4.7 Article

Biological properties of novel antistaphylococcal quinoline-indole agents

期刊

ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 47, 期 2, 页码 458-466

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.47.2.458-466.2003

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The antibacterial properties of novel quinoline-indole (QI) agents were examined. QI agents demonstrated potent bactericidal activities against Staphylococcus aureus, killing by lytic and nonlytic mechanisms. S. aureus mutants resistant to a lytic QI agent (SEP 155342) and a nonlytic QI agent (SEP 118843) arose at frequencies of 1.4 x 10(-9) and 1.2 x 10(-8), respectively, by selection at four times the MICs. Mutants resistant to QI agent SEP 155342 were unstable, but mutants resistant to QI agent SEP 118843 displayed stable resistance. Mutants resistant to QI agent SEP 118843 were not cross resistant to other inhibitors, including QI agent SEP 155342. Addition of QI agents SEP 118843 and SEP 155342 at four times the MIC caused nonspecific inhibition of several macromolecular biosynthetic pathways in S. aureus. Within 10 min, QI agents SEP 118843 and SEP 155342 both interfered with bacterial membrane integrity, as measured by uptake of propidium iodide. Agents from the two classes of the QI agents probably kill staphylococci by separate mechanisms which, nevertheless, both involve interference with cytoplasmic membrane function. Precise structure-activity relationships for the division of QI agents into two classes could not be determined. However, lytic activity was often associated with substitution of a basic amine at position 4 of the quinoline nucleus, whereas compounds with nonlytic activity usually contained an aromatic ring with or without a methoxy substituent at position 4. Nonlytic QI agents such as SEP 118843 may possess selective activity against the prokaryotic membrane since this compound failed to lyse mouse erythrocytes when it was added at a concentration equivalent to four times the MIC for S. aureus.

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