| Literature DB >> 34564137 |
Fernando Durães1,2, Nikoletta Szemerédi3, Decha Kumla2,4, Madalena Pinto1,2, Anake Kijjoa2,4, Gabriella Spengler3, Emília Sousa1,2.
Abstract
Marine-derived fungi constitute an interesting source of bioactive compounds, several of which exhibit antibacterial activity. These acquire special importance, considering that antimicrobial resistance is becoming more widespread. The overexpression of efflux pumps, capable of expelling antimicrobials out of bacterial cells, is one of the most worrisome mechanisms. There has been an ongoing effort to find not only new antimicrobials, but also compounds that can block resistance mechanisms which can be used in combination with approved antimicrobial drugs. In this work, a library of nineteen marine natural products, isolated from marine-derived fungi of the genera Neosartorya and Aspergillus, was evaluated for their potential as bacterial efflux pump inhibitors as well as the antimicrobial-related mechanisms, such as inhibition of biofilm formation and quorum-sensing. Docking studies were performed to predict their efflux pump action. These compounds were also tested for their cytotoxicity in mouse fibroblast cell line NIH/3T3. The results obtained suggest that the marine-derived fungal metabolites are a promising source of compounds with potential to revert antimicrobial resistance and serve as an inspiration for the synthesis of new antimicrobial drugs.Entities:
Keywords: antimicrobial activity; biofilm inhibition; efflux pump inhibition; marine-derived fungal metabolites; quorum-sensing inhibition
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34564137 PMCID: PMC8470461 DOI: 10.3390/md19090475
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mar Drugs ISSN: 1660-3397 Impact factor: 5.118
Figure 1Structures of 1–19.
Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of 1–19.
| Compounds | MIC (µM) | |
|---|---|---|
| SE03 | ||
|
| >100 | >100 |
|
| >100 | >100 |
|
| >100 | >100 |
|
| >100 | >100 |
|
| >100 | >100 |
|
| 25 | >100 |
|
| >100 | >100 |
|
| 12.5 | >100 |
|
| 12.5 | >100 |
|
| 100 | >100 |
|
| >100 | >100 |
|
| >100 | >100 |
|
| 50 | >100 |
|
| 50 | >100 |
|
| >100 | >100 |
|
| >100 | >100 |
|
| 6.25 | >100 |
|
| 6.25 | >100 |
|
| 100 | >100 |
| Ciprofloxacin | 12.5 | 6.25 |
SE03: S. enterica serovar Typhimurium SL1344.
Figure 2Comparison of the RFI of different compounds to those of the positive controls [S. aureus 272123 (top); SE03 (bottom)]. Results are presented as mean ± SD. Statistical comparisons were performed using the t-test [* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001 vs. control (DMSO 1% v/v)].
Figure 3(A) Molecular visualization of 6 (blue) and 16 (pink) in the SBS of AcrB; (B) interactions of 6 with the SBS; (C) interactions of 16 with the SBS.
Figure 4(A) Molecular visualization of 8 (pink), 9 (white) and 12 (blue) in the CS of the NorA homology model; (B) interactions of 8 with the CS; (C) interactions of 12 with the CS.
Biofilm inhibition by 6–10, 12–14 and 16–19.
| Compounds | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concentration (µM) | Biofilm Inhibition ± SD (%) | Concentration (µM) | Biofilm Inhibition ± SD (%) | |
|
| 6.25 | 0 | 12.5 | 78.48 ± 7.97 |
|
| 6.25 | 0.13 ± 0.08 | 100 | 85.55 ± 0.61 |
|
| 9 | 72.31 ± 2.29 | 6.25 | 93.41 ± 0.91 |
|
| 100 | 63.18 ± 2.42 | 6.25 | 93.47 ± 2.22 |
|
| 100 | 0 | 50 | 0 |
|
| 100 | 0 | 100 | 80.78 ± 5.27 |
|
| 10 | 87.92 ± 1.55 | 25 | 97.89 ± 0.94 |
|
| 100 | 0 | 25 | 0 |
|
| 100 | 0 | 100 | 92.58 ± 1.97 |
|
| 2.5 | 0 | 3.13 | 4.31 ± 2.48 |
|
| 3.5 | 2.47 ± 1.66 | 3.13 | 6.17 ± 0.75 |
|
| 100 | 95.73 ± 0.45 | 50 | 84.23 ± 2.94 |
| Reserpine | 25 | 22.29 ± 5.10 | 25 | 72.1 ± 4.24 |
SD: Standard deviation. The compounds that displayed a MIC > 100 µM were tested at 100 µM.
IC50 values (µM) of 6, 8, 9, 12, and 17–19 in cytotoxicity assay against NIH/3T3.
| Compounds | IC50 (µM) |
|---|---|
|
| 30.95 ± 0.13 |
|
| 25.02 ± 2.37 |
|
| 16.74 ± 1.40 |
|
| 80.02 ± 3.66 |
|
| 34.50 ± 3.14 |
|
| 16.71 ± 1.52 |
|
| 32.44 ± 3.22 |
| Doxorubicin | 12.05 ± 0.81 |
Position and dimensions of the grid used to perform the docking studies.
| Structure | Site | Position | Dimension | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X | Y | Z | X | Y | Z | ||
| AcrA | HH | 27.4205 | 14.1758 | 175.9638 | 15.9628 | 12.8742 | 17.6756 |
| LD | 26.8634 | −2.5985 | 207.5824 | 15.9628 | 11.6319 | 27.9448 | |
| AcrB | SBS | 24.3266 | −32.1670 | −7.0000 | 18.4129 | 26.7613 | 20.1435 |
| HT | 20.8792 | 17.7378 | −7.0708 | 14.5855 | 17.7378 | 15.3042 | |
| TolC | −7.8482 | 84.1409 | 63.4236 | 39.5596 | 29.8075 | 15.9794 | |
| NorA | BCR | −4.3807 | −19.3774 | 20.8856 | 14.5855 | 17.2122 | 20.5459 |
| CS | −9.2889 | −27.7277 | 42.4691 | 14.5855 | 17.2122 | 17.3139 | |
SBS: Substrate-binding site; HT: Hydrophobic trap; HH: Helical hairpin; LD: Lipoyl domain; BCR: Binding core region; CS: Cytoplasmic side.