| Literature DB >> 33391801 |
Ehsan Ullah Mughal1, Masoud Mirzaei2, Amina Sadiq3, Sana Fatima1, Ayesha Naseem1, Nafeesa Naeem1, Nighat Fatima4, Samia Kausar1, Ataf Ali Altaf1,5, Muhammad Naveed Zafar6, Bilal Ahmad Khan7.
Abstract
A series of difclass="Chemical">ferent substitutedEntities:
Keywords: anti-microbial activity; density functional theory; fluorescence; molecular docking; structure–activity relationship; terpyridine
Year: 2020 PMID: 33391801 PMCID: PMC7735333 DOI: 10.1098/rsos.201208
Source DB: PubMed Journal: R Soc Open Sci ISSN: 2054-5703 Impact factor: 2.963
Figure 1.Structural representation of terpyridine framework.
Scheme 1.Synthetic routes to the ligands (L) and their complexes (C).
Absorption and emission data of all the synthesized compounds.
| compound code | solvent | excitation wavelength (nm) | transitions | MLCT band | Stokes shift (nm) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| chloroform | 335 | 357, 731 | 325 | π–π* (LC) | 374 | ||
| chloroform | 303 | 344, 443 | 293 | π–π* (LC) | 109 | ||
| chloroform | 243 | 335, 576 | 234 | π–π* (LC) | 241 | ||
| chloroform | 258 | 371, 746, 855 | 248 | π–π* (LC) | 109 | ||
| chloroform | 243 | 359, 727, 861 | 234 | π–π* (LC) | 134 | ||
| chloroform | 250 | 345, 70, 85 | 240 | π–π* (LC) | 15 | ||
| chloroform | 243 | 345, 723, 852 | 234 | π–π* (LC) | 129 | ||
| chloroform | 263 | 361, 723, 849 | 253 | π–π* (LC) | 126 | ||
| chloroform | 257 | 403, 720, 851 | 247 | π–π* (LC) | 131 | ||
| acetonitrile | 348 | 405, 704 | 338 | π–π* (C=C), n–π* (C=N) | 575 (dπ → π*) | 299 | |
| acetonitrile | 324 | 379, 776 | 314 | π–π* (C=C), n–π* (C=N) | 523 (dπ → π*) | 397 | |
| acetonitrile | 337 | 394, 742 | 327 | π–π* (C=C), n–π* (C=N) | 571 (dπ → π*) | 348 | |
| acetonitrile | 253 | 370, 521, 732 | 243 | π–π* (C=C), n–π* (C=N) | 580 (dπ → π*) | 211 | |
| acetonitrile | 300 | 547, 683 | 290 | π–π* (C=C), n–π* (C=N) | 442 (dπ → π*) | 136 | |
| acetonitrile | 334 | 365, 638, 751 | 324 | π–π* (C=C), n–π* (C=N) | 587 (dπ → π*) | 113 | |
| acetonitrile | 438 | 294, 359, 451, 717 | 428 | π–π* (C=C), n–π* (C=N) | 583 (dπ → π*) | 266 | |
| acetonitrile | 318 | 273, 453, 722 | 308 | π–π* (C=C), n–π* (C=N) | 447 (dπ → π*) | 269 | |
| acetonitrile | 447 | 341, 747 | 437 | π–π* (C=C), n–π* (C=N) | 584 (dπ → π*) | 406 | |
| acetonitrile | 296 | 454, 856 | 286 | π–π* (C=C), n–π* (C=N) | 586 (dπ → π*) | 402 | |
| acetonitrile | 296 | 426, 704, 856 | 286 | π–π* (C=C), n–π* (C=N) | 538 (dπ → π*) | 152 | |
| acetonitrile | 346 | 409, 503, 759, 854 | 336 | π–π* (C=C), n–π* (C=N) | 586 (dπ → π*) | 95 | |
| acetonitrile | 297 | 853 | 287 | π–π* (C=C), n–π* (C=N) | 570 (dπ → π*) | 568 | |
| acetonitrile | 295 | 405, 737, 850 | 285 | π–π* (C=C), n–π* (C=N) | 526 (dπ → π*) | 113 | |
| acetonitrile | 296 | 403, 685, 850 | 286 | π–π* (C=C), n–π* (C=N) | 568 (dπ → π*) | 165 | |
| acetonitrile | 293 | 401, 685, 851 | 283 | π–π* (C=C), n–π* (C=N) | 569 (dπ → π*) | 166 | |
| acetonitrile | 295 | 361, 735, 859 | 285 | π–π* (C=C), n–π* (C=N) | 538 (dπ → π*) | 124 | |
| acetonitrile | 296 | 361, 580, 737, 865 | 286 | π–π* (C=C), n–π* (C=N) | 572 (dπ → π*) | 128 | |
| acetonitrile | 296 | 409, 856 | 286 | π–π* (C=C), n–π* (C=N) | 540 (dπ → π*) | 447 | |
| acetonitrile | 299 | 360, 730, 867 | 289 | π–π* (C=C), n–π* (C=N) | 435 (dπ → π*) | 137 | |
| acetonitrile | 296 | 358, 578, 733, 869 | 286 | π–π* (C=C), n–π* (C=N) | 569 (dπ → π*) | 138 | |
| acetonitrile | 357 | 365, 680, 743, 855 | 347 | π–π* (C=C), n–π* (C=N) | 580 (dπ → π*) | 112 | |
| acetonitrile | 344 | 391, 699 | 334 | π–π* (C=C), n–π* (C=N) | 535 (dπ → π*) | 308 | |
| acetonitrile | 338 | 402, 684, 856 | 328 | π–π* (C=C), n–π* (C=N) | 575 (dπ → π*) | 172 | |
| acetonitrile | 297 | 474, 850 | 287 | π–π* (C=C), n–π* (C=N) | 581 (dπ → π*) | 376 | |
| acetonitrile | 299 | 428, 563, 850 | 289 | π–π* (C=C), n–π* (C=N) | 545 (dπ → π*) | 287 | |
| acetonitrile | 297 | 565, 848 | 287 | π–π* (C=C), n–π* (C=N) | 583 (dπ→π*) | 283 |
LC = ligand centred transition.
MLCT = metal to ligand charge transfer transition.
Figure 2.A comparison of emission spectra of Zn complexes of L in solution form.
Figure 4.A comparison of emission spectra of Fe complexes of L in solution state.
Anti-microbial assay (ZOI) of all the synthesized compounds.
| compound number | zones of inhibition (mm) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| anti-bacterial activity | anti-fungal activity | ||||
| 0 | 0 | 14.5 ± 0.7 | 11.8 ± 0.7 | 0 | |
| 15.1 ± 0.7 | 0 | 16.5 ± 0.4 | 12 ± 0.1 | 0 | |
| 0 | 0 | 16.5 ± 0.1 | 0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 0 | 15.5 ± 0.2 | 19.3 ± 0.3 | 14.6 ± 0.1 | |
| 0 | 0 | 17.5 ± 0.3 | 17.3 ± 0.2 | 17.5 ± 0.7 | |
| 14.3 ± 0.3 | 0 | 0 | 17.4 ± 0.5 | 17.5 ± 0.4 | |
| 18.1 ± 0.4 | 0 | 0 | 15.3 ± 0.2 | 0 | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14.7 ± 0.8 | |
| 0 | 0 | 18.7 ± 0.7 | 0 | 11.6 ± 0.6 | |
| 16.3 ± 0.7 | 16.5 ± 0.7 | 23.7 ± 0.5 | 17.3 ± 0.6 | 0 | |
| 16.5 ± 0.7 | 0 | 20.8 ± 0.5 | 18.9 ± 0.6 | 0 | |
| 16.7 ± 0.1 | 0 | 16.7 ± 0.6 | 11.4 ± 0.5 | 18.7 ± 0.3 | |
| 17.9 ± 0.3 | 18.5 ± 0.7 | 15.4 ± 0.3 | 0 | 0 | |
| 17.2 ± 0.3 | 13.5 ± 0.7 | 15.7 ± 0.3 | 0 | 14.7 ± 0.3 | |
| 17.2 ± 0.3 | 0 | 15.7 ± 0.3 | 0 | 0 | |
| 19.3 ± 0.1 | 12.5 ± 0.4 | 21.7 ± 0.4 | 0 | 14.6 ± 0.6 | |
| 17.3 ± 0.1 | 14.5 ± 0.4 | 20.7 ± 0.4 | 19.5 ± 0.7 | 15.6 ± 0.6 | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12.6 ± 0.5 | |
| 17.3 ± 0.2 | 15.7 ± 0.5 | 14.8 ± 0.2 | 0 | 0 | |
| 14.2 ± 0.2 | 0 | 13.8 ± 0.3 | 18.8 ± 0.6 | 0 | |
| 11.5 ± 0.4 | 17.5 ± 0.4 | 0 | 12.6 ± 0.6 | 18.3 ± 0.7 | |
| 14.3 ± 0.3 | 15.7 ± 0.3 | 18.8 ± 0.5 | 0 | 15.8 ± 0.8 | |
| 18.2 ± 0.2 | 0 | 19.8 ± 0.3 | 13.8 ± 0.6 | 18.6 ± 0.9 | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15.7 ± 0.7 | |
| 19.3 ± 0.3 | 16.8 ± 0.5 | 12.8 ± 0.5 | 19.8 ± 0.1 | 18.8 ± 0.6 | |
| 12.2 ± 0.2 | 0 | 0 | 15.8 ± 0.6 | 12.4 ± 0.5 | |
| 14.5 ± 0.4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15.3 ± 0.7 | |
| 18.3 ± 0.3 | 15.7 ± 0.3 | 18.8 ± 0.5 | 15.8 ± 0.1 | 0 | |
| 0 | 0 | 16.8 ± 0.3 | 0 | 14.6 ± 0.5 | |
| 18.5 ± 0.4 | 0 | 0 | 21.6 ± 0.6 | 0 | |
| 14.3 ± 0.3 | 15.7 ± 0.3 | 14.8 ± 0.5 | 15.8 ± 0.1 | 16.8 ± 0.6 | |
| 14.2 ± 0.2 | 0 | 19.8 ± 0.3 | 15.8 ± 0.6 | 10.6 ± 0.5 | |
| 18.5 ± 0.4 | 0 | 0 | 21.6 ± 0.6 | 15.3 ± 0.7 | |
| 19.3 ± 0.3 | 14.7 ± 0.3 | 17.8 ± 0.5 | 15.8 ± 0.1 | 12.8 ± 0.6 | |
| 16.2 ± 0.2 | 0 | 15.8 ± 0.3 | 18.8 ± 0.6 | 0 | |
| 17.5 ± 0.4 | 18.7 ± 0.3 | 0 | 0 | 11.3 ± 0.7 | |
| negative (DMSO) | — | — | — | — | — |
| standard (cefixime) | 28.7 ± 0.3 | 27.5 ± 0.7 | 30.5 ± 0.3 | — | — |
| standard (clotrimazole) | — | — | — | 28.9 ± 0.8 | 25.6 ± 0.6 |
Figure 5.Structure–activity relationship of the synthesized terpyridine-based ligands and metal complexes.
Figure 6.Three-dimensional docking pose of (a) shikimate dehydrogenase and (b) penicillin-binding protein having active binding sites.
Figure 7.Molecular modelling views and information of ligand L association with atoms of shikimate dehydrogenase as the target (PDB ID: 3DON) performed by MOE software. (a) Three-dimensional interaction and (b) two-dimensional interaction with amino acid residues.
Energy values obtained by docking analysis of some of the synthesized ligands (L) against shikimate dehydrogenase and penicillin-binding protein target molecule.
| compound no. | shikimate dehydrogenase lowest binding energy ΔG (kcal mol−1) | penicillin-binding protein lowest binding energy ΔG (kcal mol−1) |
|---|---|---|
| −5.970 | −5.743 | |
| −5.421 | −5.283 | |
| −5.413 | −5.237 | |
| −3.749 | −4.437 | |
| −5.050 | −4.859 | |
| −4.849 | −4.664 | |
| −4.557 | −4.590 | |
| −4.834 | −4.010 | |
| −4.783 | −4.964 | |
| standard | −5.010 (NSC) | −8.180 (gentamycin) |
Figure 8.Molecular modelling views (best pose has been shown) and information of ligand L interaction with atoms of penicillin-binding protein as the target (PDB ID: 1VQQ) performed by MOE software. (a) Three-dimensional interaction and (b) two-dimensional interaction with amino acid residues.
DFT-B3LYP* (DZ) calculated values of ELUMO, EHOMO and EHOMO-ELUMO gap (ΔE) of representative complexes experimental λmax.
| compound code | ELUMO (Hartee) | EHOMO (Hartee) | ELUMO-EHOMO gap ΔE (Hartee) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| −0.1505 | −0.2121 | 0.0616 | 570 | |
| −0.1088 | −0.1235 | 0.0147 | 526 | |
| −0.2257 | −0.2918 | 0.0661 | 568 | |
| −0.1709 | −0.2136 | 0.0427 | 580 | |
| −0.1244 | −0.1253 | 0.0009 | 535 | |
| −0.0881 | −0.0957 | 0.0076 | 575 |
Figure 9.DFT-B3LYP* (DZ) calculated frontier molecular orbitals (FMOs) of (a) C and (b) C.
Figure 10.Experimental and DFT-B3LYP* (DZ) calculated UV-Vis spectra of representative metal complexes of ligands L5 and L8: (a) C and (b) C.
The DFT-B3LYP* (DZ) calculated chemical reactivity parameters of representative complexes.
| compound code | electron affinity | ionization potential | electro-negativity | electro-philicity | chemical potential | global hardness | global softness |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1505 | 0.2121 | 0.1813 | 0.533599 | −0.1813 | 0.0308 | 16.23377 | |
| 0.1088 | 0.1235 | 0.11615 | 0.917743 | −0.11615 | 0.00735 | 68.02721 | |
| 0.2257 | 0.2918 | 0.25875 | 1.012883 | −0.25875 | 0.03305 | 15.12859 | |
| 0.1709 | 0.2136 | 0.19225 | 0.865575 | −0.19225 | 0.02135 | 23.4192 | |
| 0.1244 | 0.1253 | 0.12485 | 1.731947 | −0.12485 | 0.0045 | 111.111 | |
| 0.0881 | 0.0957 | 0.0919 | 1.111264 | −0.0919 | 0.0038 | 131.5789 |