4.5 Article

Scaffold-switching: An exploration of 5,6-fused bicyclic heteroaromatics systems to afford antituberculosis activity akin to the imidazo[1,2-a]pyridine-3-carboxylates

期刊

BIOORGANIC & MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY LETTERS
卷 24, 期 15, 页码 3493-3498

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.bmcl.2014.05.062

关键词

Antituberculosis; Imidazo[1,2-a]pyridine; Imidazo[1,2-a]pyrimidine; 5,6-Fused bicyclic system; Scaffold hopping

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [R01AI054193]
  2. NIH [CHE-0741793]
  3. Dow AgroSciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A set of 5,6-fused bicyclic heteroaromatic scaffolds were investigated for their in vitro anti-tubercular activity versus replicating and non-replicating strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) in an attempt to find an alternative scaffold to the imidazo[1,2-a]pyridine and imidazo[1,2-a]pyrimidines that were previously shown to have potent activity against replicating and drug resistant Mtb. The five new bicyclic heteroaromatic scaffolds explored in this study include a 2,6-dimethylimidazo[1,2-b]pyridazine-3-carboxamide (7), a 2,6-dimethyl-1H-indole-3-carboxamide (8), a 6-methyl-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide (9), a 7-methyl-[1,2,4]triazolo[4,3-a]pyridine-3-carboxamide (10), and a 5,7-dimethyl-[1,2,4]triazolo[1,5-a]pyrimidine-2-carboxamide (11). Additionally, imidazo[1,2-a]pyridines isomers (2 and 12) and a homologous imidazo[1,2-a]pyrimidine isomer (6) were prepared and compared. Compounds 2 and 6 were found to be the most potent against H(37)Rv Mtb (MIC's of 0.1 mu M and 1.3 mu M) and were inactive (MIC >128 mu M) against Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli and Candida albicans. Against other non-tubercular mycobacteria strains, compounds 2 and 6 had activity against Mycobacterium avium (16 and 122 mu M, respectively), Mycobacterium kansasii (4 and 19 mu M, respectively), Mycobacterium bovis BCG (1 and 8 mu M, respectively) while all the other scaffolds were inactive (>128 mu M). (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.5
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