| Literature DB >> 32637685 |
O Nagaraja1, Yadav D Bodke2, Itte Pushpavathi1, S Ravi Kumar3.
Abstract
In this paper, we have reported the synthesis of a series of heterocyclic azo dyes containingEntities:
Keywords: Azo dye; Biological activities; Coumarin; DFT studies; Organic chemistry
Year: 2020 PMID: 32637685 PMCID: PMC7330081 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04245
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Scheme 1Synthetic route adopted for the preparation of coumarin based azo dyes (F–F).
The comparative analysis of experimental and calculated vibrational frequencies for the coumarin based azo dyes (F–F).
| Compounds | Assignments | FT-IR absorption frequencies (cm−1) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental | Theoretical | ||
| F21 | ʋOH | 3421 | 3686 |
| ʋAr-CH | 3072 | 3185 | |
| ʋC=O | 1660 | 1672 | |
| ʋN=N | 1461 | 1458 | |
| ʋC-N | 1421 | 1409 | |
| F22 | ʋOH | 3449 | 3569 |
| ʋAr-CH | 3055 | 3047 | |
| ʋC=O | 1663 | 1821 | |
| ʋN=N | 1491 | 1515 | |
| ʋC-N | 1447 | 1496 | |
| F23 | ʋOH | 3442 | 3642 |
| ʋAr-CH | 2925 | 3154 | |
| ʋC=O | 1728 | 1814 | |
| ʋN=N | 1512 | 1531 | |
| ʋC-N | 1488 | 1473 | |
| F24 | ʋOH | 3420 | 3598 |
| ʋNH | 3073 | 3229 | |
| ʋAr-CH | 2928 | 3052 | |
| ʋC=O | 1724 | 1672 | |
| ʋN=N | 1515 | 1502 | |
| ʋC-N | 1444 | 1458 | |
Figure 1The electronoic spectra of the compounds (F–F) in various solvents recorded at room temperature at 10−6 M concentration.
The electronic spectral data of the compounds (F–F) obtained indifferent solvents.
| Compounds | λmax(nm) | Logε | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DMSO | DMF | THF | DCM | DMSO | DMF | THF | DCM | |
| F21 | 436 | 382 | 362 | 369 | 5.84 | 5.57 | 6.05 | 5.87 |
| F22 | 461 | 386 | 389 | 366 | 5.64 | 5.88 | 5.81 | 6.12 |
| F23 | 443 | 389 | 371 | 367 | 5.98 | 5.99 | 5.93 | 6.09 |
| F24 | 441 | 388 | 376 | 365 | 5.53 | 5.99 | 5.80 | 5.93 |
The quantum chemical parameters evaluated for the azo dyes (F–F) by DFT method at B3YLP/6-31G(d,p).
| Electronic parameters | F21 | F22 | F23 | F24 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EHOMO (eV) | -5.52 | -4.47 | -4.38 | -5.96 |
| ELUMO (eV) | -2.51 | -1.53 | -1.47 | -2.70 |
| EHOMO-ELUMO (eV) | 3.00 | 2.97 | 2.90 | 3.25 |
| Electronegativity (χ) | 4.01 | 3.00 | 2.93 | 1.62 |
| Chemical potential(μ) | -4.01 | -3.00 | -2.93 | -1.62 |
| Hardness(η) | 1.50 | 1.474 | 1.45 | 1.62 |
| Electrophilicity index (ω) | 5.37 | 2.035 | 2.01 | 1.00 |
| Ionization potential (A) | 5.52 | 4.47 | 4.38 | 5.96 |
| Electron affinity (I) | 2.51 | 1.53 | 1.47 | 2.70 |
| Dipole moment (D) | 1.72 | 3.02 | 1.14 | 0.84 |
Figure 2The optimized molecular structure of the compound F.
Figure 3The optimized molecular structure of the compound F.
Figure 4The optimized molecular structure of the compound F.
Figure 5The optimized molecular structure of the compound F.
The structure of the HOMO and LUMO of the compounds (F–F) generated from B3LYP method using 6-31G(d,p) basis set.
| Compounds | Structure of HOMO | Structure of LUMO |
|---|---|---|
Antimicrobial activity results of the azo dyes (F–F) in terms of MIC (mg/mL).
| Compounds (mg/mL) | 100 | 50 | 25 | 12.5 | 6.25 | 3.12 | 1.6 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 0.2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F21 | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | R |
| F22 | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | R | R |
| F23 | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | R | R |
| F24 | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | R |
| F21 | S | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R |
| F22 | S | S | S | R | R | R | R | R | R | R |
| F23 | S | S | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R |
| F24 | S | S | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R |
| F21 | S | S | S | R | R | R | R | R | R | R |
| F22 | S | S | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R |
| F23 | S | S | S | R | R | R | R | R | R | R |
| F24 | S | S | S | S | R | R | R | R | R | R |
| Ciprofloxacin | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S |
| F21 | S | S | S | S | S | S | R | R | R | R |
| F22 | S | S | S | S | S | S | R | R | R | R |
| F23 | S | S | S | R | R | R | R | R | R | R |
| F24 | S | S | S | S | S | R | R | R | R | R |
| F21 | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | R | R |
| F22 | S | S | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R |
| F23 | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | R | R |
| F24 | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | R | R |
| F21 | S | S | S | R | R | R | R | R | R | R |
| F22 | S | S | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R |
| F23 | S | S | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R |
| F24 | S | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R |
| Fluconazole | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | R |
Here, S: Sensitive, R: Resistance.
The results of the antitubercular activity against M. tuberculosis (MIC, mg/mL) of the compounds (F–F).
| Sample | 100 μg/mL | 50 | 25 | 12.5 μg/mL | 6.25 μg/mL | 3.12 μg/mL | 1.6 | 0.8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | R |
| F2 | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | R |
| F3 | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | R |
| F4 | S | S | S | S | S | S | R | R |
Figure 6Antitubercular activity results of the compounds (F–F).
Figure 7The picture showing cleavage of the supercoiled pBR322 DNA by the azo dyes (F21–F24), here M: marker DNA, C: control DNA, F21–F24: coumarin based azo dyes.
The results of the in silico molecular docking studies of the azo dyes (F–F) against RpsA enzyme.
| Compounds | Affinity (kcal/mol) | H-bonds | H-bond length (Å) | H-bond with | Hydrophobic interactions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F21 | -5.0 | 3 | 3.03 | 4NNI:Arg357::F21:O2 | Tyr280, Lys303, Phe310, Glu318, Arg355, Arg356 |
| 3.07 | 4NNI:Arg357::F21:O2 | ||||
| F22 | -5.1 | 1 | 2.80 | 4NNI:Arg357::F22:O4 | Lys303, Phe310, Glu318, Arg355 |
| F23 | -5.4 | 2 | 2.92 | 4NNI:Tyr::F23:O2 | Lys303, Phe310, Glu318, Arg355 |
| 3.19 | 4NNI:Arg356::F23:N3 | ||||
| F24 | -5.9 | 1 | 2.85 | 4NNI:Arg357::F24:O3 | Lys303, Phe310, Glu318, Arg355 |
| Pyrazinamide | -5.3 | 2 | 3.01 | 4NNI:Arg357::PYZ:O | Phe307, Leu320, His322 |
| 3.06 | 4NNI:Arg357::PYZ:O |
Figure 82D representation of the interaction of compounds F, F, F, F and standard drugs with pyrazinamide against RpsA receptor.
Figure 93D representation of the interaction of compounds F, F, F, F and standard drugs with pyrazinamide against RpsA receptor.