| Literature DB >> 35323743 |
Leticia Ribeiro de Assis1, Reinaldo Dos Santos Theodoro1, Maria Beatriz Silva Costa1, Julyanna Andrade Silva Nascentes1, Miguel Divino da Rocha1, Meliza Arantes de Souza Bessa2, Ralciane de Paula Menezes2, Guilherme Dilarri3, Giovane Böerner Hypolito3, Vanessa Rodrigues Dos Santos4, Cristiane Duque4, Henrique Ferreira3, Carlos Henrique Gomes Martins2, Luis Octavio Regasini1.
Abstract
Isobavachalcone (IBC) is a natural prenylated chalcone with a broad spectrum of pharmacological properties. In this work, we newly synthesized and investigated the antibacterial activity of IBC against Gram-positive, Gram-negative and mycobacterial species. IBC was active against Gram-positive bacteria, mainly against Methicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) and Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), with minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values of 1.56 and 3.12 µg/mL, respectively. On the other hand, IBC was not able to act against Gram-negative species (MIC > 400 µg/mL). IBC displayed activity against mycobacterial species (MIC = 64 µg/mL), including Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Mycobacterium avium and Mycobacterium kansasii. IBC was able to inhibit more than 50% of MSSA and MRSA biofilm formation at 0.78 µg/mL. Its antibiofilm activity was similar to vancomycin, which was active at 0.74 µg/mL. In order to study the mechanism of the action by fluorescence microscopy, the propidium iodide (PI) and SYTO9 fluorophores indicated that IBC disrupted the membrane of Bacillus subtilis. Toxicity assays using human keratinocytes (HaCaT cell line) showed that IBC did not have the capacity to reduce the cell viability. These results suggested that IBC is a promising antibacterial agent with an elucidated mode of action and potential applications as an antibacterial drug and a medical device coating.Entities:
Keywords: antibacterial; biofilm; chalcone; membrane; natural product
Year: 2022 PMID: 35323743 PMCID: PMC8950343 DOI: 10.3390/membranes12030269
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Membranes (Basel) ISSN: 2077-0375
Figure 1Structure of Isobavachalcone (IBC).
Scheme 1Synthesis of IBC. Reagents and conditions: (a) MOMCl, K2CO3, acetone, rt, 2 h; (b) isoprenyl bromide, K2CO3, acetone, rt, 24 h; (c) montmorillonite K10, DCM, rt, 0.5 h; (d) KOH 60%, EtOH, rt, 2 h; (e) HCl 1 mol L−1, MeOH:THF (1:1), 55 °C, 6 h. MOM = methoxymethyl.
Antibacterial and antimycobacterial activities of IBC.
| Species | MIC (µg/mL) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IBC | Tetracycline | Chlorhexidine | Isoniazid | ||
| Gram-positive | MSSA | 1.56 | 0.20 | - | - |
| MRSA | 3.12 | >5.90 | - | - | |
|
| 50.0 | 0.40 | - | - | |
|
| 3.12 | - | 1.82 | - | |
|
| 6.25 | - | 3.64 | - | |
|
| 6.25 | - | 0.91 | - | |
|
| 62.5 | - | - | 0.50 | |
| Mycobacteria |
| 62.5 | - | - | 1.00 |
|
| 62.5 | - | - | >1.00 | |
| Gram-negative |
| >400 | 5.90 | - | - |
|
| >400 | 2.95 | - | - | |
MSSA = Methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus; MRSA = Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.
Antibacterial effect of combination of IBC and vancomycin against MSSA and MRSA.
| Combination | MIC (µg/mL) | FICI | Type of Combination | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alone | Combined | FICIBC + FICVAN | |||||
| IBC | VAN | IBC | VAN | ||||
| MRSA | IBC + VAN | 3.12 | 0.73 | 1.56 | 1.47 | 2.5 | indifferent |
| MSSA | IBC + VAN | 1.56 | 0.73 | 1.56 | 0.73 | 2.0 | indifferent |
VAN = vancomycin.
Figure 2Effect of IBC and vancomycin on MSSA (S. aureus 6538) and MRSA (S. aureus BAA44) biofilm formation. The hatched bars represent the MBIC values. The lines represent the log10 CFU/mL.
Figure 3Percentage of disrupted Bacillus subtilis cells. C: cells treated with IBC; PC: cells treated with nisin (positive control) and NC: cells treated with 1% DMSO (negative control).
Figure 4Fluorescence microscopy of Bacillus subtilis stained with propidium iodide and SYTO9. (A) negative control (cells treated with 1% DMSO); (B) positive control (cells treated with nisin at 5.0 µg/mL). (C) cells treated with IBC. Magnification 100×; Scale bar 5 μm.
Figure 5Effect of IBC and chlorhexidine on the viability of HaCaT cells. The results are expressed as means ± SDs. Different lowercase letters (a, b) show statistical differences between IBC and CHX according to ANOVA and Tukey’s test (p <0.05).