h i g h l i g h t s g r a p h i c a l a b s t r a c t
Sulfamethoxazole and sulfathiazole New Schiff bases of sulfamethoxazole (SMX-SB, 1)/sulfathiazole (STZ-SB, 2) are characterized and found
Schiff bases of substituted effective against several Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacterial strain. Derivatives are more effective
salicylaldehydes. than their parent sulfonamides. DFT optimized structures of the Schiff bases are used for molecular dock-
Spectroscopic characterization and ing studies to predict the best pose interaction in the cavity of DHPS protein and the results have been
single crystal X-ray structure. correlated with experimental MIC data. The most proficient drug is (E)-4-((3,5-dichloro-2-hydroxybenz
DFT computation of the Schiff bases ylidene)amino)-N-(thiazol-2-yl)benzenesulfonamide (2c) (MIC, 8.0 lg mL1).
for energy minimized structure.
Antibacterial study against
Gram-positive and Gram-negative
bacteria.
Molecular docking studies of the
Schiff bases with DHPS to support
experimental results.
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: New Schiff bases (1, 2) of substituted salicylaldehydes and sulfamethoxazole (SMX)/sulfathiazole (STZ) are
Received 17 March 2015 synthesized and characterized by elemental analysis and spectroscopic data. Single crystal X-ray structure
Received in revised form 17 May 2015 of one of the compounds (E)-4-((3,5-dichloro-2-hydroxybenzylidene)amino)-N-(5-methylisoxazol-3-yl)
Accepted 19 May 2015
benzenesulfonamide (1c) has been determined. Antimicrobial activities of the Schiff bases and parent sul-
Available online 27 May 2015
fonamides (SMX, STZ) have been examined against several Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria and
sulfonamide resistant pathogens; the lowest MIC is observed for (E)-4-((3,5-dichloro-2-hydroxybenzyli
Keywords:
dene)amino)-N-(thiazol-2-yl)benzene sulfonamide (2c) (8.0 lg mL1) and (E)-4-((3,5-dichloro-2-hydrox
Sulfonamide Schiff bases
Spectra and structure
ybenzylidene)amino)-N-(5-methylisoxazol-3-yl)benzene sulfonamide (1c) (16.0 lg mL1) against sulfon-
DFT computation amide resistant pathogens. DFT optimized structures of the Schiff bases have been used to carry out
Antibacterial activity molecular docking studies with DHPS (dihydropteroate synthase) protein structure (downloaded from
Molecular docking study Protein Data Bank) using Discovery Studio 3.5 to find the most preferred binding mode of the ligand inside
the protein cavity. The theoretical data have been well correlated with the experimental results. Cell
viability assay and ADMET studies predict that 1c and 2c have good drug like characters.
Ó 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.saa.2015.05.049
1386-1425/Ó 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
S. Mondal et al. / Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy 150 (2015) 268–279 269
Scheme 1. General procedure for the preparation of Schiff bases 1a–1e, 2a–2e.
Table 2
Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of Schiff bases (1, 2).
Table 3
Antimicrobial activity of compounds 1c and 2c against sulfonamide resistant clinical
isolates.
Fig. 3. Cell viability data of 1c and 2c. IC50 values are observed at a concentration of
>500 lg mL1. The line in graph with blue color (2c) and black color (1c) show the
viability plot against 3T3 non-carcinoma cell line. (For interpretation of the
references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.)
Fig. 4. 3D view of the best docked pose of 1c inside the binding pocket of DHPS.
acute toxicity. The ADMET plots (Fig. 10) reveal that 1a, 2a, 2b,
1c, 2c and 2d have good absorption in the cells. Lipinski’s criteria
for drug likeness are also predicted, most of the compounds are
within the range of Lipinski’s rule of five and could be good candi-
date for drug development.
Conclusion
Fig. 6. Protein surface (with respect to H-bond donor acceptor) in the best docked pose of 1c.
Fig. 7. 3D view of the best docked pose of 2c inside the binding pocket of DHPS.
dissolved in 20 ml of acetic acid followed by the addition of 7.0 g crystalline product (c) with 54% yield (4.0 g). Other aldehydes
(0.048 mol, 1.2 eqv) of paraformaldehyde and 7.0 g (1, b, d, e) were prepared following the same procedure.
(0.048 mol, 1.2 eqv) of hexamine and the mixture was refluxed
for 3 h till the color became orange. The mixture was cooled to
room temperature and 3 ml of concentrated H2SO4 was added Synthesis of (E)-4-((2-hydroxy-3,5-dimethylbenzylidene)amino)-N-
and refluxed again for 30 min. Reaction mixture was cooled and (5-methylisoxazol-3-yl) benzenesulfonamide (1a)
poured to ice cooled water, yellow precipitate was appeared. The To 2-hydroxy-3,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde (0.15 g, 1 mmol) in
precipitate was collected by filtration and washed thoroughly with 25 ml super dry ethanol sulfamethoxazole (SMX) (0.28 g, 1.1 mmol)
water (3 100 ml). The light yellow colored solid was dissolved in was added and was stirred at room temperature for 15 min followed
toulene and filtered, the filtrate was collected, dried over MgSO4 by reflux for 5 h (Scheme 1). Upon cooling to room temperature,
and concentrated under reduced pressure to get the desired prod- orange precipitate appeared and was filtered, washed with ethanol
uct. Finally it was crystallized from methanol to get pure (3 15 ml). The product was dried and crystallized from ethanol at
S. Mondal et al. / Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy 150 (2015) 268–279 275
(E)-4-((2-hydroxy-3,5-dimethylbenzylidene)amino)-N-(5-methylisox-
azol-3-yl) benzenesulfonamide (1a). Yellowish orange solid; yield
82%; mp 226–228 °C. M+, m/z = 386.13; IR: 3138, 3089, 2991,
2843, 2906, 2843, 1620 (azomethine, C@NH–), 1592, 1473, 1402,
1346, 1252, 1164 (–S@O of SO2), 1086, 1037, 938, 910, 840, 812,
749, 651, 559. 1H NMR (300 MHz, DMSO-d6): d 12.8 (1H, s, OH),
11.46 (1H, s, SO2NH), 8.9 (1H, s, 7-H), 7.91 (2Hs, d, J = 9 Hz, 10-H,
12-H), 7.58 (2Hs, d, J = 9 Hz, 9-H, 13-H), 7.25 (1H, s, 5-H), 7.17
(1H, s, 3-H), 6.15 (1H, s, 15-H), 2.28 (3Hs, s, –CH3 at 16-C), 2.23
(3Hs, s, -CH3 at 2-C), 2.17 (3Hs, s, -CH3 at 4-C). 13C NMR
(300 MHz, DMSO-d6): 170.8, 166.8, 157.1, 153.8, 139.1, 136.4,
129.3, 128.8, 127.8, 125.6, 122.7, 118.3, 95.8, 20.3, 15.5, 12.5.
UV–Vis (kmax, nm (e, 103 M1 cm1) in acetonitrile): 360 (12.9),
315 (18.8). Anal. Calcd. for C19H19N3O4S (385.11): C, 59.21; H,
4.97; N 10.90; S, 8.32%. Found: C, 59.30; H, 4.90; N, 10.78 S, 8.20%.
(E)-4-((3,5-di-tert-butyl-2-hydroxybenzylidene)amino)-N-(5-
Fig. 8. Amino acid residues close to 1c in the best docked pose inside the binding
methylisoxazol-3-yl) benzenesulfonamide (1b). Light yellow solid;
pocket of 3TZF (2D view). yield 65%; mp 148–150 °C. [M+] m/z = 471.27; IR: 3475, 3377,
3293, 3145, 2956, 1627 (azomethine, C@NH–), 1592, 1501, 1466,
1367, 1304, 1262, 1150 (–S@O of SO2), 1093, 1016, 924, 889,
room temperature and the purity was tested by TLC spot. Yield, 826, 686, 538. 1H NMR (300 MHz, DMSO-d6): d 13.70 (1H, s, OH),
0.30 g (78%).
9.00 (1H, s, 7-H), 7.88 (2Hs, d, J = 8.46 Hz, 10-H, 12-H), 7.58 (2Hs,
Other Schiff bases, 1b–1d and 2a–2d were also synthesized fol-
lowing identical procedure in the yield of 65–85%. d, J = 8.46 Hz, 9-H, 13-H), 7.50 (1H, s, 5-H); 7.43 (1H, s, 3-H), 6.15
(1H, s, 15-H), 2.26 (3Hs, s, –CH3 at 16-C), 1.40 (9Hs, s, –tertbutyl
at 4-C), 1.27 (9Hs, s, –tertbutyl 2-C). 13C NMR (300 MHz,
4-((E)-(2-hydroxy-5-methyl-3-((E)-((4-((5-methylisoxazol-3-yl) DMSO-d6): 170.9, 165.7, 158.2, 153.4, 151.5, 139.5, 137.3, 130.2,
sulfonyl)phenyl)imino) methyl)benzylidene)amino)-N-(5-methyl- 128.5, 127.5, 124.3, 122.4, 119.0, 95.6, 35.1, 34.37, 29.5, 29.0,
isoxazol-3-yl)benzenesulfonamide (1e) 12.5. UV–Vis (kmax, nm (e, 103 M1 cm1) in acetonitrile): 350
To 2-hydroxy-5-methylisothalaldehyde (0.16 g, 1 mmol) in (15.7), 270 (37.9). Anal. Calcd. for C25H31N3O4S (469.60): C,
25 ml super dry ethanol sulfamethoxazole (SMX) (0.55 g, 63.94; H, 6.65; N, 8.95; S, 6.83%. Found: C, 64.0; H, 6.60; N, 8.90;
2.17 mmol) was added and was stirred at room temperature for S, 6.78%.
15 min followed by reflux for 8 h (Scheme 1). Upon cooling to room
temperature an orange precipitate appeared. It was filtered and (E)-4-((3,5-dichloro-2-hydroxybenzylidene)amino)-N-(5-methylisox-
washed with cold ethanol and recrystallized from hot ethanol. azol-3-yl) benzenesulfonamide (1c). Orange solid; yield 82%; mp
The purity of the product was checked by TLC. Yield, 0.40 g (63%). 240–242 °C. M+, m/z = 427.01; IR: 3152, 3082, 2991, 2843, 2810,
The compound 2e was also synthesized following identical 1613 (azomethine, C@NH–), 1585, 1466, 1402, 1332, 1262, 1170
procedure in the yield of 68%. (–S@O of SO2), 1086, 1030, 938, 912, 854, 812, 749, 643, 573. 1H
Fig. 9. Protein surface (with respect to H-bond donor acceptor) in the best docked pose of 2c.
276 S. Mondal et al. / Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy 150 (2015) 268–279
(300 MHz, DMSO-d6): d 12.93 (1H, s, OH); 8.88 (1H, s, 7-H); 7.85 827, 686, 630, 559. 1H NMR (300 MHz, DMSO-d6): d 10.39 (1H, s,
(2Hs, d, J = 8.28 Hz, 10-H, 12-H); 7.51 (2Hs, d, J = 8.28 Hz, 9-H, –OH); 10.20 (1H, s, –OH0 ), 9.03 (1H, s, 7-H); 8.95 (1H, s, 70 -H);
13-H); 7.25 (2Hs, m, 5-H, 15-H); 7.16 (1H, s, 3-H); 6.83 (1H, s, 7.84 (2H, d, J = 8.5 Hz, 10-H, 12-H); 7.81 (2H, d, J = 8.5 Hz, 10-H0 ,
16-H); 2.23 (3H, s, –CH3 at 2-C); 2.17 (3H, s, –CH3 at 4-C). 13C 12-H0 ), 7.53 (2H, s, 3-H, 5-H), 7.43 (2H, d, J = 8.5 Hz, 9-H, 13-H);
NMR (300 MHz, DMSO-d6): 169.6, 157.2, 153.8, 140.2, 139.1, 7.39 (2H, d, J = 8.5 Hz, 90 -H, 130 -H); 7.25 (1H, s, 15-H); 7.16 (1H,
135.8, 129.32, 128.6, 126.8, 125.6, 122.7, 118.8, 108.2, 18.0, 14.2. d, 150 -H), 6.68 (1H, d, J = 4.57 Hz, 16-H); 6.54 (1H, d, J = 4.57 Hz,
UV–Vis (kmax, nm (e, 103 M1 cm1) in acetonitrile): 375 (18.9), 160 -H); 5.95 (1H, s, –SO2NH); 5.81 (1H, s, –SO2NH); 2.32 (3H, s,
314 (35.2). Anal. Calcd. for C18H17N3O3S2 (387.07): C, 55.80; H,
–CH3 at 4-C). 13C NMR (300 MHz, DMSO-d6): 169.9, 169.6, 157.2,
4.42; N, 10.84; S, 16.55%. Found: C, 55.75; H, 4.45; N, 10.88; S,
157.2, 153.8, 140.3, 140.1, 139.2, 139.1, 129.8, 129.1, 128.7,
16.50%.
128.6, 127.04, 122.7, 122.6, 118.9, 118.7, 108.2, 108.1, 14.8. UV–
Vis (kmax, nm (e, 103 M1 cm1) in acetonitrile): 360 (14.3), 302
(E)-4-((3,5-di-tert-butyl-2-hydroxybenzylidene)amino)-N-(thiazol-2-
(33.2). Anal. Calcd. for C27H21N5O5S4 (638.05): C, 50.77; H, 3.47;
yl) benzenesulfonamide (2b). Light yellow solid; yield 68%; mp
N, 13.16; S, 20.08%. Found: C, 50.85; H, 3.53; N, 13.10; S, 19.97%.
226–228 °C. M+: m/z = 472.18 IR: 3145, 3096, 2962, 2906, 2864,
1614, 1571 (azomethine, C@NH–), 1536, 1466, 1423, 1311, 1248,
1156 (–S@O of SO2), 1093, 988, 938, 861, 742, 657, 559. 1H NMR X-ray crystal structure analysis of 1c
(300 MHz, DMSO-d6): d 13.60 (1H, s, –OH); 8.98 (1H, s, 7-H);
(E)-4-((3,5-Dichloro-2-hydroxybenzylidene)amino)-N-(5-meth
7.86 (2H, d, J = 8.46 Hz, 10-H, 12-H); 7.53 (2H, d, J = 8.46 Hz, 9-H, ylisoxazol-3-yl)benzene- sulfonamide (1c) was crystallized by
13-H); 7.49 (1H, s, 5-H); 7.41 (1H, s, 3-H); 7.25 (1H, d, slow diffusion of CH2Cl2 solution to hexane (0.17 0.13
J = 4.56 Hz, 15-H); 6.80 (1H, d, J = 4.56 Hz, 16-H); 1.40 (9Hs, s, 0.10 mm). Data were collected (Table 6) by Bruker Smart Apex II
-But at 2-C); 1.27 (9Hs, s, But at 4-C). 13C NMR (300 MHz, CCD Area Detector at 293(2) K. Diffraction was recorded with 2h
DMSO-d6): 168.4, 158.2, 152.7, 151.2, 140.9, 140.6, 136.4, 128.5, in the range 2.11 6 h 6 25.00°. Fine-focus sealed tube was used
127.7, 125.13, 124.7, 122.3, 118.6, 108.1, 35.1, 34.4, 31.5, 29.6. as the radiation source of graphite-monochromatized MoKa radia-
UV–Vis (kmax, nm (e, 103 M1 cm1) in acetonitrile): 360 (24.4), tion (k = 0.71073 Å). Data were corrected for Lorentz and polariza-
314 (35.2). Anal. Calcd. for C24H29N3O3S2 (471.17): C, 61.12; H, tion effects and an empirical absorption correction in the h k l
6.2; N, 8.91; S, 13.60%. Found: C, 61.03; H, 6.29; N, 8.88; S, 13.65%. range: –12 6 h 6 12; –14 6 k 6 14; –20 6 l 6 20. Multi-scan
absorption corrections were applied. The structure was solved by
(E)-4-((3,5-dichloro-2-hydroxybenzylidene)amino)-N-(thiazol-2-yl) direct methods and refined by full-matrix least-squares techniques
benzenesulfonamide (2c). Orange solid; yield 84%; mp 226–228 °C. on F2 using the SHELXL-97 [30]. The absorption corrections were
M+, m/z = 427.97, IR: 3145, 3096, 3026, 2892, 1620, 1564 (azome- done by the multi-scan technique. All data were corrected for
thine, C@NH–), 1536, 1437, 1332, 1304, 1185, 1142 (–S@O of SO2), Lorentz and polarization effects, and the non-hydrogen atoms were
1086, 932, 847, 798, 742, 700, 651, 559. 1H NMR (300 MHz, refined anisotropically. Hydrogen atoms were generated using
DMSO-d6): d 10.11 (1H, s, –OH); 9.00 (1H, s, 7-H); 7.89 (2Hs, d, SHELXL-97 and their positions calculated based on the riding mode
with thermal parameters equal to 1.2 times that of the associated C
J = 8.37 Hz, 10-H, 12-H); 7.77 (1H, s, 3-H); 7.73 (1H, s, 5-H); 7.58
atoms, and participated in the calculation of the final R-indices.
(2H, d, J = 8.37 Hz, 9-H, 13-H); 7.25 (1H, d, J = 4.47 Hz, 15-H); The ORTEP [31] plot of the crystal is depicted in Fig. 1.
6.84 (1H, d, J = 4.47 Hz, 16-H); 5.81 (1H, bs, –SO2NH). 13C NMR
(300 MHz, DMSO-d6): 171.5, 159.2, 158.4, 154.0, 140.7, 140.4, DFT computation data
139.6, 139.0, 129.2, 128.5, 124.2, 122.3, 120.7, 108.7. UV–Vis (kmax,
nm (e, 103 M1 cm1) in acetonitrile): 354 (24.6), 330 (28.3), 280 Geometry optimization of all the compounds were carried out
(38.3). Anal. Calcd. for C16H11Cl2N3O3S2 (426.96): C, 44.87; H, in B3LYP [32] using Gaussian09 software [33] package. The
2.59; N, 9.81; S, 14.97%. Found: C, 44.76; H, 2.75; N, 9.77; S, 14.85%. 6-31G(d, p) basis set was assigned for all the elements except sul-
fur. For sulfur atom 6-31+G(d, p) basis set was used. The DFT
(E)-4-((2-hydroxy-5-nitrobenzylidene)amino)-N-(thiazol-2-yl)ben- Optimized structures, calculated Molecular Orbital diagrams and
zenesulfonamide (2d). Orange solid; yield 84%; mp 246–248 °C. [M] their composition, energy correlation data are given in
m/z = 405.2; IR: 3152, 3096, 3012, 2906, 2815, 1620, 1578 (azome- Supplementary materials (Figs. S13–S16).
thine, C@NH–), 1536, 1480, 1417, 1332, 1290, 1192, 1150 (–S@O of
SO2), 1093, 938, 861, 833, 735, 665, 567. 1H NMR (300 MHz,
Pharmacology
DMSO-d6): d 12.40 (1H, s, –SO2NH); 10.28 (1H, s, –OH); 9.00 (1H,
s, 7-H); 8.68 (1H, s, 5-H); 8.42 (1H, s, 3-H); 7.88 (2H, d, Antimicrobial assay
J = 8.40 Hz, 10-H, 12-H); 7.55 (2H, d, J = 8.40 Hz, 9-H, 13-H); 7.39 All the synthesized compounds were tested against several con-
(1H, s, 2-H); 7.26 (1H, d, J = 4.42 Hz, 15-H), 6.8 (1H, d, J = 4.42 Hz, trol strain as well as several clinical isolates of sulfonamide resis-
16-H). 13C NMR (300 MHz, DMSO-d6): 171.6, 167.4, 160.2, 155.3, tant strains. The used control strains were E. coli ATCC25922,
141.5, 140.0, 139.8, 136.1, 131.0, 130.16, 128.85, 122.32, 120.70, Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC27863, Salmonella typhi MTCC734,
109.0. UV–Vis (kmax, nm (e, 103 M1 cm1) in acetonitrile): 416 Klebsiella. penumonia ATCC 714, S. aureus ATCC21737 and
(9.7), 370 (9.8), 294 (46.2). Anal. Calcd. for C16H12N4O5S2 Staphylococcus epidermidis NCIM 2493. Minimum inhibitory con-
(404.02): C, 47.52; H, 2.99; N, 13.85; S, 15.86. Found: C, 47.47; H, centration (MIC) values of compounds and antibiotics were deter-
3.05; N, 13.76; S, 15.92%. mined according to CLSI guidelines by broth microdilution method
[34]. MIC values were determined where no visible growth was
4-((E)-(2-hydroxy-5-methyl-3-((E)-((4-(thiazol-2-ylsul- observed. The culture conditions and bacterial growth were moni-
fonyl)phenyl)imino)methyl) benzylidene)amino)-N-(thiazol-2-yl)ben- tored as described earlier by Samanta et al. [35] and all indepen-
zenesulfonamide (2e). Orange solid; yield 68%; mp 300 °C. [M] dent experiments were repeated three times. The DHFR inhibitor,
m/z = 639.17; IR: 3469, 3363, 3104, 2921, 1571 (azomethine, trimethoprim in combinations studies were performed by broth
C@NH–), 1529, 1410, 1325, 1284, 1129 (–S@O of SO2), 1094, 925, micro dilution checkerboard method [36]. The RFICs were
278 S. Mondal et al. / Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy 150 (2015) 268–279
calculated as follows: RFIC = FICA + FICB, where FIC A is the MIC of Receptor–Ligand interactions protocol section of Discovery Studio
drug A in the combination/MIC of drug A alone, and FIC B is the MIC client 3.5 [42]. Initially there was a pretreatment process for both
of drug B in the combination/MIC of drug B alone [37]. The combi- the protein and ligand. Energy minimized structure of all the com-
nation is considered synergistic when the RFIC is 60.5, indifferent pounds (previously done under ‘‘X-ray crystal structure analysis of
when the RFIC is >0.5 to <2, and antagonistic when the RFIC is P2. 1c’’) were taken for ligand preparation. Ligand preparation was
done using Prepare Ligand module in Receptor–Ligand interactions
Detection of sulfonamide resistant gene:Primer design, PCR tool of Discovery studio 3.5 and prepared ligands were used for
amplification and sequencing of Sul genes docking. Protein preparation was done under Prepare Protein mod-
Clinically isolated strains were selected on the basis of their sul- ule of Receptor–Ligand interactions tool of Discovery Studio 3.5
fonamide resistant ability following disc diffusion methods. Two and that was used for docking. The prepared protein was consid-
strains were selected due to their highest resistant ability among ered as receptor and active site was selected based on the ligand
them. The bacterial strains were isolated clinically from infected binding domain of sulfamethoxazole, the pre-existing ligand was
patients. DNA was isolated from resistant strains following removed and prepared ligand was placed. Most favorable docked
Sambrook et al. [38] and identified following 16S rDNA sequencing pose was selected based on the minimum free energy of protein–
using the primers; forward primers, AGAGTTTGATCCTGGCTCAG ligand complex and analyzed to investigate the interaction.
and reverse primer, AAGGAGGTGATCCAGCCGCA. High level of
sul1 gene expression in the strains has been confirmed by PCR ADMET prediction
using the primers, forward primer: CTTCGATGAGAGCCGGCGGC,
reverse primer: GCAAGGCGGAAACCCGCGCC and sul2 gene; for- Adsorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion and toxicity
ward primer: TCGTCAACATAACCTCGGACAG, reverse primer: (ADMET) prediction was done in ADMET descriptor module of
GTTGCGTTTGATACCGGCAC of specific gene sequences from the Small molecules protocol of Discovery studio client 3.5.
NCBI database following Byrne-Bailey et al. [39]. Using those pri- Druglikeness of the compounds was checked too following
mers (20 pmol each) and 200 mg DNA of each strain in a 50 lL Lipniski’s rule of five [43,44]. Using ADMET module of small mole-
reaction buffer containing 2 mM dNTP, 1.5 mM magnesium chlo- cule protocol of Discovery studio 3.5 software ADMET property and
ride and 5 units Taq polymerase (Bioline, USA), PCR was performed toxicity of the compounds have been checked.
in a thermocycler (ABI, USA). The PCR conditions were an initial
denaturation for 1 min and 30 s, followed by 30 cycles of denatur- Acknowledgments
ing at 94 °C for 45 s, annealing at 58–60 °C for 30 s and extension at
72 °C for 1 min and a final extension step at 72 °C for 10 min. PCR Financial support from West Bengal DST (228/1(10)/(Sanc.)/S
products were analyzed by 1.0% agarose gel electrophoresis, T/P/S&T/9G-16/2012), Kolkata and University Grants Commission
stained with ethidium bromide and visualized under (F.42-333/2013 (SR)), New Delhi are gratefully acknowledged.
UV-transilluminator. The PCR amplified DNA was eluted from gel, One of us (S.M.) thanks UGC, New Delhi for providing fellowship.
purified by QIA quick gel extraction kit (QIAGEN), sequenced using We heartily thank Dr. Prabir Ojha of Department of
Bigdye terminator kit (ABI) and same primers (used for PCR) in an Pharmaceutical Technology, Jadavpur University for helping us to
automated DNA sequencer (ABI model 3100, Hitachi). work with Discovery studio client 3.5.
Cytotoxicity assay
Appendix A. Supplementary data
MTT [(3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-5-(3-carboxymethoxyphen
Crystallographic data for the structure of 1c was submitted to
yl)-2-(4-sulfophenyl)-2H tetrazolium)], assay was performed to
the Cambridge Crystallographic Data center, CCDC No. 1014370
determine cell cytotoxicity following the method described earlier
for (E)-4-((3,5-Dichloro-2-hydroxybenzylidene)amino)-N-(5-meth
by Mandal et al. [40]. 3T3, primary mouse embryonic fibroblast
ylisoxazol-3-yl)benzene- sulfonamide (1c). These data could be
(2.0 103) cells were seeded in 100 lL complete DMEM medium
obtained at the free of cost via http://www.ccdc.cam.ac.uk/conts/
per well in 96 well plates. Plates were incubated at 37 °C in 5%
retrieving.html, or from the Cambridge Crystallographic Data
CO2 for 24 h for cell attachment. Cells were treated with individual
Centre, 12 Union Road, Cambridge CB2 1EZ, UK; fax: +44 1223
compounds with variable concentration from 5 to 1000 lg mL1
336 033; or e-mail: deposit@ccdc.cam.ac.uk. Supplementary data
and incubated at 37 °C in 5% CO2 for 48 h. Three wells were used
associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at
in the 96 well plates for each derivative and repeated three times.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.saa.2015.05.049.
For the MTT assay, thiazolyl blue tetrazolium bromide solution
(100 lL; 1 mg mL1) in incomplete medium was added and this
References
mixture incubated for 4 h. After that, 100 lL of dimethylsulphox-
ide (DMSO) was added and the plates were rotated for 5 min. [1] G. Domagk, Dtsch. Med. 61 (1935) 250–253.
Optical density was recorded at 550 nm with DMSO as the blank. [2] S.J. Thiele-Bruhn, Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 166 (2003) 145–167.
Percentage of cell viability was plotted against concentrations of [3] V.S. Misra, V.K. Saxena, R. Srivastava, J. Indian Chem. Soc. 59 (1982). 781–781.
[4] F. Zani, P. Vicini, Arch. Pharm. 331 (1998) 219–223.
derivatives. Cells treated with no compound used as control. [5] T.H. Maren, Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 16 (1976) 309–327.
[6] C.T. Supuran, A. Scozzafava, B.C. Jurca, M.A. Iiies, Eur. J. Med. Chem. 33 (1998).
In silico docking studies 83–83.
[7] G.C. Slatore, A.S. Tilles, Immunol. Allergy Clin. North Am. 24 (2004) 477–490.
[8] G. Choquet-Kastylevsky, T. Vial, J. Descotes, Curr. Allergy Asthma Rep. 2 (2002)
Molecular docking was used to predict how a small molecule 16–25.
(ligand) interact with protein and plays a major role to its biolog- [9] A. Carr, A.S. Gross, J.M. Hoskins, R. Penny, A.D. Cooper, Aids 8 (1994) 333–337.
[10] M.F. Gordin, L.G. Simon, B.C. Wofsy, J. Mills, Ann. Intern. Med. 100 (1984) 495–
ical activity [41]. Crystal structure of DHPS (Dihydroptorat
499.
Synthase of yersinia pestis, PDB ID 3TZF) was downloaded from [11] L.S. Walmsley, S. Khorasheh, J. Singer, O. Djurdjev, J. Acquir. Immunodefic.
RCSB protein data bank (http://www.pdb.org) and used for dock- Syndr. Hum. Retrovirol. 19 (1998) 498–505.
ing. The enzyme was co-crystallized with sulfamethoxazole, 6-hy [12] S. Mukesh, E.C. Alastair, Chem. Biol. Interact. 142 (2002) 155–173.
[13] J.P. Sanderson, D.J. Naisbitt, J. Farrell, C.A. Ashby, M.J. Tucker, M.J. Rieder, M.
droxymethylpterin-diphosphate and magnesium ion. We per- Pirmohamed, S.E. Clarke, B.K. Park, J. Immunol. 178 (2007) 5533–5542.
formed the in silico docking studies by using CDOCKER module of [14] G.G. Mohamed, C.M. Sharaby, Spectrochim. Acta A 66 (2007) 949–958.
S. Mondal et al. / Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy 150 (2015) 268–279 279
[15] M.S. Iqbal, A.H. Khan, B.A. Loothar, I.H. Bukhari, Med. Chem. Res. 18 (2009) 31– X. Li, H.P. Hratchian, A.F. Izmaylov, J. Bloino, G. Zheng, J.L. Sonnenberg, M.
42. Hada, M. Ehara, K. Toyota, R. Fukuda, J. Hasegawa, M. Ishida, T. Nakajima, Y.
[16] Z.H. Chohan, M. Ul-Hassan, K.M. Khan, C.T. Supuran, J. Enzyme Inhib. Med. Honda, O. Kitao, H. Nakai, T. Vreven Jr., J.A. Montgomery, J.E. Peralta, F.M.
Chem. 20 (2005) 183–188. Ogliaro, J. Bearpark, J. Heyd, E. Brothers, K.N. Kudin, V.N. Staroverov, R.
[17] Z.H. Chohan, H.A. Shad, Appl. Organomet. Chem. 25 (2011) 591–600. Kobayashi, J. Normand, K. Raghavachari, A. Rendell, J.C. Burant, S.S. Iyengar, J.
[18] D.N. Dhar, C.L. Taploo, J. Sci. Ind. Res. 41 (1982) 501–506. Tomasi, M. Cossi, N. Rega, J.M. Millam, M. Klene, O. Yazyev, A.J. Austin, R.
[19] P. Przybylski, A. Huczynski, K. Pyta, B. Brzezinski, F. Bartl, Curr. Org. Chem. 13 Cammi, C. Pomelli, J.W. Ochterski, R.L. Martin, K. Morokuma, V.G. Zakrzewski,
(2009) 124–148. G.A.P. Salvador, J.J. Dannenberg, S. Dapprich, A.D. Daniels, Ö. Farkas, J.B.
[20] A.O. De Souza, F.C.S. Galetti, C. Silva, B. Bicalho, M.M. Parma, S.F. Fonseca, Foresman, J.V. Ortiz, J. Cioslowski, D.J. Fox, Gaussian Inc., CT, Wallingford,
Quim. Nova 30 (2007) 1563–1566. 2009.
[21] Z. Guo, R. Xing, S. Liu, Z. Zhong, X. Ji, L. Wang, Carbohydr. Res. 342 (2007) [34] Twentieth Informational Supplement, CLSI document M100-S20-U, CLSI,
1329–1332. Wayne, 2010.
[22] C. Wansong, O. Weizhu, W. Liqiang, H. Yuanqiang, C. Jiashun, Li Juan, L. You- [35] T. Samanta, G. Roymahapatra, W.F. Porto, S. SethGhorai, S. Saha, J. Sengupta,
Nian, Dalton Trans. 42 (2013) 15678–15686. O.L. Franco, J. Dinda, S.M. Mandal, PLoS One 8 (2013) 58346–583457.
[23] M. Krátký, J. Vinsová, M. Volková, B. Vladimír, F. Trejtnar, J. Stolaríková, Eur. J. [36] G. Orhan, A. Bayram, Y. Zer, I. Balchi, J. Clin. Microbiol. 43 (2005) 140–143.
Med. Chem. 50 (2012) 433–440. [37] M.G. Botelho, J. Dent. 28 (2000) 565–570.
[24] L.N. Ferguson, Chem. Rev. 38 (1946) 227–254. [38] J. Sambrook, E.F. Fritsch, T. Maniatis, Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual,
[25] O. Skold, Drug Resist. Updat. 3 (2000) 155–160. second ed., Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, New
[26] G. Swedberg, C. Fermer, O. Skold, Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 338 (1993) 555–558. York, USA, 1989.
[27] L. Sundstro, P. Radstrom, G. Swedberg, O. Skold, Mol. Gen. Genet. 213 (1988) [39] K.G. Byrne-Bailey, W.H. Gaze, P. Kay, A.B. Boxall, P.M. Hawkey, E.M.
191–201. Wellington, Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 53 (2009) 696–702.
[28] O. Skold, Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 9 (1976) 49–54. [40] D. Banerjee, S.M. Mandal, A. Das, M.L. Hegde, K.K. Bhakat, J. Biol. Chem. 286
[29] V. Perreten, P. Boerlin, Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 47 (2003) 1169–1172. (2011) 6006–6016.
[30] G.M. Sheldrick, SHELX97, Programs for Crystal Structure Analysis (release 97– [41] P. Kirkpatrick, Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 3 (2004) 294–299.
2), University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany, 1997. [42] Discovery Studio 3.5 is A Product of Accelrys Inc., San Diego, CA, USA.
[31] L.J. Farrugia, J. Appl. Crystallogr. 30 (1997) 565–566. [43] C.A. Lipinski, F. Lombardo, B.W. Dominy, P.J. Feeney, Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 46
[32] A.D. Becke, J. Chem. Phys. 98 (1993) 5648–5652. (2001) 3–26.
[33] M.J. Frisch, G.W. Trucks, H.B. Schlegel, G.E. Scuseria, M.A. Robb, J.R. Cheeseman, [44] C.A. Lipinski, Drug Discov. Today 1 (2004) 337–341.
G. Scalmani, V. Barone, B. Mennucci, G.A. Petersson, H. Nakatsuji, M. Caricato,