4.7 Article

Comparative activities of lipid esters of cidofovir and cyclic cidofovir against replication of herpesviruses in vitro

期刊

ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 49, 期 9, 页码 3724-3733

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.49.9.3724-3733.2005

关键词

-

资金

  1. NEI NIH HHS [R01 EY007366, EY11834] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAID NIH HHS [N01AI30049, N01-AI-85347, R37 AI029164, AI29164, N01-AI-30049, N01 AI30049, N01 AI085347] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cidofovir (CDV) is an effective therapy for certain human cytomegalovirus (HCW) infections in immunocompromised patients that are resistant to other antiviral drugs, but the compound is not active orally. To improve oral bioavailability, a series of lipid analogs of CDV and cyclic CDV (cCDV), including hexadecyloxypropyl-CDV and -cCDV and octadecyloxyethyl-CDV and -cCDV, were synthesized and found to have multiple-log-unit enhanced activity against HCW in vitro. On the basis of the activity observed with these analogs, additional lipid esters were synthesized and evaluated for their activity against herpes simplex virus (HSV) types 1 and 2, human cytomegalovirus, murine cytomegalovirus, varicella-zoster virus (VZV), Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), human herpesvirus 6 (HHV-6), and HHV-8. Using several different in vitro assays, concentrations of drug as low as 0.001 mu M reduced herpesvirus replication by 50% (EC50) with the CDV analogs, whereas the cCDV compounds were generally less active. In most of the assays performed, the EC50 values of the lipid esters were at least 100-fold lower than the EC50 values for unmodified CDV or cCDV. The lipid analogs were also active against isolates that were resistant to CDV, ganciclovir, or foscarnet. These results indicate that the lipid ester analogs are considerably more active than CDV itself against HSV, VZV, CMV, EBV, HHV-6, and HHV-8 in vitro, suggesting that they may have potential for the treatment of infections caused by a variety of herpesviruses.

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

4.7
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