4.6 Article

Identification of 2-Aminothiazole-4-Carboxylate Derivatives Active against Mycobacterium tuberculosis H37Rv and the β-Ketoacyl-ACP Synthase mtFabH

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 4, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005617

关键词

-

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [G0500590, G0802079] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. MRC [G0802079, G0500590] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Medical Research Council [G0500590, G0802079] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Tuberculosis (TB) is a disease which kills two million people every year and infects approximately over one-third of the world's population. The difficulty in managing tuberculosis is the prolonged treatment duration, the emergence of drug resistance and co-infection with HIV/AIDS. Tuberculosis control requires new drugs that act at novel drug targets to help combat resistant forms of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and reduce treatment duration. Methodology/Principal Findings: Our approach was to modify the naturally occurring and synthetically challenging antibiotic thiolactomycin (TLM) to the more tractable 2-aminothiazole-4-carboxylate scaffold to generate compounds that mimic TLM's novel mode of action. We report here the identification of a series of compounds possessing excellent activity against M. tuberculosis H37Rv and, dissociatively, against the beta-ketoacyl synthase enzyme mtFabH which is targeted by TLM. Specifically, methyl 2-amino-5-benzylthiazole-4-carboxylate was found to inhibit M. tuberculosis H37Rv with an MIC of 0.06 mu g/ml (240 nM), but showed no activity against mtFabH, whereas methyl 2-(2-bromoacetamido)-5-(3-chlorophenyl)thiazole-4-carboxylate inhibited mtFabH with an IC50 of 0.95 +/- 0.05 mu g/ml (2.43 +/- 0.13 mu M) but was not active against the whole cell organism. Conclusions/Significance: These findings clearly identify the 2-aminothiazole-4-carboxylate scaffold as a promising new template towards the discovery of a new class of anti-tubercular agents.

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

4.6
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