Twenty-three naphthoimidazoles and six naphthoxazoles were synthesised and evaluated against susceptible and rifampicin- and isoniazid-resistant strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Among all the compounds evaluated, fourteen presented MIC values in the range of 0.78 to 6.25 μg/mL against susceptible and resistant strains of M. tuberculosis. Five structures were solved by X-ray crystallographic analysis. These substances are promising antimycobacterial prototypes.

No abstract

The objectives of this study were to evaluate tetrahydropyridine derivatives as efflux inhibitors and to understand the mechanism of action of the compounds by in silico studies. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) determination, fluorometric methods and docking simulations were performed. The compounds NUNL02, NUNL09 and NUNL10 inhibited efflux, and NUNL02 is very likely a substrate of the transporter protein AcrB. Docking studies suggested that the mechanism of action could be by competition with substrate for binding sites and protein residues. We showed for the first time the potential of tetrahydropyridines as efflux inhibitors and highlighted compound NUNL02 as an AcrB-specific inhibitor. Docking studies suggested that competition is the putative mechanism of action of these compounds.

This study demonstrated the importance of ethnobotanical surveys in markets as a source for new drugs and also for scientific validation of folk medicine.

A series of twenty-three N-acylhydrazones derived from isoniazid (INH 1-23) have been evaluated for their in vitro antibacterial activity against INH- susceptible strain of M. tuberculosis (RG500) and three INH-resistant clinical isolates (RG102, RG103 and RG113). In general, derivatives 4, 14, 15 and 16 (MIC=1.92, 1.96, 1.96 and 1.86 µM, respectively) showed relevant activities against RG500 strain, while the derivative 13 (MIC=0.98 µM) was more active than INH (MIC=1.14 µM). However, these derivatives were inactive against RGH102, which displays a mutation in the coding region of inhA. These results suggest that the activities of these compounds depend on the inhibition of this enzyme. However, the possibility of other mechanisms of action cannot be excluded, since compounds 2, 4, 6, 7, 12–17, 19, 21 and 23 showed good activities against katG-resistant strain RGH103, being more than 10-fold more active than INH.