4.6 Article

Salicylanilide carbamates: Promising antibacterial agents with high in vitro activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES
卷 77, 期 -, 页码 197-207

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejps.2015.06.009

关键词

MRSA; Salicylanilides; Alkylcarbamates; Antibacterial activity; Time-kill assay; Structure-activity relationships

资金

  1. IGA VFU Brno [65/2012/FVL, 52/2014/FaF, 304/2015/FaF]
  2. CEITEC - Central European Institute of Technology from European Regional Development Fund [CZ.1.05/1.1.00/02.0068]
  3. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A series of twenty-one salicylanilide N-alkylcarbamates was assessed for novel antibacterial characteristics against three clinical isolates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and S. aureus ATCC 29213 as the reference and quality control strain. The minimum inhibitory concentration was determined by the broth dilution micro-method with subsequent subcultivation of aliquots to assess minimum bactericidal concentration. The bactericidal kinetics was established by time-kill assay. Ampicillin, ciprofloxacin and vancomycin were used as reference antibacterial drugs. All the tested compounds exhibited highly potent anti-MRSA activity (<= 0.008-4 mu g/mL) comparable or up to 250x higher than that of vancomycin, the standard in the treatment of serious MRSA infections. 4-Chloro-2-(3,4-di chlorophenylcarbamoyl)phenyl butylcarbamate and 4-chloro-2-(3,4-dichlorophenylcarbamoyl)phenyl ethylcarbamate were the most active compounds. In most cases, compounds provided reliable bacteriostatic activity, except for 4-chloro-2-(4-chlorophenylcarbamoyl)phenyl decylcarbamate exhibiting bactericidal effect at 8 h (for clinical isolate of MRSA 63718) and at 24 h (for clinical isolates of MRSA SA 630 and MRSA SA 3202) at 4x MIC. Structure-activity relationships are discussed. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.6
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