4.5 Review

Legionella pneumophila Carbonic Anhydrases: Underexplored Antibacterial Drug Targets

期刊

PATHOGENS
卷 5, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pathogens5020044

关键词

Legionella pneumophila; carbonic anhydrase; bacteria; inhibitor; antibiotic; virulence factor; sulfonamide

资金

  1. EU project DeZnIt
  2. EU project Metoxia
  3. EU project Gums Joints
  4. EU project Dynano

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Carbonic anhydrases (CAs, EC 4.2.1.1) are metalloenzymes which catalyze the hydration of carbon dioxide to bicarbonate and protons. Many pathogenic bacteria encode such enzymes belonging to the -, -, and/or -CA families. In the last decade, enzymes from some of these pathogens, including Legionella pneumophila, have been cloned and characterized in detail. These enzymes were shown to be efficient catalysts for CO2 hydration, with k(cat) values in the range of (3.4-8.3) x 10(5) s(-1) and k(cat)/K-M values of (4.7-8.5) x 10(7) M(-1)s(-1). In vitro inhibition studies with various classes of inhibitors, such as anions, sulfonamides and sulfamates, were also reported for the two -CAs from this pathogen, LpCA1 and LpCA2. Inorganic anions were millimolar inhibitors, whereas diethyldithiocarbamate, sulfamate, sulfamide, phenylboronic acid, and phenylarsonic acid were micromolar ones. The best LpCA1 inhibitors were aminobenzolamide and structurally similar sulfonylated aromatic sulfonamides, as well as acetazolamide and ethoxzolamide (K(I)s in the range of 40.3-90.5 nM). The best LpCA2 inhibitors belonged to the same class of sulfonylated sulfonamides, together with acetazolamide, methazolamide, and dichlorophenamide (K(I)s in the range of 25.2-88.5 nM). Considering such preliminary results, the two bacterial CAs from this pathogen represent promising yet underexplored targets for obtaining antibacterials devoid of the resistance problems common to most of the clinically used antibiotics, but further studies are needed to validate them in vivo as drug targets.

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

4.5
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