IIN | FabG | −16.95 | −20.04 | −18.22 | −21.44 | −9.40 | −17.72 | −25.69 | −22.38 |
| 4KEH | FabA | −11.87 | −18.10 | −13.58 | −12.46 | −8.52 | −12.20 | −16.95 | −10.80 |
| 4I83 | FabZ | −8.10 | −18.69 | −13.01 | −18.19 | −13.52 | −7.03 | −22.96 | −13.71 |
| 1LXC | FabI | −19.95 | −37.40 | −35.27 | −20.57 | −19.20 | −31.41 | −30.62 | −16.38 |
| 1MFP | FabK | −17.60 | −17.51 | −15.88 | −25.96 | −21.29 | −16.87 | −7.071 | −21.63 |
| 3OJF | FabL | −21.87 | −18.84 | −22.88 | −18.97 | −18.09 | −14.66 | −25.09 | −13.96 |
| 2VB9 | FabB | −18.24 | −14.66 | −20.25 | −18.44 | −20.02 | −15.19 | −10.83 | −27.47 |
| 2GFW | FabF | −6.51 | −21.57 | −15.45 | −23.67 | −15.95 | −11.18 | −14.70 | −14.05 |
| 1TXT | FabH | −17.82 | −16.31 | −15.71 | −10.33 | −10.78 | −24.36 | −16.01 | −16.37 |
aDocking score/interaction potential of compounds with targets (kcal/mol).
bSee refs 38,39,42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51.
Figure 2Low-energy binding conformations of (A) fonsecinone A and (B) fonsecinone C bound to E.coli FabI generated by virtual ligand docking. The structure of FabI was depicted in ribbon form. Fonsecinones A and C are depicted as the ball-and-stick model showing carbon (yellow), hydrogen (grey), oxygen (red) atoms.
Binding affinity and inhibitory activities of screened compounds 1–8.
| 1 | 110.1 | |
| 2 | 215.0 ± 28.8 | 2.7 |
| 3 | 270.0 ± 9.1 | 3.0 |
| 4 | 110.7 | |
| 5 | ||
| 6 | 289.0 ± 31.1 | 52.1 |
| 7 | 329.0 ± 29.7 | 71.8 |
| 8 | ||
| Triclosan | 11.4 ± 8.3 | 0.77 |
aThe Kd value is automatic calculated by the curve fitting, and presents as means ± SD for three experiments.
bn.i. is no clear binding detected in the MST measurement.
cn.i. is no inhibition detected in the experiments (IC50 > 1 mM).
Figure 3MST confirmed that compounds 2, 3, 6 and 7 maintained specific binding to E. coli FabI.
Measurement of affinity between compounds 2, 3, 6 and 7 with FabI by MST in standard treated capillaries, the resulting binding curve was shown. From the resulting binding curve, Kd of 215 ± 3.4 μM for fonsecinone A, 270 ± 7.3 μM for fonsecinone B, 289 ± 31.1 μM for aurasperone A, 329 ± 29.7 μM for aurasperone E were calculated.