4.6 Article

Benzenesulfonamide derivatives as Vibrio cholerae carbonic anhydrases inhibitors: a computational-aided insight in the structural rigidity-activity relationships

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14756366.2023.2201402

关键词

Carbonic anhydrase; sulfonamides; Vibrio cholerae; imidazolidinone; isoform selectivity; homology modelling; docking; MD

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Vibrio cholerae, a pathogen responsible for life-threatening infections in low-income countries, has developed resistance to antibacterial drugs. Researchers have identified carbonic anhydrases (CAs) encoded by V. cholerae as potential pharmacological targets. They have developed a large library of CAs inhibitors with different flexibility degrees and found compounds with strong inhibition against Vch alpha CA. Computational studies have provided insights into the inhibitory activity and isoform selectivity of these compounds.
Vibrio cholerae causes life-threatening infections in low-income countries due to the rise of antibacterial resistance. Innovative pharmacological targets have been investigated and carbonic anhydrases (CAs, EC: 4.2.1.1) encoded by V. cholerae (VchCAs) emerged as a valuable option. Recently, we developed a large library of para- and meta-benzenesulfonamides characterised by moieties with a different flexibility degree as CAs inhibitors. Stopped flow-based enzymatic assays showed strong inhibition of Vch alpha CA for this library, while lower affinity was detected against the other isoforms. In particular, cyclic urea 9c emerged for a nanomolar inhibition of Vch alpha CA (K-I = 4.7 nM) and high selectivity with respect to human isoenzymes (SI >= 90). Computational studies revealed the influence of moiety flexibility on inhibitory activity and isoform selectivity and allowed accurate SARs. However, although VchCAs are involved in the bacterium virulence and not in its survival, we evaluated the antibacterial activity of such compounds, resulting in no direct 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

4.6
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