S.Joshi, N.Khosla / Bioorg.Med.Chem.Lett.13 (2003) 3747–3751
3751
niae, S.typhosa , S.aureus , B.subtilis , and P.aeruginosa.
The Mannich bases (6a–f) were studied for their anti-
bacterial property at concentration of10–160 mg mLꢀ1
using methanol as solvent. The solvent did not exhibit
any activity at the concentrations used. The results were
statistically evaluated by analysis ofvariance. 16 The null
hypothesis was tested using the F test. Ifthe values of
the calculated F are higher than the table value of F at
the 5% level, the character under study is said to be
significantly influenced by the treatment. The significant
or non-significant difference due to each ofthe treat-
ments was judged under each character using standard
error ofdifference (SED) and critical difference (CD)
values. The SED between two treatments was calculated
using error mean sum ofsquares (EMS). The CD were
computed by multiplying the SED value with the t-table
(at 5%) for the error degree of freedom in order to
judge the minimum difference in the means to qualify
the treatment effects.
School of Life Sciences, DAVV, Indore, for guiding and
providing facilities to conduct toxicological studies.
Authors are also thankful to the referees for their useful
suggestions making our MS appropriate for publication
in Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett.
References and Notes
1. Joshi, S.; Khosla, N.; Khare, D.; Tiwari, P. Acta Pharm.
2002, 52, 197.
2. (a) Supuran, C. T.; Scozzafava, A.; Jurca, B. C.; Iliies,
M. A. Eur.J.Med.Chem.
1998, 33, 83. (b) Supuran, C. T.;
Scozzafava, A.; Casini, A. Med.Res.Rev. 2003, 23, 146. (c)
Scozzafava, A.; Owa, T.; Mastrolorenzo, A.; Supuran, C. T.
Curr.Med.Chem. 2003, 10, 925.
3. Sondhi, S. M.; Johar, M.; Singhal, N.; Dastidar, S. G.;
Shukla, R.; Raghubir, R. Monatshefte Fur Chemie 2000, 131,
511.
4. Li, J. J.; Anderson, Q. D.; Burton, E. G.; Cogburn, J. N.;
Collins, J. T.; Garland, D. J.; Gregory, S. A.; Huang, H. C.;
Isakson, P. C.; Koboldt, C. M.; Logush, E. W.; Norton, M. B.;
Perkns, W. E.; Reinhard, E. J.; Seibert, K.; Veenhuizen, A. W.;
Zang, Y.; Reitz, D. B. J.Med.Chem. 1995, 38, 4570.
5. Tramontini, M.; Angiolini, L. Tetrahedron Report 1990,
271.
6. Joshi, S.; Matkar, S.; Khosla, N.; Bhandari, V. J.Ind.
Chem.Soc. 1997, 74, 156.
7. Tramontini, M.; Angiolini, L.; Ghedini, N. Polymer 1998,
29, 771.
8. Goto, M.; Minoe, T. Jpn.Kokai Tokkyo Koho 1995, 299,
185.
Toxicity
The toxicity was ascertained by LD50 test. The test was
performed on swiss strain white male mice weighing 25
g, ꢂ1.5 months old. The compounds were dissolved in
methanol and given orally (through catheter tube) as
well as intraperitoneally. Six were kept under observa-
tion for 72 h for each trial.14 Toxicity ofmethanol was
checked and was found that upto 4 mL of methanol was
harmless and non-toxic.
9. Mitsch, A.; Wibner, P.; Sattler, I.; Schlitzer, M. Arch.
Pharm.Pharm.Med.Chem. 2001, 334, 40.
10. Sasse, A.; Ligneau, X.; Sadek, B.; Elz, S.; Pertz, H.;
Ganelin, C. R.; Arrang, J. M.; Schwartz, J. C.; Schunack, W.;
Uncited reference
Ref. 16 is not cited.
Stark, H. Arch.Pharm.Pharm.Med.Chem.
2001, 334, 45.
11. Botros, S.; Yousef, K. M.; Issac, Z. Egypt J.Pharm.Sci.
1989, 30, 419.
12. Khosla, N. Synthesis and Characterization of Some Man-
nich Bases PhD Thesis, D.A. University, Indore, India.
13. Seydel, J. K. J.Pharm.Sci. 1968, 57, 1455.
14. Turner, R. A. Screening Methods in Pharmacology; Aca-
demic: New York, 1965; Vol I.
15. United States Pharmacoepia, 25th ed.; by authority of
United States Pharmacoepial Convention Inc.: Washington,
DC, 2002; Vol II, p 1882.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Director, DRDO and Dr. V.
J. Rao, IICT, Hyderabad, for recording nmr spectra.
We are also grateful to Dr. M. M. Neema and Dr.
Manju Jain ofAnusandan laboratories, Indore, to pro-
vide facilities for antimicrobial screening of our com-
pounds. We are thankful to Dr. Anand Kar, Reader,
16. Taylor, W. B. Biometrics 1957, 13, 1.