5700
A. Tambo-ong et al. / Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 21 (2011) 5697–5700
Gram-positive pathogen (S. aureus), two Gram-negative pathogens
(F. tularensis and Escherichia coli) and a mycobacteria (Mycobacte-
rium tuberculosis). Given that novobiocin has been used as a drug
primarily for S. aureus, we expected the greatest activities against
these bacteria. Novobiocin was quite potent against S. aureus, with
of antibiotics that target Gram-negative bacteria revealed that in
general Gram-negative antibiotics have lower molecular weights
and lower partition coefficients than antibiotics targeting Gram-
positive bacteria.15 In fact, it is believed that many of the Gram-
negative antibiotics must enter the cytosol through porins rather
than diffusion across the outer membrane.
an MIC of 0.125
significantly less potent, with four compounds having MIC values
of 16 g/ml. These four compounds—3b, 3c, 3e, and 3h—were the
lg/ml. The most potent new derivatives were all
l
Acknowledgments
same four compounds that were the most potent in the gyrase B
binding assay. Their binding affinities were approximately one
order of magnitude weaker than novobiocin, but their antibacterial
activities were closer to two orders of magnitude weaker than
novobiocin. These data suggest that the modifications on these
compounds may have actually decreased their ability to enter into
the cytoplasm of S. aureus, even though these four compounds
have calculated partition coefficients ranging from 0.62 to3.58,
around that for novobiocin (2.65).
The project described was supported by Award Number
U01AI082070 from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and
does not necessarily represent the official views of the National
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases or the National Insti-
tutes of Health.
Supplementary data
The antibacterial activities of the new derivatives against M.
tuberculosis (Mtb) were slightly more encouraging, with two
compounds, 3c and 3e, showing a significant increase in potency
relative to novobiocin (Table 1). Interestingly, all of the compounds
that showed any activity against S. aureus showed higher potencies
against Mtb, which is surprising given that novobiocin itself is
much more potent against S. aureus (the MIC value for novobiocin
Supplementary data (Synthetic and biological methods and
analytical characterization of all compounds) associated with this
article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/
References and notes
is 0.125 for S. aureus and 4–8 lg/ml for Mtb). Another unexpected
1. Coulson, C. J.; Smith, V. J. Biochem. Pharmacol. 1981, 30, 447.
2. Ziv, G.; Sulman, F. G. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 1972, 2, 206.
3. Walsh, T. J.; Standiford, H. C.; Reboli, A. C.; John, J. F.; Mulligan, M. E.; Ribner, B.
S.; Montgomerie, J. Z.; Goetz, M. B.; Mayhall, C. G.; Rimland, D., et al Antimicrob.
Agents Chemother. 1993, 37, 1334.
4. Hinman, J. W.; Caron, E. L.; Hoeksema, H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1957, 79, 3789.
5. Lamour, V. R.; Hoermann, L.; Jeltsch, J.-M.; Oudet, P.; Moras, D. J. Biol. Chem.
2002, 277, 18947.
6. Ali, J. A.; Jackson, A. P.; Howells, A. J.; Maxwell, A. Biochemistry 1993, 32, 2717.
7. Galm, U.; Heller, S.; Shapiro, S.; Page, M.; Li, S. M.; Heide, L. Antimicrob. Agents
Chemother. 2004, 48, 1307.
8. Huang, Y. T.; Blagg, B. S. J. J. Org. Chem. 2007, 72, 3609.
9. Gormley, N. A.; Orphanides, G.; Meyer, A.; Cullis, P. M.; Maxwell, A.
Biochemistry 1996, 35, 5083.
discovery was that these two more active compounds were both
more polar derivatives of novobiocin. The cell wall of mycobacteria
is very lipid rich and thicker than that of many other bacteria. This
waxy hydrophobic layer would be expected to have greater perme-
ability to compounds with higher partition coefficients, but these
two small polar neutral side chains both have lower calculated
Log D values.
None of the new derivatives demonstrated any antibacterial
activity against two types of Gram-negative bacteria, F. tularensis
and E. coli, with the exception of 3b, which had very weak activity
(64 lg/ml). Novobiocin itself is also relatively weak against these
10. Schio, L.; Chatreaux, F.; Loyau, V.; Murer, M.; Ferreira, A.; Mauvais, P.;
Bonnefoy, A.; Klich, M. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2001, 11, 1461.
11. Peixoto, C.; Laurin, P.; Klich, M.; Dupuis-Hamelin, C.; Mauvais, P.; Lassaigne, P.;
Bonnefoy, A.; Musicki, B. Tetrahedron Lett. 2000, 41, 1741.
bacteria, so it is possible that the reduction in binding affinity at
the target makes these compounds unlikely to show antibacterial
activity at the concentrations tested. Clearly, the modifications
made to novobiocin did not cause any significant increase in
permeability to the Gram-negative pathogens. The large size of
novobiocin itself may make it extraordinarily difficult to get these
compounds into the bacterial cytosol by adding additional
molecular weight. An analysis of the physiochemical properties
12. Heide, L. Methods Enzymol. 2009, 459, 437.
13. Heide, L.; Gust, B.; Anderle, C.; Li, S. M. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 2008, 8, 667.
14. Glaser, B. T.; Malerich, J. P.; Duellman, S. J.; Fong, J.; Hutson, C.; Fine, R. M.;
Keblansky, B.; Tang, M. J.; Madrid, P. B. J. Biomol. Screen. 2011, 6, 230.
15. Shea, R.; Moser, H. E. J. Med. Chem. 2008, 51, 2871.