| Literature DB >> 33490825 |
Srihari Konduri1, Dodda Bhargavi1, Jyothi Prashanth2, Vagolu Siva Krishna3, Dharmarajan Sriram3, Koya Prabhakara Rao1.
Abstract
A series of 30 novel diamino phenyl chloropicolinateEntities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33490825 PMCID: PMC7818581 DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.0c05690
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ACS Omega ISSN: 2470-1343
Figure 1Isonicotinamide moiety-related anti-TB drugs, isoniazid and ethionamide, along with titled compounds 8–37 (top) and chloropicolinate moiety-related various herbicides (bottom).
Scheme 1Synthesis of Methyl 4-Amino-6-(2-aminophenyl)-3-chloropicolinate Amide, Urea, and Thiourea Derivatives
Reagents and conditions: (a) HBr in acetic acid, AcOH, 110 °C, 24 h; (b) methanol, H2SO4, reflux, 6 h; (c) trifluroacetic acid, TFAA, H2O2, 80 °C, 3 h; (d) HNO3: H2SO4, 70 °C, 4 h; (e) Raney Ni, MeOH, 45 °C, H2, 8 h; (f) Pd(II)Cl2(dppf), K2CO3, 2-aminophenyl boronic acid, EtOH, toluene, 90 °C; (g) R1COCl, DCM, 6 h, RT; (h) R2SO2Cl, DIPEA, DCM, 3 h, RT; and (i) R3NCO/R3NCS, DCM, TEA, 4 h, RT.
Figure 2SXRD structures, ORTEP diagrams (50% probability) (top) and their H-bonding network (bottom) of compounds 15 (left) and 18 (right), respectively.
Syntheses of Methyl 4-Amino-6-(2-aminophenyl)-3-chloropicolinate Amide (8–26) Derivatives and Related Urea and Thiourea Derivatives (27–37), Respectivelya
All products were characterized by NMR spectroscopy and mass spectrometry.
Antimycobacterial Activity of 8–37 Compounds
| compd | MIC (μM) | compd | MIC (μM) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 | 3.34 | 61.48 | 23 | 2.22 | 65.68 |
| 9 | 3.35 | 57.98 | 24 | 1.76 | 14.98 |
| 10 | 2.22 | 7.90 | 25 | 3.29 | 27.96 |
| 11 | 2.36 | 30.25 | 26 | 3.45 | 68.96 |
| 12 | 2.93 | 29.13 | 27 | 3.64 | 28.2 |
| 13 | 2.20 | 15.20 | 28 | 3.8 | 7.00 |
| 14 | 1.35 | 8.42 | 29 | 3.64 | 14.01 |
| 15 | 1.40 | 57.76 | 30 | 3.23 | 12.75 |
| 16 | 2.06 | 6.96 | 31 | 3.45 | 15.78 |
| 17 | 2.09 | 13.92 | 32 | 3.57 | 14.67 |
| 18 | 1.87 | 13.98 | 33 | 4.87 | 53.87 |
| 19 | 3.30 | 6.98 | 34 | 4.87 | 62.49 |
| 20 | 2.17 | 14.99 | 35 | 3.92 | 29.3 |
| 21 | 2.15 | 15.06 | 36 | 4.15 | 28.27 |
| 22 | 2.41 | 7.86 | 37 | 2.46 | 34.71 |
| Isoniazid | 0.78 | ||||
| Ethambutol | 7.89 | ||||
| Rifampicin | 0.21 |
C log P calculated using Chemdraw Ultra 12.0 software by Cambridge Soft.
Figure 3Activity profiles of some of the lead compounds (10, 14, 16, 19, 22, and 28) and known first-line TB drugs using the nutrient starvation model (NSM) model. The most probable number assay method was used to estimate the bacterial count, and the connotation plot was generated by adopting two-way ANOVA equations (p < 0.0001, using Graph-Pad prism software).
Compounds 8–37, Molecular Docking in Silico Parameters Such as Binding Energy and Number of H Bonds and Residues Involved in Bonding against Receptor Reductase MurB
| binding
energies (kcal mol–1) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mtb
MurB (PDB ID: 5JZX) | ||||
| s. no | compound | binding energy | no. of H bonds | residues involved in bonding |
| 1 | 8 | –8.83 | 03 | ASN71, SER70(2) |
| 2 | 9 | –8.63 | 05 | SER70(2), ASN71, SER130, GLN137 |
| 3 | 10 | –9.65 | 03 | SER70, SER254, THR26 |
| 4 | 11 | –9.03 | 07 | SER70, SER257, ARG238(3), GLY140, GLU361 |
| 5 | 12 | –9.19 | 03 | ASN71, SER70(2) |
| 6 | 13 | –9.00 | 03 | SER70, GLY140(2) |
| 7 | 14 | –9.35 | 04 | SER70, ASN71, GLY69, ALA67 |
| 8 | 15 | –8.37 | 05 | ARG238(2), GLY140, SER257, VAL255 |
| 9 | 16 | –9.59 | 02 | SER70, THR26 |
| 10 | 17 | –9.01 | 03 | SER70, SER254, THR26 |
| 11 | 18 | –9.05 | 03 | SER(2), ASN71 |
| 12 | 19 | –9.52 | 04 | ASN71, ARG238, GLY69, ALA67 |
| 13 | 20 | –8.64 | 05 | SER70, ASN71, GLY69(2), GLY68 |
| 14 | 21 | –8.95 | 04 | SER70(2), ASN71, GLY69 |
| 15 | 22 | –10.86 | 04 | SER70(2), ASN71, GLY69 |
| 16 | 23 | –8.50 | 04 | GLY68, SER130, ALA133,VAL65 |
| 17 | 24 | –8.96 | 05 | SER70(2), ASN71, GLY69, GLY68 |
| 18 | 25 | –8.68 | 04 | SER70(2), ASN71, VAL255 |
| 19 | 26 | –8.55 | 05 | SER254, ARG238, THR26, VAL255, GLY140 |
| 20 | 27 | –8.44 | 06 | SER257(2), ARG238, ASN71, SER70, VAL255 |
| 21 | 28 | –9.54 | 05 | ASN71(2), SER70, GLY69, VAL255 |
| 22 | 29 | –8.85 | 07 | SER70(2), ARG238(3), SER257, GLU361 |
| 23 | 30 | –9.02 | 02 | SER70, ASN71 |
| 24 | 31 | –9.07 | 04 | SER70, ASN71, GLY140(2) |
| 25 | 32 | –8.79 | 03 | ASN71, ARG238, GLY140 |
| 26 | 33 | –8.07 | 04 | SER70(2), VAL255(2) |
| 27 | 34 | –8.68 | 03 | ASN70, ASN71, SER254 |
| 28 | 35 | –9.07 | 04 | SER70(3), ARG238 |
| 29 | 36 | –8.31 | 02 | GLN137, ASN71 |
| 30 | 37 | –8.09 | 05 | SER70(3), ARG238, GLU361 |
Figure 4Molecular docking interactive profiles of the compounds, 19 (top) and 22 (bottom) (ball and stick model), showing their intermolecular H-bonding (dotted line) with the receptor UDP-N-acetylglucosamine-enol pyruvate reductase (MurB) protein and their various amino acid residues (stick model).