4.2 Article

Design, synthesis, and biological investigation of quinoline/ciprofloxacin hybrids as antimicrobial and anti-proliferative agents

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE IRANIAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 20, 期 3, 页码 683-700

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13738-022-02704-7

关键词

Ciprofloxacin; Quinoline; Oxadiazole; Antibacterial; Antifungal; Anticancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A series of Ciprofloxacin-Piperazine C-7 linked quinoline derivatives were synthesized and evaluated for their antimicrobial, antifungal, and anti-proliferative activities. Compound 6a, 6b, and 8a demonstrated promising anticancer, antifungal, and antibacterial properties, indicating their potential as lead compounds for drug discovery.
Ciprofloxacin-Piperazine C-7 linked quinoline derivatives 6a-c and 8a-c were synthesized and investigated for their antibacterial, antifungal, and anti-proliferative activities. Ciprofloxacin-quinoline-4-yl-1,3,4 oxadiazoles 6a and 6b showed promising anticancer activity against SR- leukemia and UO-31 renal cancer cell lines. The hybrids 8a-c and compound 6b exhibited noticeable antifungal activities against C.Albicans; 8a experienced the most potent antifungal activity compared to Itraconazole with MICs of 21.88 mu g/mL and 11.22 mu g/mL; respectively. Most of derivatives displayed better antibacterial activity than the parent ciprofloxacin against all the tested strains. Compound 6b was the most potent against the highly resistant Gram-negative K.pneumoniae with MIC 16.96 of mu g/mL relative to the parent ciprofloxacin (MIC = 29.51 mu g/mL). Docking studies of the tested hydrides in the active site of Topo IV enzyme of K.pneumoniae (5EIX) and S.aureus gyrase (2XCT) indicate that they had stronger binding affinity in both enzymes than ciprofloxacin but have different binding interactions. The hybrid 6b could be considered a promising lead compound for finding new dual antibacterial/anticancer agents. Moreover, Compound 8a could be a lead for discovering new dual antibacterial/antifungal 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

4.2
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