| Literature DB >> 27144547 |
Sahar Ahmed1,2, Mohamed F Zayed3,4, Shahenda M El-Messery5,6, Mohamed H Al-Agamy7,8, Hamdy M Abdel-Rahman9.
Abstract
A series ofEntities:
Keywords: 1,2,4-triazoles; 4-thiazolidinones; antibacterial agents; antifungal agents; molecular docking
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27144547 PMCID: PMC6272934 DOI: 10.3390/molecules21050568
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Examples of small molecule MurB inhibitors with their reported antibacterial activity.
Figure 2Rationale and design of title Compounds 7c–l based on the thiazolidin-4-one and the triazole scaffold.
Scheme 1Synthesis of starting compounds (5a,b). Reagents and conditions: (i) HCl gas, methanol; (ii) H2NNH2, absolute ethanol, reflux 5 h; (iii) S-methylisothiourea sulfate; (iv) 5% aqueous NaOH reflux 3 h; neutralize with HCl.
Scheme 2Synthesis of target compounds (7c–l); Reagents and conditions: (i) Ar-CHO, HOAc, reflux 10–12 h; (ii) mercaptoacetic acid, THF, pinch ZnCl2; reflux, 12 h.
In vitro antimicrobial activity of the test compounds using the inhibition zone (IZ) and MIC.
| Compound No. | cLogP a | Gram-negative Bacteria Gram-Positive Bacteria | Fungi | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IZ | MIC | IZ | MIC | IZ | MIC | IZ | MIC | IZ | MIC | IZ | MIC | IZ | MIC | IZ | MIC | ||
| ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | |||||||||||||
| ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | |||||||||||
| ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | |||||||||||
| ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | |||||||||||
| ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | |||||||||||
| ND | |||||||||||||||||
| ND | ND | ND | |||||||||||||||
| ND | ND | ND | |||||||||||||||
| ND | ND | ND | ND | ||||||||||||||
| ND | ND | ND | ND | ||||||||||||||
| ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ||||||||
| ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ||||||||||
| ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ||||
Antimicrobial activities were expressed as the inhibition zone (IZ) in millimeters (mm); Nil means (no activity) <3 mm; (weak) = 6–12 mm; (moderate) = 13–15 mm; (strong) = 16–20 mm; and (very strong) >21 mm; the experiment was carried out in triplicate, and the average zone of inhibition was calculated at a concentration of 512 μg/100 μL; MIC = minimum inhibitory concentration; MIC expressed in μg/mL; MIC was done by the cup plate method according to European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility testing (EUCAST); CIPRO = ciprofloxacin; MOX = moxifloxacin, FL = fluconazole; ND = not determined, Nil = no zone of inhibition = no antimicrobial activity, a Calculated values using ChemDraw Ultra 8.0 software.
Figure 3Graphical representation of the zone of inhibition (mm) of the compounds (7c–l) and reference antimicrobial drugs against different bacterial and fungal strains.
Figure 42D binding mode interaction and residues involved in the recognition of the most promising Compounds 7h and 7j into MurB binding site interaction showing the percentage of hydrogen bonds.
Figure 52D binding mode interaction and residues involved in the recognition of moderate active Compounds 7l and 7c into the MurB binding site interaction showing the percentage of hydrogen bonds.
Figure 62D binding mode interaction and residues involved in the recognition of moderate active Compounds 7i and 7k into the MurB binding site interaction showing the percentage of hydrogen bonds.
Figure 72D binding mode interaction and residues involved in the recognition of the non-active Compounds 7d and 7e, into the MurB binding site.
Figure 8Surface map for the MurB active site with the docked conformation of Compound 7h (red stick) (pink: hydrogen bond; blue: mild polar; green: hydrophobic region).
Figure 9Surface map for Compounds 7h, 7j and 7l (pink: hydrogen bond; blue: mild polar; green: hydrophobic region).