4.7 Article

Amphipathic β-Strand Mimics as Potential Membrane Disruptive Antibiotics

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORGANIC CHEMISTRY
卷 74, 期 16, 页码 5953-5960

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jo900933r

关键词

-

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  2. Government of Ontario
  3. Canada Foundation for Innovation
  4. Ontario Research Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In recent years, there have been increasing numbers of bacterial strains emerging that are resistant to the currently available antibiotics. In the search for new antibiotics, attention has been focused on natural antimicrobial peptides that act by selectively disrupting the membranes of bacterial cells, a mechanism that is thought to be nonconducive to the development of resistance. It is desirable to mimic the structures and activities of these peptides while introducing properties Such as resistance to proteolytic degradation, which make molecules more ideal for development as drugs, Described here is the design and synthesis of beta-strand mimetic oligomers based on alternating alpha-amino acids and azacyclohexenone units that segregate cationic lysine and hydrophobic valine side chains on opposite faces of the beta-strand. H-1 NMR dilution studies demonstrated that despite the incorporation of alternating D- and L-amino acids in order to obtain facial amphiphilicity, these oligomers are capable of dimerizing to beta-sheet mimics in it manner similar to the oligomers containing all L-amino acids. The ability of the molecules to disrupt phospholipid vesicles mimicking the membranes of both bacterial and mammalian cells was investigated using a fluorescent, dye leakage assay, Several of the oligomers were found to exhibit activity and selectivity For the bacterial over mammalian membranes. Overall, these studies demonstrate the promise of this class of molecules for the development of a new, potential antibiotics and provide information on the structural features that are important for activity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据