4.7 Article

Bioactive Pyridine-N-oxide Disulfides from Allium stipitatum

期刊

JOURNAL OF NATURAL PRODUCTS
卷 72, 期 3, 页码 360-365

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/np800572r

关键词

-

资金

  1. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
  2. NIH
  3. NIAID

向作者/读者索取更多资源

From Allium stipitatum, three pyridine-N-oxide alkaloids (1-3) possessing disulfide functional groups were isolated. The structures of these natural products were elucidated by spectroscopic means as 2-(methyldithio)pyridine-N-oxide (1), 2-[(methylthiomethyl)dithio]pyridine-N-oxide (2), and 2,2'-dithio-bis-pyridine-N-oxide (3). The proposed structure of 1 was confirmed by synthetic S-methylthiolation of commercial 2-thiopyridine-N-oxide. Compounds 1 and 2 are new natural products, and 3 is reported for the first time from an Allium species. All compounds were evaluated for activity against fast-growing species of Mycobacterium, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, and a multidrug-resistant (MDR) variants of S. aureus. Compounds 1 and 2 exhibited minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of 0.5-8 mu g/mL against these strains. A small series of analogues of 1 were synthesized in an attempt to optimize antibacterial activity, although the natural product had the most potent in vitro activity. In a whole-cell assay at 30 mu g/mL, 1 was shown to give complete inhibition of the incorporation of C-14-labeled acetate into soluble fatty acids, indicating that it is potentially an inhibitor of fatty acid biosynthesis. In a human cancer cell line antiproliferative assay, 1 and 2 displayed IC50 values ranging from 0.3 to 1.8 mu M with a selectivity index of 2.3 when compared to a human somatic cell line. Compound 1 was evaluated in a microarray analysis that indicated a similar mode of action to menadione and 8-quinolinol by interfering with the thioredoxin system and up-regulating the production of various heat shock proteins. This compound was also assessed in a mouse model for in vivo toxicity.

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