4.6 Article

Zinc-Chelating Compounds as Inhibitors of Human and Bacterial Zinc Metalloproteases

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 27, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules27010056

关键词

bacterial virulence factors; matrix metalloproteases; zinc chelators; enzyme inhibition; docking; molecular interactions

资金

  1. Northern Norway Health Authorities (HelseNord) [HNF1514-20]
  2. Tromso Research Foundation
  3. UiT The Arctic University of Norway

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Inhibition of bacterial virulence is a potential treatment option for bacterial infections. This study tested various compounds as inhibitors of bacterial virulence factors and human zinc metalloproteases, finding that some compounds showed strong inhibition of the metalloproteases MMP-14 and PLN.
Inhibition of bacterial virulence is believed to be a new treatment option for bacterial infections. In the present study, we tested dipicolylamine (DPA), tripicolylamine (TPA), tris pyridine ethylene diamine (TPED), pyridine and thiophene derivatives as putative inhibitors of the bacterial virulence factors thermolysin (TLN), pseudolysin (PLN) and aureolysin (ALN) and the human zinc metalloproteases, matrix metalloprotease-9 (MMP-9) and matrix metalloprotease-14 (MMP-14). These compounds have nitrogen or sulfur as putative donor atoms for zinc chelation. In general, the compounds showed stronger inhibition of MMP-14 and PLN than of the other enzymes, with K-i values in the lower mu M range. Except for DPA, none of the compounds showed significantly stronger inhibition of the virulence factors than of the human zinc metalloproteases. TPA and Zn230 were the only compounds that inhibited all five zinc metalloproteinases with a K-i value in the lower mu M range. The thiophene compounds gave weak or no inhibition. Docking indicated that some of the compounds coordinated zinc by one oxygen atom from a hydroxyl or carbonyl group, or by oxygen atoms both from a hydroxyl group and a carbonyl group, and not by pyridine nitrogen as in DPA and TPA.

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