| Literature DB >> 29672633 |
Sunil Kumar1, Vikram Saini2, Indresh K Maurya3, Jayant Sindhu4, Mukesh Kumari5, Ramesh Kataria1, Vinod Kumar6.
Abstract
The control of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) seems to have come to a dead end. The major consequences of the use and abuse of antibacterial drugs are the development of resistant strains due to genetic mutability of both pathogenic and nonpathogenic microorganisms. We, herein, report the synthesis, characterization and biological activities of coumarin-thiazole-pyrazole (CTP) molecular hybrids with an effort to explore and overcome the increasing antimicrobial resistance. The compounds were characterized by analyzing their IR, Mass, 1H and13C NMR spectral data and elemental analysis. The in vitro antimicrobial activity of the synthesized compounds was investigated against various pathogenic strains; the results obtained were further explained with the help of DFT and molecular orbital calculations. Compound 1b and 1f displayed good antimicrobial activity and synergistic effects when used with kanamycin and amphotericin B. Furthermore, in vitro cytotoxicity of compounds 1b and 1f were studied against HeLa cells (cervical cancer cell) and Hek-293 cells. The results of molecular docking study were used to better rationalize the action and prediction of the binding modes of these compounds.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29672633 PMCID: PMC5908142 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196016
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Some thiazole, pyrazole, 4-aryldiazenylpyrazole and coumarin containing biological active heterocycles and target compounds.
Fig 2Synthesis of 4-(coumarin-3-yl)-2-(3,5-dimethyl-4-hydrazoarylpyrazol-1-yl)thiazoles (1a-1g).
Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of the compounds against five bacterial strains.
| Compound | Minimum inhibitory concentration values | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| >250 | >250 | >250 | >250 | >250 | |
| >250 | 250 | 250 | |||
| >250 | >250 | >250 | >250 | >250 | |
| >250 | >250 | >250 | >250 | >250 | |
| >250 | >250 | >250 | >250 | >250 | |
| 62.50 | >250 | ||||
| >250 | >250 | >250 | >250 | >250 | |
| KAN | 31.25 | 03.90 | 62.50 | 62.50 | 62.50 |
*MIC values of the compounds were calculated as CFU plating method as described in materials and methods
#KAN, a frequently used antibacterial drug, was used as positive control for this study.
Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of compounds against six fungal strains.
| Compound | Minimum inhibitory concentration values | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| >250 | >250 | >250 | >250 | >250 | >250 | |
| 250 | 125 | 125 | 62.50 | |||
| >250 | >250 | >250 | >250 | >250 | >250 | |
| >250 | >250 | >250 | >250 | >250 | >250 | |
| >250 | >250 | >250 | >250 | >250 | >250 | |
| 250 | 125 | 62.50 | ||||
| >250 | >250 | >250 | >250 | >250 | >250 | |
| Amp B | 0.78 | 0.78 | 12.50 | 0.78 | 0.78 | 0.78 |
#Amp B, was used as positive control for this study
*MIC values of the compounds were calculated as CFU plating as described in materials and methods
Synergistic effect of compounds 1b and 1f with antibacterial and antifungal drugs against S. aureus and C.keyfer.
| Antibacterial/ Antifungal drug (μM) | Compd. (μM) | Conc. (μM) of the drug in combination with 1b or 1f | Fraction inhibitory conc. index (FICI) | Effect |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.0 (KAN) | 31.25 ( | 0.5 (KAN)+7.81 ( | 0.500 | Synergy |
| 4.0 (KAN) | 15.67 ( | 0.5 (KAN)+3.91 ( | 0.374 | Synergy |
| 12.50 (Amp B) | 62.50 ( | 3.12 (Amp B)+7.81 ( | 0.364 | Synergy |
| 0.40 (FLC) | 62.50 ( | 0.08 (FLC)+15.62 ( | 0.450 | Synergy |
| 12.50 (Amp B) | 62.50 ( | 1.56 (Amp B)+6.25 ( | 0.240 | Synergy |
| 0.40 (FLC) | 62.50 ( | 0.05 (FLC)+15.67 ( | 0.375 | Synergy |
aThe fraction inhibitory concentration index (FICI) value is defined as the combination of two active agents can exert inhibitory effects that are more than the sum of their effect alone.
Fig 3Evaluation of cytotoxicity.
Cell toxicity of compounds 1a-1g in term of viability of Hek-293and HeLa cells. Data represent results from three independent experiments. Novobiocin was used as a positive control.
Fig 4Time kill assay.
Impact on growth of (A) S. aureus by compound 1f at sub inhibitory conc; (B) C. keyfer by compound 1f at sub inhibitory conc.
Fig 5SEM images.
(A) S. aureus, (A1) Untreated cells (40 K, 8.2 mm), (A2) Treated cells with 1f (40 K, 8.1mm), (B) C. keyfer, (B1) Untreated cells (5 K, 5 mm), (B2) Treated cells (8.5 K, 2 mm). Arrows showed the damage of S. aureus and C. keyfer cells treated with compound 1f.
Theoretical results of compounds 1a-1g.
| Compound | Dipole moment (D) | HOMO-1 (eV) | HOMO (eV) | LUMO (eV) | LUMO+1 (eV) | Egap (eV) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6.558 | -6.528 | -6.114 | -2.464 | -2.435 | -3.65 | |
| 4.376 | -6.585 | -6.175 | -2.647 | -2.531 | -3.528 | |
| 4.108 | -6.299 | -5.933 | -2.366 | -2.213 | -3.567 | |
| 1.990 | -6.530 | -5.997 | -2.581 | -2.268 | -3.416 | |
| 6.554 | -6.533 | -6.107 | -2.478 | -2.435 | -3.629 | |
| 4.390 | -6.581 | -6.184 | -2.648 | -2.517 | -3.536 | |
| 4.730 | -6.368 | -6.046 | -2.387 | -2.301 | -3.659 |
Fig 6Correlation of biological activity with LUMO energy.
Global reactivity descriptors for compounds 1a-1g.
| Compound | EH (eV) | EL(eV) | μ (eV) | χ (eV) | η (eV) | S (eV-1) | ω (eV) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -6.114 | -2.464 | -4.289 | 4.289 | 1.85 | 0.2739 | 5.03 | |
| -6.175 | -2.647 | -4.411 | 4.411 | 1.76 | 0.2834 | 5.51 | |
| -5.933 | -2.366 | -4.149 | 4.149 | 1.78 | 0.2803 | 4.82 | |
| -5.997 | -2.581 | -4.289 | 4.289 | 1.70 | 0.2927 | 5.38 | |
| -6.107 | -2.478 | -4.292 | 4.292 | 1.81 | 0.2755 | 5.07 | |
| -6.184 | -2.648 | -4.416 | 4.416 | 1.76 | 0.2828 | 5.51 | |
| -6.046 | -2.387 | -4.216 | 4.216 | 1.82 | 0.2732 | 4.85 |
Fig 7Native ligand (grey) overlap with its best docked pose (green) in a re-docking protocol.
Fig 82D and 3D docking pose showing interaction for compound 1b in the binding site of DNA gyrase B crystal structure (PDB ID:5L3J).
Fig 102D and 3D docking pose showing interaction for standard drug KAN in the binding site of DNA gyrase B crystal structure (PDB ID:5L3J).
Binding data of lead compounds based on MMGB-SA binding energy study.
| Entry | GScore | δG_Bind (Kcal/mol) | δG_Bind coulomb (Kcal/mol) | δG Bind Hbond (Kcal/mol) | δG_Bind Lipo(Kcal/mol) | δG_Bind vdW (Kcal/mol) | Key Protein ligands interaction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -5.58 | -84.78 | -5.23 | -0.33 | -45.12 | -58.59 | Phe 104, Asn 46, Ile 78, Met 95, Val 120, Val 43, Val 167, Val 71, Thr 165, Ala 47, Glu 50, Gly 75, Asp 73, Gly 77, Arg 76, Lys 103, Pro 79, Asp 105, Ala 90, Ile 94. | |
| -4.71 | -81.17 | -4.92 | -0.17 | -46.15 | -58.55 | Asp 105, Pro 79, Ile 94, Ile 78, Asn 46, Val 120, Val 167, Val 43, ALA 47, Asp 73, Thr 165, Gly 77, Glu 50, Arg 76, Arg 136, His 55, Lys 103. | |
| -5.61 | -83.32 | -4.85 | -0.33 | -44.42 | -58.49 | Phe 104, Asn 46, Ile 78, Met 95, Val 120, Val 43, Val 167, Val 71, Thr 165, Ala 47, Glu 50, Gly 75, Asp 73, Gly 77, Arg 76, Lys 103, Pro 79, Asp 105, Ala 90, Ile 94. | |
| -4.81 | -69.60 | -5.55 | -0.19 | -37.32 | -56.07 | Phe 104, Asn 46, Ile 78, Met 95, Val 120, Val 43, Val 167, Val 71, Thr 165, Ala 47, Glu 50, Gly 75, Asp 73, Gly 77, Arg 76, Lys 103, Pro 79, Asp 105, Ala 90, Ile 94, His 55, Arg 136. | |
| -5.6 | -84.09 | -5.33 | -0.33 | -45.16 | -58.76 | Phe 104, Asn 46, Ile 78, Met 95, Val 120, Val 43, Val 167, Val 71, Thr 165, Ala 47, Glu 50, Gly 75, Asp 73, Gly 77, Arg 76, Lys 103, Pro 79, Asp 105, Ala 90, Ile 94. | |
| -4.74 | -73.32 | -5.02 | -0.19 | -40.08 | -56.71 | Phe 104, Asn 46, Ile 78, Thr 165, Ala 47, Glu 50, Gly 75, Asp 73, Gly 77, Arg 76, Lys 103, Pro 79, Asp 105, Ala 90, Ile 94, His 55, Arg 136 | |
| -5.69 | -83.22 | -5.04 | -0.33 | -43.65 | -57.87 | Phe 104, Ile 78, Asn 46, Met 95, Val 120, Val 43, Val 167, Val 71, Thr 165, Ala 47, Glu 50, Gly 75, Asp 73, Arg 76, Gly 77, Lys 103, Pro 79, Asp 105, Ala 90, Ile 94. | |
| -4.74 | -27.14 | -28.36 | -3.72 | -15.85 | -23.81 | Asp 105, Phe 104, Lys 103, Ala 53, His 55, Glu 50, Pro 79, Ile 78, Gly 77, Arg 76, Arg 136. | |
| -5.11 | -45.97 | -1.83 | -0.88 | -31.81 | -31.63 | Phe 104, Asn 46, Ile 78, Thr 165, Ala 47, Glu 50, Gly 75, Asp 73, Gly 77, Arg 76, Lys 103, Pro 79, Asp 105, His 55, Arg 136, Ile 94. |
Predicted ADME properties of synthesized compounds 1a-1g and standard drug KAN and CPF.
| Compounds | QP logPo/w | QP logHERG | QPPCaco | QP logBB | QPPMDCK | QPlogKp | QPlogKhsa | Percent Human Oral Absorption | Lipinski’s rule of five |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.96 | -7.25 | 1234.4 | -0.36 | 2402.5 | -1.59 | 0.59 | 100 | 0 | |
| 5.55 | -7.16 | 1234.5 | -0.19 | 6376.3 | -1.76 | 0.74 | 88.874 | 2 | |
| 4.78 | -7.24 | 1234.3 | -0.54 | 973.0 | -1.62 | 0.63 | 100 | 0 | |
| 5.28 | -7.15 | 1187.6 | -0.41 | 2307.2 | -1.82 | 0.76 | 100 | 1 | |
| 5.03 | -7.29 | 1187.6 | -0.37 | 2481.5 | -1.62 | 0.62 | 85.565 | 2 | |
| 5.47 | -7.14 | 1234.5 | -0.20 | 5930.3 | -1.76 | 0.72 | 100 | 1 | |
| 4.45 | -7.38 | 1187.6 | -0.54 | 934.7 | -1.45 | 0.46 | 100 | 0 | |
| -6.58 | -6.19 | 0.031 | -2.93 | 0.009 | -11.20 | -1.27 | 0 | 2 | |
| 0.27 | -3.13 | 12.6 | -0.67 | 8.25 | -6.54 | 0 | 48.315 | 0 |
aPredicted octanol/water partition co-efficient logp.
b Predicted IC50 values to block HERG K+channels.
c Predicted Caco-2 cell permeability.
d Predicted brain/blood partition coefficient.
e Predicted apparent MDCK cell permeability.
f Predicted skin permeability.
g Predicted binding to human serum albumin.
h Predicted oral absorption of drug in percentage term.