| Literature DB >> 30662305 |
Bruna Pippi1, William Lopes2, Paula Reginatto1, Fernanda Émili Klein Silva3, Angélica Rocha Joaquim4, Ricardo José Alves5, Gustavo Pozza Silveira6, Marilene Henning Vainstein2, Saulo Fernandes Andrade1,4, Alexandre Meneghello Fuentefria1,4.
Abstract
The 8-hydroxyquinoline core is a privileged scaffold for drug design explored to afford novel derivatives endowed with biological activity. Our research aimed at clarifying the antifungal mechanism of action of clioquinol, 8-hydroxy-5-quinolinesulfonic acid, and 8-hydroxy-7-iodo-5-quinolinesulfonic acid (three 8-hydroxyquinoline derivatives). The antifungal mode of action of these derivatives on Candida spp. and dermatophytes was investigated using sorbitol protection assay, cellular leakage effect, ergosterol binding assay, and scanning electron microscopy. Clioquinol damaged the cell wall and inhibited the formation of pseudohyphae by C. albicans. The 8-hydroxy-5-quinolinesulfonic acid derivatives compromised the functional integrity of cytoplasmic membranes. To date no similar report was found about the antifungal mechanism of 8-hydroxyquinolines. These results, combined with the broad antifungal spectrum already demonstrated previously, reinforce the potential of 8-hydroxyquinolines for the development of new drugs.Entities:
Keywords: 8-Hydroxyquinoline derivatives; Candida spp.; Clioquinol; Dermatophytes; Mechanism of action
Year: 2018 PMID: 30662305 PMCID: PMC6323154 DOI: 10.1016/j.jsps.2018.07.017
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Saudi Pharm J ISSN: 1319-0164 Impact factor: 4.330
Fig. 1Chemical structures of 8-hidroxyquinoline derivatives 1–3.
Supplementary data 1
Fig. 2Cellular leakage of 260-nm-absorbing materials of Candida albicans ATCC 18804 (A), Microsporum canis MCA 01 (B) and Trichophyton mentagrophytes TME 40 (C) treated with MIC of 8-hydroxyquinoline derivatives 1–3 by time intervals (6, 24 and 48 h for C. albicans; 6, 24, 48 and 96 h for dermatophytes). Amphotericin B (6.25 µg/ml) and SDS (2%) are the positive controls. Untreated cells are negative control. The asterisks indicate statistical difference compared to the negative control (* p < 0.05). & (1) clioquinol MIC: 0.250 µg/ml (ATCC 18804), 0.250 µg/ml (MCA 01) and 0.500 µg/ml (TME 40); # (2) 8-hydroxy-5-quinolinesulfonic MIC: 64 µg/ml (ATCC 18804), 128 µg/ml (MCA 01) and 64 µg/ml (TME 40); + (3) 8-hydroxy-7-iodo-5-quinolinesulfonic acid MIC: 32 µg/ml (ATCC 18804), 256 µg/ml (MCA 01) and 256 µg/ml (TME 40).
Fig. 3Scanning electron microscopy of Candida albicans ATCC 18804 treated with sub-inhibitory concentration of 8-hydroxyquinoline derivatives 1–3 (1: clioquinol; 2: 8-hydroxy-5-quinolinesulfonic acid; 3: 8-hydroxy-7-iodo-5-quinolinesulfonic acid) and untreated cells. A. Untreated cells; A1 (Bar = 20 µm): white arrows indicate pseudohyphae; A2 (Bar = 2 µm): white arrows indicate polar bud scars. B. Hyphal cells treated with clioquinol 1; B1 (Bar = 20 µm): white arrows indicate cell clusters; B2 (Bar = 2 µm): white arrow indicates rounded cells. C. Hyphal cells treated with derivative 2; C1 (Bar = 20 µm): white arrows indicate pseudohyphae with few blastoconidia and chlamydospore; C2 (Bar = 2 µm). D. Hyphal cells treated with derivative 3; D1 (Bar = 20 µm): white arrows indicate pseudohyphae with few blastoconidia and larger round cells; D2 (Bar = 2 µm): white arrows indicate pseudohyphae with few blastoconidia and larger round cells.
Fig. 4Scanning electron microscopy of Microsporum canis MCA 01 treated with sub-inhibitory concentration of 8-hydroxyquinoline derivatives 1–3 (1: clioquinol; 2: 8-hydroxy-5-quinolinesulfonic acid; 3: 8-hydroxy-7-iodo-5-quinolinesulfonic acid) and untreated cells. A. Untreated cells; A1 (Bar = 20 µm); A2 (Bar = 2 µm). B. Hyphal cells treated with clioquinol 1; B1 (Bar = 20 µm); B2 (Bar = 2 µm): white arrow indicates irregular and rough cell walls with grooves. C. Hyphal cells treated with derivative 2; C1 (Bar = 20 µm); C2 (Bar = 2 µm): white arrow indicates irregular and rough cell walls with grooves. D. Hyphal cells treated with derivative 3; D1 (Bar = 20 µm); D2 (Bar = 2 µm): white arrows indicate irregular and rough cell walls with grooves, pitting and tears.
Fig. 5Scanning electron microscopy of Trichophyton mentagrophytes TME 40 treated with sub-inhibitory concentration of 8-hydroxyquinoline derivatives 1–3 (1: clioquinol; 2: 8-hydroxy-5-quinolinesulfonic acid; 3: 8-hydroxy-7-iodo-5-quinolinesulfonic acid) and untreated cells. A. Untreated cells; A1 (Bar = 20 µm); A2 (Bar = 2 µm). B. Hyphal cells treated with clioquinol 1; B1 (Bar = 20 µm); B2 (Bar = 2 µm): white arrow indicates irregular and rough cell walls with grooves. C. Hyphal cells treated with derivative 2; C1 (Bar = 20 µm); C2 (Bar = 2 µm): white arrows indicate irregular and rough cell walls with grooves. D. Hyphal cells treated with derivative 3; D1 (Bar = 20 µm); D2 (Bar = 2 µm): white arrows indicate irregular and rough cell walls with grooves, pitting and tears.