| Literature DB >> 31600971 |
Abdulkader Masri1, Ayaz Anwar2, Naveed Ahmed Khan3, Muhammad Saquib Shahbaz4, Khalid Mohammed Khan5,6, Syed Shahabuddin7, Ruqaiyyah Siddiqui8.
Abstract
Infections due to multi-drug resistant bacteria are on the rise and there is an urgent need to develop new antibacterials. In this regard, a series of six functionally diverse new quinazolinone compounds were synthesized by a facile one-pot reaction of benzoic acid derivatives, trimethoxymethane and aniline derivatives. Three compounds of 3-aryl-8-methylquinazolin-4(3H)-one, and 3-aryl-6,7-dimethoxyquinazolin4(3H)-one were prepared and tested against multi-drug resistant bacteria. Furthermore, we determined whether conjugation with silver nanoparticles improved the antibacterial efficacy of these quinazolinone derivatives. The newly synthesized compounds were characterized by ultraviolet visible spectrophotometry (UV-vis), Zetasizer analysis, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopic methods (FT-IR), and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Using bactericidal evaluation, effects were determined against selected Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria. Furthermore, cytotoxicity of nanoconjugates on human cells were determined. The UV-vis spectrum of silver nanoparticles conjugated quinazolinone displayed surface plasmon resonance band in the range of 400-470 nm, and the size of nanoparticles was detected to be in the range of 100-250 nm by dynamic light scattering (DLS). FT-IR study confirmed the stabilization of silver nanoparticles by the presence of diverse functional arayl on each compound. SEM further revealed the construction of spherical nanoparticles. Among the quinazolinone derivative tested, two compounds (QNZ 4, QNZ 6) conjugated with silver nanoparticles showed enhanced antibacterial activity against Escherichia coli K1, Streptococcus pyogenes, Klebsiella pneumoniae, B. cereus and P. aeruginosa as compared to the compounds.Entities:
Keywords: Quinazolinone; antibacterial; characterization; silver nanoparticles
Year: 2019 PMID: 31600971 PMCID: PMC6963639 DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics8040179
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antibiotics (Basel) ISSN: 2079-6382
Figure 1UV-vis spectrum of Quinazolinone (QNZ) 1, QNZ 1-AgNPs (a). QNZ 2, QNZ 2-AgNPs (b). QNZ 3, QNZ 3-AgNPs (c). QNZ 4, QNZ 4-AgNPs (d). QNZ 5, QNZ 5-AgNPs (e). QNZ 6, QNZ 6-AgNPs (f). The spectrum of each QNZ is represented in red line and in blue line after conjugations with silver, the nanoconjugate showed characteristic surface plasmon resonance band at 450 nm.
Figure 2Size distribution histogram and zeta potential plots of QNZ 1-AgNPs (a). QNZ 2-AgNPs (b). QNZ 3-AgNPs (c). QNZ 4-AgNPs (d). QNZ 5-AgNPs (e). QNZ 6-AgNPs (f). which were obtained using Litesizer 500, Anton Paar instrument. The nanoparticles showed diameter in the range of 80–300 nm. Zeta potential plots showed the negative surface charge of nanoconjugate which affects the stability.
Figure 3FT-IR spectra of each quinazolinone is compared with their nanoconjugate with AgNPs. QNZ 1, QNZ 1-AgNPs (a). QNZ 2, QNZ 2-AgNPs (b). QNZ 3, QNZ 3-AgNPs (c). QNZ 4, QNZ 4-AgNPs (d). QNZ 5, QNZ 5-AgNPs (e). QNZ 6, QNZ 6-AgNPs (f). The spectrum of each QNZ is represented in blue line and in red line after conjugations with silver. The spectra were obtained by adding 10 µL of the material into FT-IR spectrometer.
Figure 4SEM images of AgNPs with magnification 150,000× (A), AgNPs/100,000× (B), QNZ 6-AgNPs/150,000× (C), QNZ 6-AgNPs/100,000× (D). Images were recorded on field-emission scanning electron microscope (FE-SEM) (JEOL, 7800F) instrument. Scale bar represents 100 nm.
Figure 5Bactericidal assay against E. coli K1(a–c). The viability of bacteria was determined after assay as described in the materials and methods section. Briefly, 106 colony forming units (C.F.U.) were incubated with AgNPs alone, QNZ alone, and QNZ-AgNPs and negative and positive controls at 2.5 and 5 µM at 37 °C for 2 h. The next day, the cells were counted. Note all nanoconjugates showed bactericidal effects comparing with E. coli K1 alone but QNZ 4-AgNPs and QNZ 6-AgNPs had lower percentage of availability compared with AgNPs. The results are presented as the mean ± standard error of various experiments performed in duplicate. * indicates p < 0.05 using two-sample t test and two-tailed distribution.
Figure 6Bactericidal assay against MRSA (a–c). Note that all nanoconjugates did not exhibit bactericidal effects against MRSA. The results are presented as the mean ± standard error of various experiments performed in duplicate. * indicates p < 0.05 using two-sample t test and two-tailed distribution.
Figure 7Antibacterial activities of quinazolinone nanoparticles against multi-drug resistant bacteria. (a) Bactericidal effects of QNZ 4-AgNPs and QNZ 6-AgNPs at (2.5, 5) µM against S. pyogenes. (b) Bactericidal effects of QNZ 4-AgNPs and QNZ 6-AgNPs at (1, 2) µM against K. pneumonia. (c) Bactericidal effects of QNZ 4-AgNPs and QNZ 6-AgNPs at (1, 2) µM against B. cereus. (d) Bactericidal effects of QNZ 4-AgNPs and QNZ 6-AgNPs at (1, 2) µM against P. aeruginosa. Notably, nanoparticles showed significant effects at both concentration against both S. pyogenes and K. pneumonia comparing with bacteria alone and lower bacterial viability as compare to AgNPs alone. Also, the nanoconjugates displayed minimal bactericidal effects against B. cereus and P. aeruginosa compared with AgNPs. The results are presented as the mean ± standard error of various experiments performed in duplicate. * indicates p < 0.05 using two-sample t test and two-tailed distribution.
Differences in bacterial viability percentages between QNZ nanoconjugate and silver nanoparticles alone.
| Nanoparticles | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| 2.5 µM | 5 µM | 2.5 µM | 5 µM | 2.5 µM | 5 µM | |
|
| 11% | 5% | 3% | 1% | 2% | 1% |
|
| 16% | 9% | 5% | 2% | 3% | 1% |
|
| No activity | |||||
| 1 µM | 2 µM | 1 µM | 2 µM | 1 µM | 2 µM | |
|
| 27% | 15% | 11% | 6% | 9% | 4% |
|
| 4% | 3% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
|
| 13% | 8% | 6% | 4% | 5% | 3% |
Figure 8Antimicrobial effect of QNZ nanoparticles against S. Pyogenes (A) and K. Pneumonia (B). Both concentrations of nanoparticles were applied to approx. 108 colony forming units (C.F.U.) per mL of bacteria. At different times after the treatment, viable cell counts were measured by culturing bacterial colonies on agar plates. Each of the CFU/mL value represents the mean of three replicates.
Figure 9(a) The quinazolinone derivatives and their silver nanoparticles did not exhibit cytotoxicity against Human keratinocyte cells at 5 µM. These nanoparticles and the respective controls were incubated with HaCaT cells monolayer for 24 h at 37 °C in a 5% CO2 incubator. Following this incubation, cell-free supernatant was collected, and cytotoxicity was determined using Lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) assay kit (Roche). The negative control values for cytotoxicity assays were obtained by incubating HaCaT cells with RPMI-1640 alone, and positive control values were obtained by 100% cell death using 0.1% Triton X-100. (b,c) Pretreatment of 2.5 and 5 µM of QNZ 4-AgNPs and QNZ 6-AgNPs abolished E. coli K1 and S. pyogenes-mediated host cells cytotoxicity, E. coli K1 caused 70% cytotoxicity to HaCaT cells. Upon pretreatment with 5 µM QNZ 6-AgNPs, the host cells cytotoxicity was reduced to 4%. (d) Pretreatment of 1 and 2 µM of QNZ 4-AgNPs and QNZ 6-AgNPs abolished K. pneumonia-mediated host cells cytotoxicity. The results are presented as the mean ± standard error of various experiments performed in duplicate. * indicates p < 0.05 using two-sample t test and two-tailed distribution.
The chemical definitions of six quinazolinone derivatives.
| Code | Structure | International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) Name | Molecular Formula | Molecular Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| 8-methyl-3-(3-(methylthio)phenyl)quinazolin-4(3H)-one | C16H14N2OS | 282.36 |
|
|
| 3-(2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)-8-methylquinazolin-4(3H)-one | C17H16N2O3 | 296.32 |
|
|
| 3-(4-methoxyphenyl)-8-methylquinazolin-4(3H)-one | C16H14N2O2 | 266.29 |
|
|
| 6,7-dimethoxy-3-(4-(methylthio)phenyl)quinazolin-4(3H)-one | C17H16N2O3S | 328.39 |
|
|
| 3-(4-butylphenyl)-6,7-dimethoxyquinazolin-4(3H)-one | C20H22N2O3 | 338.40 |
|
|
| 6,7-dimethoxy-3-(4-methoxyphenyl)quinazolin-4(3H)-one | C17H16N2O4 | 312.32 |
Scheme 1The chemical synthesis of six quinazolinone derivatives.
H-NMR and EI-MS chemical characterization results.
| Code | IUPAC Name | Chemical Characterization |
|---|---|---|
|
| 8-methyl-3-(3-(methylthio)phenyl)quinazolin-4(3H)-one | Yield: 65%; Rf: 0.76 (ethyl acetate/hexane, 3:7); 1H-NMR: (400 MHz, DMSO-d6): δH 8.36 (s, 1H, H-2), 8.04 (d, J5,6 = 8.0 Hz, 1H, H-5), 7.75 (d, J7,6 = 7.2 Hz, 1H, H-7), 7.50 (t, J6(5,7) = 8.0 Hz, 1H, H-6), 7.49 (t, J5′(6′,4′) = 7.6 Hz, 1H, H-5′), 7.43 (s, 1H, H-2′), 7.39 (d, J6′,5′ = 8.0 Hz, 1H, H-6′); 7.30 (d, J4′,5′ = 7.6 Hz, 1H, H-4′), 2.57 (s, 3H, 8-CH3), 2.50 (s, 3H, 3′-SCH3); EI-MS: m/z (rel. abund. %), 282 [M]+ (100), 267 (5), 254 (3), 123 (4), 105 (15); Anal. calcd. for C16H14N2OS: C, 68.06; H, 5.00; N, 9.92; O, 5.67; S, 11.36; found: C, 68.08; H, 5.04; N, 9.95; O, 5.62; S, 11.34. |
|
| 3-(2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)-8-methylquinazolin-4(3H)-one | Yield: 81%; Rf: 0.52 (ethyl acetate/hexane, 3:7); 1H-NMR: (300 MHz, DMSO-d6): δH 8.20 (s, 1H, H-2), 8.02 (d, J5,6 = 9.0 Hz, 1H, H-5), 7.74 (d, J7,6 = 7.2 Hz, 1H, H-7), 7.48 (t, J6(5,7) = 7.5 Hz, 1H, H-6), 7.19 (d, J3′,4′ = 9.0 Hz, 1H, H-3′), 7.12 (d, J6′,4′ = 3.0 Hz, 1H, H-6′), 7.09 (dd, J4′,3′ = 8.7 Hz, J4′,6′ = 3.0 Hz, 1H, H-4′), 3.74 (s, 3H, 2′-OCH3), 3.70 (s, 3H, 5′-OCH3) 2.57 (s, 3H, 8-CH3); EI-MS: m/z (rel. abund. %), 296 [M]+ (38), 265 (100), 250 (5); Anal. calcd. for C17H16N2O3: C, 68.91; H, 5.44; N, 9.45; O, 16.20; found: C, 68.94; H, 5.42; N, 9.44; O, 16.23. |
|
| 3-(4-methoxyphenyl)-8-methylquinazolin-4(3H)-one | Yield: 84%; Rf: 0.62 (ethyl acetate/hexane, 3:7); 1H-NMR: (300 MHz, DMSO-d6): δH 8.32 (s, 1H, H-2), 8.03 (d, J5,6 = 7.8 Hz, 1H, H-5), 7.74 (d, J7,6 = 7.2 Hz, 1H, H-7), 7.48 (t, J6(5,7) = 7.8 Hz, 1H, H-6), 7.45 (d, 2H, J2′,3′ = J6′,5′ = 9.0 Hz, H-2′, H-6′), 7.10 (d, 2H, J3′,2′ = J5′,6′ = 9.0 Hz, H-2′, H-6′), 3.82 (s, 3H, 4′-OCH3), 2.57 (s, 3H, 8-CH3); EI-MS: m/z (rel. abund. %), 266 [M]+ (100), 251 (14), 235 (3); Anal. calcd. for C16H14N2O2: C, 72.16; H, 5.30; N, 10.52; O, 12.02; found: C, 72.18; H, 5.33; N, 10.50; O, 12.00. |
|
| 6,7-dimethoxy-3-(4-(methylthio)phenyl)quinazolin-4(3H)-one | Yield: 45.45%; Rf: 0.69 (ethyl acetate/hexanes, 7:3); 1H-NMR: (400 MHz, DMSO-d6): δH 8.21 (s, 1H, H-2), 7.49 (s, 1H, H-5), 7.43 (d, J2′,3′ = J6′,5′ = 7.6 Hz, 2H, H-2′, H-6′), 7.41 (d, J3′,2′ = J5′,6′ = 7.6 Hz, 2H, H-3′, H-5′), 7.19 (s, 1H, H-8), 3.92 (s, 3H, 6-OCH3), 3.87 (s, 3H, 7-OCH3), 1.54 (s, 3H, 4′-SCH3); Anal. calcd. for C17H16N2O3S: C, 62.18; H, 4.91; N, 8.53; O, 14.62; S, 9.76; found: C, 62.15; H, 4.93; N, 8.56; O, 14.64; S, 9.74. |
|
| 3-(4-butylphenyl)-6,7-dimethoxyquinazolin-4(3H)-one | Yield: 28.63%; Rf: 0.80 (ethyl acetate/hexanes, 7:3); 1H-NMR: (400 MHz, DMSO-d6): δH 8.21 (s, 1H, H-2), 7.49 (s, 1H, H-5), 7.40 (d, J2′,3′ = J6′,5′ = 8.4 Hz, 2H, H-2′, H-6′), 7.36 (d, J3′,2′ = J5′,6′ = 8.4 Hz, 2H, H-3′, H-5′), 7.19 (s, 1H, H-8), 3.92 (s, 3H, 6-OCH3), 3.87 (s, 3H, 7-OCH3), 2.67 (t, JCH2,CH2 = 7.6 Hz, 2H, 4′-CH2CH2CH2CH3), 1.63 (m, 2H, 4′-CH2CH2CH2CH3), 1.39 (m, 2H, 4′-CH2CH2CH2CH3), 2.67 (t, JCH3,CH2 = 7.2 Hz, 3H, 4′-CH2CH2CH2CH3); Anal. calcd. for C20H22N2O3: C, 70.99; H, 6.55; N, 8.28; O, 14.18; found: C, 70.97; H, 6.57; N, 8.24; O, 14.15. |
|
| 6,7-dimethoxy-3-(4-methoxyphenyl)quinazolin-4(3H)-one | Yield: 57.78%; Rf: 0.57 (ethyl acetate/hexanes, 7:3); 1H-NMR: (400 MHz, DMSO-d6): δH 8.18 (s, 1H, H-2), 7.48 (s, 1H, H-5), 7.42 (d, J2′,3′ = J6′,5′ = 8.8 Hz, 2H, H-2′, H-6′), 7.18 (s, 1H, H-8), 7.08 (d, J3′,2′ = J5′,6′ = 8.8 Hz, 2H, H-3′, H-5′), 3.92 (s, 3H, 6-OCH3), 3.87 (s, 3H, 7-OCH3), 3.81 (s, 3H, 4′-OCH3); Anal. calcd. for C17H16N2O4: C, 65.38; H, 5.16; N, 8.97; O, 20.49; found: C, 65.36; H, 5.13; N, 8.95; O, 20.44. |