| Literature DB >> 35919160 |
Hatice Yıldırım1, Mahmut Yıldız2, Nilüfer Bayrak1, Emel Mataracı-Kara3, Berna Özbek-Çelik3, Masami Otsuka4,5, Mikako Fujita4, Mohamed O Radwan4,6, Amaç Fatih TuYuN7.
Abstract
In an attempt to develop effective and potentially active antibacterial and/or antifungal agents, we designed, synthesized, and characterized thiolated CoQ analogs (CoQ1-8) with an extensive antimicrobial study. The antimicrobial profile of these analogs was determined using four Gram-negative bacteria, three Gram-positive bacteria, and three fungi. Because of the fact that the thiolated CoQ analogs were quite effective on all tested Gram-positive bacterial strains, including Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC® 29213) and Enterococcus faecalis (ATCC® 29212), the first two thiolated CoQ analogs emerged as potentially the most desirable ones in this series. Importantly, after the evaluation of the antibacterial and antifungal activity, we presented an initial structure-activity relationship for these CoQ analogs. In addition, the most promising thiolated CoQ analogs (CoQ1 and CoQ2) having the lowest MIC values on all tested Gram-positive bacterial strains, were further evaluated for their inhibition capacities of biofilm formation after evaluating their in vitro potential antimicrobial activity against each of 20 clinically obtained resistant strains of Gram-positive bacteria. CoQ1 and CoQ2 exhibited potential molecular interactions with S. aureus DNA gyrase in addition to excellent pharmacokinetics and lead-likeness profiles. Our findings offer important implications for a potential antimicrobial drug candidate, in particular for the treatment of infections caused by clinically resistant MRSA isolates. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35919160 PMCID: PMC9284347 DOI: 10.1039/d2ra02136f
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 4.036
Fig. 1The most important members of the coenzyme Qn (CoQn) family.
Fig. 2Design strategy by the incorporation of CoQ0 and alkyl chain thiols as the substrates based on our previous results in the literature.
Construction of the thiolated CoQ0 analogs (CoQ1–8)
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ID, yield (%) | R1 | R2 | ID, yield (%) | R1 | R2 |
| CoQ1 ( | H | CH3 | CoQ5 ( | H | CH2CH3 |
| CoQ2 ( | H | CH2CH3 | CoQ6 ( | H | (CH2)3CH3 |
| CoQ3 ( | CH3 | CH2CH3 | CoQ7 ( | H | CH2CH( |
| CoQ4 ( | H | CH3 | CoQ8 ( | H | (CH2)5CH(CH3)2 |
Fig. 3ORTEP drawings of CoQ1 (2150434) at 50% probability level.
The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) value of the thiolated CoQ analogs (CoQ1–8) for antibacterial activitya
| Thiolated CoQ | Substituents | Gram-negative bacteria (MIC, μg mL−1) | Gram-positive bacteria (MIC, μg mL−1) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| General formula | ID | R1 | R2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| CoQ1 ( | H | –CH3 | 625 | 625 | 1250 | 1250 | 2.44 | 4.88 | 78.12 |
| CoQ2 ( | H | –CH2CH3 | 1250 | 1250 | 1250 | 1250 | 9.76 | 9.76 | 39.06 | |
| CoQ3 ( | CH3 | –CH2CH3 | — | — | — | — | 19.53 | — | 78.12 | |
| CoQ4 ( | H | –CH3 | 1250 | 1250 | — | 1250 | 9.76 | 9.76 | 156.25 | |
| CoQ5 ( | H | –CH2CH3 | — | — | — | — | 9.76 | — | 39.06 | |
| CoQ6 ( | H | –(CH2)3CH3 | — | — | — | — | 156.25 | — | 312.50 | |
| CoQ7 ( | H | –CH2CH( | — | — | — | — | 156.25 | — | — | |
| CoQ8 ( | H | –(CH2)5CH(CH3)2 | — | — | — | — | 1250 | — | — | |
| Ceftazidime | 2.44 | |||||||||
| Cefuroxime-Na | 4.88 | 4.88 | 2.44 | 1.22 | ||||||
| Cefuroxime | 9.76 | |||||||||
| Amikacin | 128.00 | |||||||||
“—” means no activity.
The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) value of the thiolated CoQ analogs (CoQ1–8) for antifungal activitya
| Thiolated CoQ | Substituents | Fungi (MIC, μg mL−1) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| General formula | ID | R1 | R2 |
|
|
|
|
| CoQ1 ( | H | –CH3 | 625 | 156.25 | 312.50 |
| CoQ2 ( | H | –CH2CH3 | 1250 | 312.50 | 312.50 | |
| CoQ3 ( | CH3 | –CH2CH3 | — | 78.12 | — | |
| CoQ4 ( | H | –CH3 | 1250 | 312.50 | 312.50 | |
| CoQ5 ( | H | –CH2CH3 | — | 78.12 | 312.50 | |
| CoQ6 ( | H | –(CH2)3CH3 | — | 78.12 | — | |
| CoQ7 ( | H | –CH2CH( | — | 156.25 | — | |
| CoQ8 ( | H | –(CH2)5CH(CH3)2 | — | — | — | |
| Clotrimazole | 4.9 | |||||
| Amphotericin B | 0.5 | 1 | ||||
“—” means no activity.
Fig. 4The MIC distribution of CoQ1 and CoQ2 against 20 clinically obtained Meticillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates.
Fig. 5Time-kill determinations for clinically resistant MRSA isolate after treatment with CoQ1 and CoQ2 at 1× and 4× MIC, respectively. The x-axis represents the killing time, and the y-axis represents the logarithmic MRSA survival.
Fig. 6Inhibition of MRSA. (a) Surface attachment to the wells contained 1/10× MIC of molecules and an inoculum of 1 × 106 CFU/200 μL, incubated for 1, 2, or 4 h at 37 °C for MRSA. (b) Biofilm formation in each well contained 1×, 1/10×, or 1/100× MIC of molecules and an inoculum of 1 × 106 to 1 × 107 CFU/200 μL, incubated for 24 h at 37 °C for MRSA. Control bars indicate microorganisms without molecules accepted as 100%. Six wells were used for the tested molecule. Each experiment is representative of two independent tests. All differences between the control and molecules treated biofilms were statistically significant (****p < 0.005).
Fig. 7Binding mode of CoQ1 (left) and CoQ2 (right) into the ligand binding site of S.aureus DNA gyrase (PDB: 3G75).
Physico-chemical properties and drug-likeness prediction
| Property/rule | CoQ1 | CoQ2 |
|---|---|---|
| MW | 286 | 300 |
| Log | 2.17 | 2.24 |
| TPSA (Å2) | 104.20 | 104.20 |
| HBA | 6 | 6 |
| HBD | 0 | 0 |
| Lipiniski | Yes, 0 violation | Yes, 0 violation |
| Ghose | Yes | Yes |
| Veber | Yes | Yes |
| Egan | Yes | Yes |
| Muegge | Yes | Yes |
| Leadlikeness | Yes | Yes |
ADME prediction
| Property | CoQ1 | CoQ2 |
|---|---|---|
| BBB permeability | No | No |
| GI absorption | High | High |
| Log | −2.11 | −2.36 |
| Solubility | Soluble | Soluble |
| Bioavilability score | 0.56 | 0.56 |
| CYP1A2, CYP2C9, CYP2D6, CYP3A4 | No | No |