4.7 Review

An appraisal of anti-mycobacterial activity with structure-activity relationship of piperazine and its analogues: A review

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmech.2020.112967

关键词

Piperazine; Mycobacterium tuberculosis; Structure-activity relationship; Anti-mycobacterial agent

资金

  1. National Research Foundation-South Africa [103728, 112079]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Piperazine, a nitrogen-containing heterocyclic compound, is widely used in medicinal chemistry for its diverse pharmacological activities, particularly in the development of anti-TB molecules. Studies have shown that molecules containing piperazine subunits exhibit potential activity against drug-resistant strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis.
Piperazine, is privileged six membered nitrogen containing heterocyclic ring also known as 1,4-Diazacyclohexane. Consequently, piperazine is a versatile medicinally important scaffold and is an essential core in numerous marketed drugs with diverse pharmacological activities. In recent years several potent molecules containing piperazine as an essential subunit of the structural frame have been reported, especially against Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB). Remarkably, a good number of these reported molecules also displayed potential activity against multidrug-resistant (MDR), and extremely drug-resistant (XDR) strains of MTB. In this review, we have made a concerted effort to retrace anti-mycobacterial compounds for the past five decades (1971-2019) specifically where piperazine has been used as a vital building block. This review will benefit medicinal chemists as it elaborates on the design, rationale and structure-activity relationship (SAR) of the reported potent piperazine based anti-TB molecules, which in turn will assist them in addressing the gaps, exploiting the reported strategies and developing safer, selective, and cost-effective anti-mycobacterial agents. (C) 2020 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

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